HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2014-08-12Approved by ILPC: 9/9/14
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – August 12, 2014
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Michael McGandy
Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 115 Orchard Place, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Add Entry Porch & Trellis on
Rear of House & Make Changes in Fenestration on First-Floor, South, & East Elevations
Applicants Graham Kerslick and Jennifer Wilkins recapitulated the salient details of the proposed
project, noting the purpose is to add a one-story covered porch to the southern side of house, as well as a
pergola extending west from the porch (projecting from the house at about the same distance as the
porch). G. Kerslick noted in the dining room there is also a door that goes nowhere, which he proposes
replacing with windows (also replacing the existing partial window), so there would be three windows
with the same dimensions on that side of the room.
D. Kramer indicated he cannot visualize how the remodeled entrance on the south would work with the
porch. J. Wilkins replied there is currently a cut-out porch, which would be enclosed to transform it into
an entrance into the kitchen. That door is currently pushed out into the same wall as the southern
elevation. D. Kramer asked about the divided lights in the door. J. Wilkins replied the door would be
retained and would be visible through the porch.
G. Kerslick remarked the transom windows would be similar to the Sun Room windows.
S. Gibian observed it can be difficult to accurately match rough stucco. J. Wilkins agreed, but explained
there is already a certain amount of variability in the stucco on the house (from years of patching). G.
Kerslick noted the stucco on the south side of the house is significantly deteriorated. The intent is to
blend all the stucco as much as possible. He also hopes to replace the wood frame around the wood
deck and bring the wood trim band straight across the trellis to go into the new entryway that currently
projects from the corner of the house.
S. Gibian observed the price quote in the application mentions two window options. G. Kerslick
explained that when he spoke to the contractors he was not certain which window would best match the
existing windows.
K. Olson asked if the applicants identified the feasibility of repairing the existing window. G. Kerslick
replied, no. When he discussed that issue with the contractor, the contractor simply suggested it could
possibly be salvaged. G. Kerslick would like to put in a second window on the interior.
1 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
M. McGandy asked about the door movements. G. Kerslick replied the existing door would become an
internal doorway (in the exterior part of the Mud Room). J. Wilkins explained that in other words it
would move to the south wall of what would become an internal entry space.
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 S. Gibian.
D. Kramer noticed the Commission did not discuss the windows in any detail. Although they are
mentioned in the resolution, the Commission did not reach any consensus about them.
S. Gibian recounted that the proposal calls for an arched transom.
E. Finegan noted that would become an open area and asked if it would be filled in with stucco. G.
Kerslick replied, yes, except the transom window.
S. Gibian remarked he would prefer to have an arched window, rather than a panel composed entirely of
stucco. E. Finegan agreed.
E. Finegan asked if Commission members would accept delegating the window decision to staff. No
objections were raised.
K. Olson noted that the resolution should underscore that the alterations would be screened from public
view, since that is fairly important. It is the most private portion of the house. L. Truame replied she
would modify the resolution accordingly, as well as refer to the other key factors affecting the
Commission’s decision (e.g., secondary façade, screened by vegetation, down the hill, etc.).
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 115 Orchard Place is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2014, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 23, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Graham Kerslick, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four architectural drawings showing site plan, floor plan and
elevations of proposed changes, dated 6/24/2014; (3) two sheets of photographs of
existing conditions; (4) three sheets of windows specifications, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
115 Orchard Place, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
2 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
addition of an entry porch on the rear of the house with design and materials to match
front porch; relocation of existent door and addition of new window and transom window
in south wall of proposed entry porch and new transom window in the east wall;
replacement of dining room window, dining room door, and bathroom window with three
double-hung, wood windows; repair or replacement of existing double-casement wood
window on east side of the house; addition of a wood, open trellis at the south façade to
match trellis at existing patio; 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
August 12, 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, 115 Orchard
Place was constructed in 1912 in the Craftsman style. The house’s stucco wall cladding,
divided light sash and multiple window arrangements, side and entrance porches with
heavy stuccoed piers, deep eaves with wood brackets, and horizontal emphasis are all
characteristics of the Craftsman style.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
3 of 18
Approved by ILPC: 9/9/14
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities,
and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the addition of the entry
porch together with its relocated entry door and new windows will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The
proposed entry porch and its windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment. The Commission notes that
this work is located on a secondary façade that is not significantly visible to the public
and is screened by both topography and vegetation.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the dining
room window, dining room door, and bathroom window with three double-hung, wood
windows will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property. The proposed three new double-hung windows on the south
façade are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment. Again, the Commission notes that this work is located on a
4 of 18
Approved by ILPC: 9/9/14
secondary façade that is not significantly visible to the public and is screened by both
topography and vegetation.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown and described on the second sheet
of existing-conditions photographs, it is not yet clear whether the severity of the
deterioration of the double-casement, wood window on the east façade does or does not
require its replacement. The applicant has indicated a desire to retain and repair the
window, if possible. The Commission will delegate the evaluation of the physical
condition of the window to staff. If a replacement window is required, the proposed new
work will match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the addition of the wood,
open trellis at the south façade will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter
features and spaces that characterize the property. The proposed trellis is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. Again, the Commission notes this work is located on a secondary façade
that is not significantly visible to the public and is screened by both topography and
vegetation.
With respect to Standard #10, the new covered entry porch and the new open trellis can
be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property and
the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
K. Olson
No
Abstain
B. 215 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Awning at Buffalo
Street Books Store
Applicant Asha Sanaker, Buffalo Street Books General Manager, recapitulated the salient details of the
proposed project, noting the store has been making various improvements to its space. As part of those
improvements, and in light of the front awning’s decrepit condition, it would like to increase the awning
width to cover the front door and windows. This would also be more consistent with GreenStar Natural
Foods Market’s awning next door (although it would be a different color and have a different profile, to
5 of 18
Approved by ILPC: 9/9/14
differentiate it). There is considerable foot traffic on the block (e.g., Farmer’s Market) that Buffalo
Street Books would like to more effectively engage. The store would also like to have a bench outside
in the warmer months, so they would need enough awning coverage to enable that. The store would also
replace the planters, repaint parts of the wall, and generally spruce up its exterior space.
S. Gibian asked if the awning would extend all the way to the end of the brick. A. Sanaker replied it
would stop about 6-12 inches from there.
K. Olson expressed concern the proposed awning would detract from what is really a very interesting
building with unique features (e.g., lights over the windows, inset lights over the existing awning, etc.).
She suggested installing something that does not completely obscure the façade. M. McGandy agreed.
A. Sanaker responded that the store would install a very light-colored awning to minimize any impact to
the lights on either side of the door after dark.
E. Finegan noted the drawing makes the proposed awning appear lower than the existing awning. A.
Sanaker replied that would not be the case. They matched the height and profile of its understructure to
the GreenStar Natural Foods Market awning, so it would run along the same top- line and bottom-lines.
M. McGandy agreed with K. Olson’s concern. He suggested using umbrellas instead of the awning to
attract people outside, or other less drastic incremental alterations that could achieve the same ends. He
would be disinclined to support the large proposed awning.
A. Sanaker remarked the store already received approval for parking in front of the store (extending the
15-minute parking in front of GreenStar Natural Foods Market to Buffalo Street Books). It has also
considered filling in the grass so the sidewalk goes all way out to the curb. Once those tasks have been
accomplished, the store would be able to install seating further into the sidewalk. They would like to do
a number of things to make the front of the store a place where people can spend time; however, the
majority of the improvements are cost-prohibitive for the store right now. The proposed awning was the
first and most effective step the store believed it could take towards that longer-range plan.
S. Gibian suggested the applicant raise the placement of the awning so that its bottom edge is aligned
with the bottom of the transom elements of the flanking windows.
D. Kramer indicated he would like to visit the store and examine it with that suggestion in mind. He
asked if consideration of the proposal could be tabled.
L. Truame indicated the Commission should either table it for a month or call a special meeting.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Jennifer Minner, Cornell University Assistant Professor, remarked that the good thing about awnings is
that they can be removed. The contractor may also be able to identify some smaller more appropriate
awnings.
6 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by K. Olson.
E. Finegan asked when the applicant planned to install the awning. S. Sanaker replied before the colder
weather arrives. The process has already taken longer than anticipated. They would install it as soon as
it is approved.
M. McGandy noted he would be willing to hold a special meeting. There were no objections.
E. Finegan indicated the proposal would be tabled for consideration at a special meeting. There were no
objections.
C. 140 College Ave., John Snaith House ― Proposal to Make Changes in Front Yard for
Installation of Gas & Electric Services
Applicant Jason Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the applicant is
preparing for construction. The first step in the process will be to install the gas and electric utility
equipment. Since the existing equipment is attached to the portion of the building being demolished, J.
Demarest worked with NYSEG to design the proposed site plan. The electrical utility equipment would
simply be tucked into the southeast corner, but it was more challenging to situate the gas meters.
NYSEG requires that gas meters not attached to a building be enclosed. In developing the site plan, it
occurred to J. Demarest there was an opportunity to build a direct-access door in the utility space, so he
conceived of an areaway access covered by a Bilco door. The rendered perspectives illustrate how
inconspicuous it would be.
S. Gibian observed that everything being proposed has already been installed. L. Truame responded that
all of the Commission’s usual criteria still apply.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S.
Gibian.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant was entirely unaware of where the utility equipment was likely going to
be situated when he received the earlier Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition. J. Demarest
replied he only knew what general vicinity it would likely be in. He added he was was not aware utility
equipment was part of the Commission’s purview. L. Truame replied that anything external and visible
falls within the Commission’s purview. While the Commission cannot prohibit someone from installing
utility equipment, it can require it be made less obtrusive.
D. Kramer noted he would like to know more about the Bilco door. Given the meticulous work that was
done on the design of the addition, punctuating the side of the building with the Bilco door seems
inappropriate. J. Demarest replied that one would barely see it from the entryway. The applicants could
also plant a coniferous shrub on the the side to further obscure it.
M. McGandy noted if it had not already been built he would ask to review other alternatives. The
current design and configuration are not ideal, but they are not necessarily entirely incompatible.
7 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
K. Olson agreed it is certainly not the best solution; however, it is on the addition’s side of the property,
so she is less concerned with it (i.e., it is away from the primary physical structure and it does not
destroy historic material, etc.).
L. Truame asked if any Commission members had seen the utility equipment in person. S. Gibian
replied, yes. No other Commission members replied. L. Truame noted she is concerned with asking the
Commission to vote on it without having seen it in person.
E. Finegan suggested tabling it, since that would have no impact on the project at this point. He agreed
it would make sense for the Commision to take a closer look at the structure, before proceeding with its
review. M. McGandy agreed.
L. Truame asked if the Commission would be willing to review the proposal at special meeting. It could
be tabled for now, so the Commission could perform a site visit and then vote on it at special meeting.
E. Finegan asked if there were any objections. No objections were raised.
D. 210 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Add Parking Spaces at Rear Yard
Applicant Brian Buttner recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the applicants
have explored several parking options. There are two existing spaces on the property and the applicants
would like to add five more. The original version of the proposal featured a parking loop that provided
access via the 214 Eddy Street driveway. Now, the applicants are prepared to either grant an easement
for that purpose or transfer ownership of the driveway to 210 Eddy Street. It is a challenging site with a
steep slope, so the intent would be to flatten the driveway. Its current pitch is a 10% slope. The
applicants would like to reduce it to 6% if possible. The greatest challenge would be the amount of fill
required to do that.
E. Finegan noted the applicants’ argument for providing the additional parking appears to be that there
are five bedrooms ― and yet the building can only legally house four people. B. Buttner replied he
merely submitted the application in accordance with what he was told by the owners. Based on that
formula, they asked him to seek a minimum of four spaces (and six, if possible). E. Finegan asked if the
building is in fact over-occupied. B. Buttner replied that he believes so.
E. McCollister pointed out that it is a single-family home and that its current use for student housing is
an entirely new use of the property. It is not a typical use for a single-family home. Speaking as a
Common Council Member, E. McCollister noted that p. 2 of the application contains a
misrepresentation of the facts, where it states:
“If approved, the total off-street parking for 210 Eddy Street would be six vehicle spaces, two more
than required for the present occupancy, yet in keeping with the neighborhood desire to reduce on-
street parking especially during winter months.”
8 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
The reference to “the neighborhood desire to reduce on-street parking” is misleading. It is actually more
efficient to have on-street parking or not have any cars at all. E. McCollister added that Common
Council just passed the “City of Ithaca Local Law Authorizing the Creation of a Stormwater Utility and
the Establishment of a Stormwater User Fee” in order to reduce impervious surfaces, including this kind
of surface parking. Regarding the occupancy of the property, she believes E. Finegan is correct about
over-occupancy, although there have been discussions with the City Director of Code Enforcement to
increase the legal occupancy.
M. McGandy noted another issue is whether the Commission is legally required in any way to ensure the
applicants are providing parking spaces. Since, as far as he knows, there is no zoning requirement for
the additional parking, the proposed parking would be an optional amenity, but certainly not a
requirement.
B. Buttner replied he was under the impression the property had already been established as student
housing and that it was deficient in parking. E. Finegan responded that based on the 2011 Certificate of
Occupancy the property is only required to provide two parking spaces.
S. Gibian asked about the last paragraph in the application, where it says: “[…] the west (rear) boundary
currently offers a buffered area with mature trees that will be further landscaped as required to meet
compliance standards.” He asked what compliance standards are being referred to. B. Buttner replied
the general standards would create a 22-foot setback; however, the alternate landscape method would
eliminate that requirement, permitting just an 8-foot buffer, as long as it is sufficiently landscaped to
prevent people from seeing the parking.
S. Gibian asked if a retaining wall is part of the proposal. B. Buttner replied, no, although it is being
considered, as a possible alternative to using so much fill.
E. Finegan asked how the parking spaces would be contoured to the neighboring yards. B. Buttner
replied an angle of repose would be established. The landscaper suggested creating a retaining wall to
avoid having too deep of a pitch.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting her property abuts 210
Eddy Street and the proposed parking would be highly visible from her house. Off-street backyard
parking is inappropriate for her neighborhood, especially considering it would not simply be for the
benefit of the tenants at 210 Eddy Street, but the other houses, as well. She is puzzled by precisely how
many parking spaces would be added. In addition, the application mentions little or nothing about any
fill-in that would be necessary.
Wayles Brown, 206 Eddy St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that 210 Eddy Street
had been owned by a family who lived there, but there has always been a separate apartment for
students. He stressed that his opposition should not be interpreted to mean he is against students living
in the neighborhood. He he would simply like to discourage a large amount of additional parking. He
does not believe it is fair that students in an entirely different building should be able to park next to his
property. He would also like a clearer understanding of the extent to which the parking would be raised.
9 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
Mary Jacobus, 123 N. Quarry St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting she lives
downhill of 210 Eddy Street and is very concerned the parking would be far too visible from her yard,
since it sound like there would be a 4-6 foot parking platform. She asked what the retaining wall would
be made of. It does not sound like the vegetative screening would conceal the cars. Furthermore, she is
concerned with the retaining wall’s impact on her own trees, as well as the run-off coming into her yard.
Reeve Parker, 123 N. Quarry St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting he is very
disturbed by proposal. Any flooding could do considerable damage to his garden and he is concerned
about the safety of his tree roots.
Graham Kerslick, Common Council Member, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, that it is
within the Commission’s purview to safeguard landscaping features, protect property owners’
investments, and stabilize historic neighborhoods. This proposal has little merit. The proposed parking
is not required by zoning and would produce noise, additional run-off, erosion, and environmental
impacts, like fumes, oil, gasoline, heat radiation, etc. While the revised Collegetown zoning was
designed concentrate development in certain areas, the vicinity of 210 Eddy Street is not one of them.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by M. McGandy.
B. Buttner remarked that any regrading that would be needed could be achieved through the existing
elevation, with an incline of less than 45%. The concept of the 8-foot setback is that the hedgework
would grow to four-feet tall in very little time, to serve as a buffer. He stressed that it is not the intent to
blacktop the entire parcel; only the sloped area of the driveway would be blacktopped. The rest of it
would be gravel or permeable material, so the run-off would be minimal.
S. Gibian asked if any parking could be located in the barn. B. Buttner replied, no. It is not safe (nor
can it be demolished).
L. Truame remarked that all Historic District buildings are required to be properly maintained.
E. McCollister noted that gravel is not considered a pervious surface, since run-off from gravel is
comparable to run-off from paved surfaces.
M. McGandy remarked he is leaning towards rejecting the proposal for inadequate information ― it is
still not clear what the applicants intend to do. The proposed project would be very disruptive, so
without a more compelling reason for the additional parking spaces, he cannot see it being approved.
D. Kramer agreed it does not seem consonant with preserving the neighborhood.
K. Olson observed that the steep hillside is actually a character-defining quality of this particular
neighborhood.
E. Finegan remarked the applicants do not appear to have seriously taken the context of the Historic
District into consideration. The proposal does not fit at all.
10 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
K. Olson asked if the Commission has ever approved a similar parking lot. L. Truame replied there was
one project to her knowledge (108-110 Eddy Street or “Grey Court”), which was highly controversial.
K. Olson remarked that the current proposal is worse than the earlier version.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 210 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, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated May 22, 2014, was submitted
for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner
Matoula Halkiopoulos for the addition of one parking space at the west end of the south
driveway, screened by a six-foot, wood trellis with vines; and the addition of up to six
parking spaces behind (west) of the house, which was tabled at the regularly scheduled
ILPC meeting on June 10, 2014, pending the submission of additional information, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, a new Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated July 31, 2014, and replacing the previously submitted
application, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC) by Brian Buttner (ADR Associates) and property owner Greg Halkiopoulos,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two sheets of photographs of existing
conditions; (3) one site plan showing location and dimensions of proposed changes; (4)
one architectural drawing titled “Topographic analysis,” and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
210 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 now involves a
significant grade change to the rear yard to reduce the slope from Eddy Street and the
addition of five gravel-surfaced off-street parking spaces to the rear yard of the parcel,
which will be accessed via a new asphalt driveway connecting the existing asphalt drive
on the south of the subject house with the existing asphalt drive of the adjoining property
to the north, and the addition of plant materials to screen the new parking area at the west
and south property lines, 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
11 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 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
August 12, 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, 210 Eddy Street
was constructed between 1872 and 1874. It is a modest mid-19th century house
extensively remodeled in 1912.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
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.
12 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
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 proposed grade change,
which will raise the rear yard by six feet or more, and the addition of the five parking
spaces and associated access drive to the rear yard will not remove distinctive materials
but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The Commission finds
the topography of the East Hill Historic District is a character defining feature of the
district as a whole.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed new parking area and
asphalt drive are not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed rear yard parking and related drive cannot be
removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment. The addition of approximately 240 cubic yards of
fill located as shown in the submitted plans will likely result in irreversible damage to the
mature vegetation near the property line on adjoining parcels.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 210 Eddy Street and the
East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does
not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
K. Olson
D. Kramer
E. Finegan
S. Gibian
M. McGandy
No
Abstain
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None.
13 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 232 S. Albany St., Henry Saint John Historic District ― Update on Proposal to Install Solar
Panels
L. Truame explained that the Commission already held the Public Hearing for the project and tabled it.
If the Commission does not act at today’s meeting, 90 days will have expired and the application will be
statutorily deemed to have been approved. She recommended acting on the proposal.
M. McGandy noted he has not changed his mind on the proposal. He still opposes it for the reasons he
has stated in the past (e.g., it would be on the primary façade, a black-on-tan installation). He
recognizes the Commission is positively inclined towards approving solar panels in principle; but this
particular property/location would be the wrong one to approve. He stressed that merely because the
Commission rejects one proposal has no bearing on the likelihood of its approving future solar panel
proposals. M. McGandy also noted that he believes the applicant could install the solar panels in his
backyard, if he wanted to; so he is not without recourse.
K. Olson noted that the applicant claimed there was too much shade in the backyard for the panels to be
viable.
D. Kramer noted he still finds the proposal has merit. Society has become accustomed to seeing other
kinds of energy conduits, which have essentially become invisible over time. He does not see why that
would not also ultimately be the case with solar panels. Furthermore, it could be removed with no
damage to the building.
K. Olson noted her principal concern is the historic materials. It is good that it would be reversible and
would not be installed on a slate roof. On the other hand, she does not necessarily accept that the
backyard is genuinely not a viable location. No contractor statement was ever provided that
corroborates that. She is concerned with how to handle the issue of determining that all other potential
locations have been explored in the future.
S. Gibian noted he would prefer not to see it, but he is torn.
E. Finegan observed that the future viability/livability of Historic Districts for residents is another thing
the Commission needs to consider. While it is not the ideal location for the panels, it is not dramatically
different from the other solar panel proposal the Commission recently approved. It would not be doing
permanent damage to the building. He noted that, through its discussion, the Commission has at least
begun the process of defining a procedure for evaluating these kinds of proposals in the future. He
indicated the Commission should probably accept the applicant’s word regarding the viability of the
backyard. He would vote to approve the application.
K. Olson responded that the Commission does not merely take an applicant’s word that a window is in
bad shape. The Commission relies on a third party to make that determination. She does not see that it
should be any different in this case. It would be helpful in the future to establish a quasi-independent
assessment process for the suitability of solar panel locations.
14 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian.
WHEREAS, 232 S. Albany St. 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 21, 2014, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Colin Smith, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a plan view showing the layout of the proposed solar array
on the roof of the building; (3) product information for the proposed solar panels; and (4)
a color photograph of the house from the corner of S. Albany and W. Clinton Streets, and
WHEREAS, the application was tabled at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 13, 2014 and
again on June 10, 2014, pending the submission of additional information, and
WHEREAS, in a subsequent e-mail, dated June 25, 2014, the applicant provided additional
information including: a description of energy-efficiency upgrades already made to the
house; a statement specifying that he has already considered other locations for the solar
array and justification of why those locations are not feasible; a description of proposed
design measures in order to reduce the visual impact of the solar installation, and
WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on July 8, 2014, the Commission made a finding
of fact that the circumstances of the application required further time for additional study,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 232 S. Albany St., 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 solar panels on the west and south slopes of the house roof, 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 now 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:
15 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
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, 232 S. Albany St. was constructed circa 1844
and is significant as an early, modest, Greek Revival style residence.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a reasonably 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
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.
16 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of solar
panels on the west and south roof slopes as proposed will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The
proposed photovoltaic array is sufficiently compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment.
The Commission notes that, in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Illustrated
Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, the owner has
undertaken appropriate treatments to the building to improve its energy efficiency and
has explored other potential locations for the array, and determined there are none that
would be less visible and still generate sufficient power for the system to be viable. The
proposed design reduces the visual impact of the solar installation by the use of low-
profile panels and grid hardware of the same color as the panels, the interior running of
conduits, and the compact, symmetrical arrangement of the array. The visual prominence
of the array is further reduced by being located on a relatively slow-sloped simple roof
form. Finally, the Commission notes that the modern asphalt roof shingles that will be
impacted are not a significant historic feature of the building.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed solar panels 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 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: 3-2-0
Yes
D. Kramer
S. Gibian
E. Finegan
No
M. McGandy
K. Olson
Abstain
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• None.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by E Finegan, and seconded by S. Gibian, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with five minor modifications, and with K. Olson abstaining.
• July 8, 2014 (Regular Meeting)
17 of 18
ILPC Minutes
August 12, 2014
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:16 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Megan Wilson
City of Ithaca Planning Division
18 of 18