Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2010-10-12 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – October 12, 2010 Present: Nancy Brcak Ed Finegan David Kramer Susan Stein, Chair Leslie Chatterton, Staff Chair S. Stein called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm and read the legal notice for the public hearings. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. 108 Elston Place, East Hill Historic District – proposal to replace clapboard siding with HardiPlank or Cemplank. B. Mohan Holmberg was present to address the Commission concerning the application. In response to a question from staff he confirmed that the exposure of each Hardi - Plank will match the 5” exposure of existing clapboard. He also confirmed that the existing trim will remain, and will exhibit a profile that matches the existing profile. He also stated that the project would be phased and that at this time approval is sought for the north side. Public Hearing On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There being no one present to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan. RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by N. Brcak WHEREAS, 108 Elston Place is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness has been submitted by property owner Mohan Holmberg, and WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the replacement of existing clapboard siding, and WHEREAS, the project is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and thus requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness application dated October 3, 2010, and 1 ILPC Minutes October 12, 2010 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 a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting held on October 12, 2010, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: The period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Significance Statement as 1830-1932. As shown on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1919, located in the City of Ithaca Department of Planning & Development, the property was constructed prior to 1919. Constructed within the district’s period of significance, 108 Elston Place retains significant integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance and is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. As described on the Certificate of Appropriateness application dated October 3, 2010, the proposal involves the replacement of existing clapboard siding on the north side of the property with Hardiplank or Cemplank siding. The proposed siding will match the 5” exposure of the existing clapboard siding. The existing trim will remain and will maintain the existing profile. The proposal is for the north side of the property only, the remaining siding will be replaced incrementally and with further Commission approval . The purpose of the proposal to replace deteriorated siding. 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 -2- ILPC Minutes October 12, 2010 district in accordance with Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case specifically the following Standards: #2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new 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. The existing clapboard siding (is/is not) an historic feature that characterizes the property. The existing siding (has/has not) deteriorated to a point where it must be replaced rather than repaired, in keeping with Standards #2 and #6. As described in the Certificate of Appropriateness application, the proposed HardiPlank or Cemplank replacement siding will match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities in keeping with Standard #6. WHEREAS, the proposal (will/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 228-4E(1)(a); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal (meets/does not meet) criteria for approval under Section 228- 4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission (approves/denies) the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness . RECORD OF VOTE: 4-0-0 Yes N. Brcak E. Finegan D. Kramer S. Stein No 0 Abstain 0 -3- ILPC Minutes October 12, 2010 II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters B. Communications C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 27, 2010 On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by D. Kramer, the minutes from the September 27, 2010 meeting were approved unanimously with corrections. IV. NEW BUSINESS V. OLD BUSINESS A. 618 Stewart Avenue, University Hill Historic District - proposal to replace slate roof with asphalt shingle Notes on hardship discussion Staff explained the two-part appeal process: 1. ILPC Determination about whether the replacement of slate shingles meets criteria for approval under Section 228 of the Municipal Code. No consideration of economics in this phase. 2. The applicant can appeal denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness if it can be demonstrated that the denial will prevent the owner from earning a reasonable • The calculation of reasonable rate of return should be “owner-blind”. The basis of the hardship analysis is whether or not the property generates sufficient revenue so that the “historic” improvement” will not reduce the rate to return to the extent that it is unreasonable. The applicants explained the proposal highlighting points of the project description submitted by Melissa Bellasarre. She asserted that the roof is not visible from the sidewalk or road. She added that the proposal included replacement of existing gutters with half-round gutters, not aluminum k-style as stated in the narrative. Existing snow guards would be reinstalled onto the asphalt roof surface. M. Bellasarre emphasized that the property is managed under Cornell’s commercial real estate program and that the University does not support such properties. She called attention to the fact that Cornell requires the use of union contractors on all their properties and, -4- ILPC Minutes October 12, 2010 pointed to the illustration of 109 Barton Place from the submitted narrative, that union pay scales raise project costs substantially. Bellasarre comments on economic problems, layoffs, new construction halt. huge hit to endowment, M. Bellasarre noted that the University does not included a replacement reserve in the operating budgets. Can’t in good conscience pay so much for a roof. D Kramer questioned the amount paid to acquire the property given the net revenue generated, referencing the operating statement submitted by M. Bellassare. His rule of sum is to value the house at 6.5 times the net annual rents. (In this case the amount paid for the house was$524,000 and the net income totals $36,283. When the net income is multiplied by 6.5, the house would be south 235,840. Even in the “heated” local real estate market of four years ago, one could speculate that the house would have been worth $350,000 or so.) D. Kramer stated his opinion that Cornell paid vastly more for the property than it could reasonable recoup given the net revenue generated. M. Bellasarre and M. Maynard stated that the University had other reasons for acquiring this and other Stewart Avenue properties located adjacent to west campus. One of these reasons is to control property upkeep to maintain a clean and safe environment. D. Kramer commented that the property is very well maintained, though expressed disbelief that Cornell would have overpaid by $200,000. M. Bellaserre state that the property was not designated as part of the local historic district nor was there an indication that designation was imminent. She went on to explain that the $52,000 difference between the historic and the non-historic alternatives could pay for up to four modest size roofs. M. Maynard questioned whether a private owner would be expected to take on such a project. N. Brcak replied that as the owner of an historic property, though not designated, she has voluntarily taken extra measures and borne the sometimes extra cost of an historically and architecturally appropriate treatment. She acknowledged that she is not obliged to contract with union shops. D. Kramer state that given the relatively reasonable cost difference between the 164,000 project cost for the non-historic alternative and the 216,000 project cost of the historic alternative, and given the fact that the slate could last twice as long or more than the asphalt, that as an institution that would still be around in 75 – 100 years it makes economic sense for Cornell to invest in the alternative with greater longevity. M. Bellasarre responded that Cornell does not consider these to be investment properties, and that they must “pay for themselves.” M. Maynard stated that John Novarr’s remarks at the July meeting indicated that slate quarried today does not necessarily have the life span of slate quarried 100 years ago. ILPC members expressed doubt that the 40 year estimate for the asphalt shingles is an accurate estimate. D. Kramer inquired about the number of apartments, noting that a figure had been given on documentation submitted at the July hearing. M. Maynard stated that there are nine apartments in the residence. Given the revenue stream of $85,999 it appeared to D. Kramer that the rents might be too low. -5- ILPC Minutes October 12, 2010 S. Stein stated that good stewardship of historic properties is as important as regular property upkeep when considering the visual character of this area adjacent to the University. She asked whether there was anyone else who wanted to comment. John Schroeder, speaking as a resident of the property reiterated several points as follows: He stated that is Cornell’s free-will choice to retain an agreement with the trades to use only union labor, just as it is Cornell’s free-will choice to pay top dollar for properties in order to protect their interest. He asserted that rate of return was not Cornell’s chief interest in acquiring these Stewart Avenue properties. . Staff stated that if Cornell is requiring properties such as these pay their way and also requires contracting exclusively with union shops then Cornell ought to subsidize at least the portion of the project cost attributed to the difference between union and non union wages. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. by Acting Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission -6-