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-