Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2010-12-14 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Minutes – December 14, 2010 Present: Nancy Brcak Ed Finegan Michael McGandy Susan Jones Susan Stein, Chair Ellen McCollister, Common Council Liaison Leslie Chatterton, Staff Megan Gilbert, Staff Vice-Chair S. Jones called the meeting to order at 5:43 pm and read the legal notice for the public hearing. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. Collegetown Terrace, East Hill Historic District – project includes construction of two residential buildings that may affect the following existing residential buildings in the East Hill Historic District: 111 South Quarry Street, Casa Roma (non-contributing); 115 South Quarry Street, The Quarry Arms; 123 South Quarry Street, The Boiler Works (non-contributing); 110-112 South Quarry Street; 106-108 South Quarry Street Kathryn Wolf stated that the project team has prepared a presentation of the project that is similar to the presentation from the November 9, 2010 meeting. The team agreed to go through it quickly, since members have already seen most of the material, and to stop to address questions as needed. Alan Chimacoff presented an overview of the project, noting the aspects of the proposal that will be of particular interest to the ILPC including Buildings 1, 5, and 7 and the streetscape along East State Street. E. McCollister clarified the zoning classification for Building 1. Tom Nix stated that the part of the building that would be in the historic district will be in a P-1 district. Staff asked about the material for Building 1; in one part of the application, it states it will match Casa Roma but another section states it will match the buildings across the street. N. Brcak asked about the scale of Building 1 in relationship to the cottages across South Quarry Street. A. Chimacoff stated that the existing cottages do not have 10-foot ceilings but this is needed to accommodate mechanicals so they do not need to be located on the roof. N. Brcak stated that she believes the slide in the presentation makes the scale of the proposed building appear smaller than it will actually be (Page 8, Figure 8). A. Chimacoff stated that this is likely due to perspective and topography and that the renderings are as accurate as they can be. He referred to Figure 10 on page 8 to show another view of the proposed building and their relationship to the cottages across the street. 1 ILPC Minutes December 14, 2010 Staff asked how far the design Building 1 has been developed because it seems to be flat with little recess. A. Chimacoff stated that there is a limited amount of recess but there is more than in the Casa Roma building. S. Jones asked how the cars would enter the garage of Building 1. A. Chimacoff responded that the entrance would be between Casa Roma and Building 1. The existing driveway will remain; drivers will go left to enter Building 1’s parking area and right to enter Casa Roma’s parking area. S. Jones asked if Building 7 is visible from South Quarry Street. A. Chimacoff stated that as you drive down South Quarry Street, Quarry Arms is entirely visible and blocks the view of Building 7. You can drive down around Quarry Arms and then Building 7 is visible. M. McGandy asked A. Chimacoff to describe the relationship of height and mass between the proposed buildings and the existing buildings. A. Chimacoff noted that they are taller and larger but there are many examples of good relationships between smaller and larger buildings. The level of architecture plays a key role in this, and he believes the level of architecture in this project is high and creates a good relationship between the buildings. John Novarr stated that if you compare Building 1 to Casa Roma, it will be approximately half of the occupancy. N. Brcak asked about the applicant’s interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard of Rehabilitation #3 and why some additional elements were not added. No one is going to confuse the new and the old, but the new building is very spare. A. Chimacoff stated that the level of detail is higher on Building 1 than on Casa Roma. The point with the comment in the application is that they are not engaging in false replication of historic features. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Jones, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. Alphonse Pieper, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca read a statement into the record on behalf of Historic Ithaca. Historic Ithaca is pleased that the design has been changed to be more sensitive to historic resources and East State Street. However, additional improvements can be made. New buildings should be of a quality and design that is most sensitive to existing resources. The current design and materials are incompatible with these existing resources and are not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, particularly Standard 9. The public hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Jones. The ILPC made the following comments regarding the proposal. -2- ILPC Minutes December 14, 2010 Building #1, principal concerns seem to be: • the treatment of the building entrance • the lack of any meaningful relationship between the design of the new building and the cottages across S. Quarry St. N. Brcak asked about the scale of building #1 in relationship to the cottages across S. Quarry St. noting that the slide in the presentation made the scale of the proposed building appear smaller than it will actually be (page 8, figure 8). Architect A. Chimacoff stated that this is likely due to perspective and topography and that the renderings are as accurate as they can be. He referred to figure 10 on page 8 to show another view of the proposed buildings and their relationship to the cottages across the street. She questioned why buildings “going up” S. Quarry Street couldn’t be 3 stories instead of 4?” M. McGandy shares concerns about compatibility of size and scale with cottages across the street. S. Stein, although generally positive about the redesign, also has lingering concerns about the relationship of building #1 with cottages across the street. M. McGandy asked A. Chimacoff to describe the relationship of height and mass between the proposed building #1 and the S. Quarry St. cottages. A. Chimacoff noted that the new buildings are taller and larger. He stated that the quality of architecture plays a key role in compatibility, and he believes the high quality of the architecture in this project creates a good relationship between the new and existing buildings. J. Novarr added that building #1 it is half the size of Casa Roma in terms of occupancy. N. Brcak believes that the redesign of building #1 is moving in the right direction, but that she would like to see something more personable at the entrance to the site. The design would be well served by something more distinguished that what is presented in the application. Staff questioned the level of design development stating concern that the façade seems “flat” with little reveal around windows or doors. A. Chimacoff stated that there is a limited amount of recess but there is more than in the Casa Roma building. He noted larger wall segments are recessed as shown on pgs 7 & 8. N. Brcak asked about the applicant’s interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #3. There’s a sense that the effort to avoid creating a false sense of historical development goes too far. No one is going to confuse the new and the old, so why does the new building need to be so spare. Why wouldn’t you want to include some elements that would key building #1 into this area? A. Chimacoff stated that the level of detail is higher on building 1 than on Casa Roma. In response to a comment from the Commission, the architect agreed to reconsider the design of the entrance to building #1. Could create element of associated kinship with cottages across the street. He noted that questions seem to center on the acceptability of contrast, and the impacts of constructing modern buildings next to historic buildings. He believes the stratification of building size and materials breaks up massing. Using the same materials for building #1 as were use for the Quarry Arms would be oppressive. -3- ILPC Minutes December 14, 2010 E. Finegan noted that he believes the design of building #1 is greatly improved. He believes it will blend into the urban feel that already exists in that area (Quarry Arm, Casa Roma) but agrees with others that its design could have a negative impact on the cottages on S. Quarry St. Coming into the meeting building #1 was the main concern for M. McGandy. Though he very much appreciates the redesign of the building, he shares concerns about relationship of its height with buildings across the street. Buildings #5 and #7, principal concerns seem to be: • compatibility of the architectural design with the historic district; what aspects of the design of buildings #5 and #7 illustrate the concept of compatibility? • close proximity of the end of building #7 to the Quarry Arms With reference to building #7, E. Finegan stated that while he doesn’t think the building blends in, the outcome makes for an interesting urban fabric S. Jones stated that her primary concern is with the size and scale of buildings #5 & #7, particularly the way they seem to loom over historic district. Her concern is that there will be more traffic coming down through the site and a loss of the green space, not impacts on the historic district. M. McGandy is more concerned with building #5 than with #7 or #1, in terms of both its relationship to and its visibility from the historic buildings in this portion of the district. He is satisfied with building #7’s relationship/visibility with regard to the district. His greater concern is with building #5 and he would like more information how one designs a modern building to be compatible with historic buildings. A. Chimacoff responded that the architect and client make final decision on aesthetic details. N. Brcak stated her concern about building #7, with respect to Standard #3, (Staff note: architects appear to have confused Standards #3 and #9. Staff’s view is that #9 is the only Standard that deals with new construction.) Building #7 is so different in size that it’s not in keeping with the scale of the historic buildings and certainly not compatible in terms of materials and massing. N. Brcak added that while she respects modern architecture she does not believe in this case that the architecture respects the historic district. Reference was made to the comment on pg 17 “the only officially recognized historic building on the site is the old City hospital.” N.Brcak acknowledged that fact but still questioned the relation of the new buildings to the larger historic district. She asked for elaboration on items that demonstrated the higher level of architectural quality of which A. Chimacoff spoke. Playing “devil’s advocate” staff agreed with the architects’ and developer’s assertion that space between the Quarry Arms and building #7 -- site of the blank east façade of the hospital’s east wing, and the location of several utilitarian block additions, surface parking and service areas -- is fairly characterized as “lost space. “ This area could be seen as providing a transition from the historic district to the strictly modern style of the proposed development west of E. MLK St. and east of the historic district. The setting for building #7 is sufficiently disassociated from the -4- ILPC Minutes December 14, 2010 Quarry Arms and the Boiler Works, and staff is not convinced of the importance of designing building #7 to establish a relationship with the historic buildings. S. Stein stated her concern about the stark look of building #7, as viewed from the perimeter of the historic district. N Brcak also commented on the lack of detailing. N. Brcak questioned how A. Chimacoff believes building #7 was designed to respect the historic character of the district. K. Wolf responded that the location of the building was one example. N. Brcak noted that the view from within the historic district is not the only issue, adding that the building is in an historic district and its relationship to its surroundings is important. She expressed concern that the end of building #7 is too close to the old hospital. S. Jones referred to pg 18. “allowing old Hospital to remain dominant visual feature.” She believes building #7 will be so massive that it will be difficult for it to not be the dominant feature. A. Chimacoff stated that it is would be almost impossible to see the old hospital and building #7 at the same time. He added that the area between the hospital and building #7 has been compromised many times by things of less quality than building #7. Other buildings D. Kramer asked about building #2.4, noting that it is located at the primary entrance to the development from E. MLK Street/East State Street. The design appears very spare, and not in keeping with the symbolic importance of the entrance location. Requests for additional information: M. McGandy asked if the applicants’ could provide the roof heights for buildings #3 and #5. Staff finds that the ends of buildings #5 and #7 are not easy to understand from the graphics provided. A “better” graphic could be an elevation without the trees and/or a profile view to get a better idea of the massing. How does the height and massing of the end of building #7 compare to the east end of the hospital. In response to Commission questions and comments, K. Wolf agreed to provide section drawings so that members could get a better understanding of how the new buildings step down through the site. Commission members expressed strong interest in the proposed on-site mock-up that would show the actual material and colors proposed for building’s #5 & #7. It was agreed that although members could visit the site on their own, it would be useful to have an on-site meeting of Commission members and the architect along with J. Novarr and K. Wolf. II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters -5- ILPC Minutes December 14, 2010 B. Communications C. Public Comment on Matters of Interest III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. NEW BUSINESS The property owner of 314 E. Buffalo Street asked the ILPC to consider an acceptable alternative to half-round gutters. After some discussion, the ILPC directed staff to investigate the efficiency of half-round gutters and provide this information for the next meeting. V. OLD BUSINESS Staff still has not officially received a decision about the grant application to survey the Henry St. John Neighborhood; however, some communities have been award grant money. It could be the case that the application is in contention and will receive funding if another community cannot follow through on their application. Staff has spoken with Eric Rosario and the IURA, and some funding may be available from the McGraw House negotiations. Staff has also spoken to Historic Ithaca and work will likely proceed. The Markles Flats decision is still being litigated. The City is appealing the court’s decision that the City has no authority over school district in terms of land use decisions. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair S. Stein. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission -6-