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-