Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2007-06-14Approved by ILPC – 7/9/07 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission June 14, 2007 Present: Alphonse Pieper, Chair George Holets Susan Stein Lynn Truame Leslie Chatterton, Staff Chair A. Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm and read the legal notices for the public hearings. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. 604 East Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal for partial demolition, alterations and construction of a new addition. Project architect Allan McLane Chambliss was present to address the Commission concerning the proposal. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by L. Truame, Chair A. Pieper opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the commission, A. Pieper closed the public hearing on a motion made by S. Stein, seconded by G. Holets. RESOLUTION RA1: Moved by G. Holets, seconded by L. Truame: WHEREAS, 604 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an attached garage, as part of a larger scope of work involving rehabilitation of the historic residence and construction of a new addition, submitted by architect Allan McLane Chambliss for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on August 7, 1997, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed an application to demolish the same garage as is the subject of this application, and WHEREAS, the ILPC as lead agency reviewed a Long Environmental Impact Statement (LEAF) Parts 2 and 3 and other materials submitted by Bill Shaw representing Ruth Shaw, owner of the property, and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on August 7, 1997, the ILPC determined that “although the project could have a significant effect on the environment 1 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 there will not be in this case because mitigation measures described in Part 3 of the LEAF have been included as part of the proposed project, and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on August 7, 1997, the ILPC determined that given the mitigation measures described in Part 3 of the LEAF, the proposed action will result in no significant impact on the environment, and adopted by resolution a negative declaration, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC affirms the earlier negative declaration, and be it further RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation law be filed according to the requirements contained in Part 617. RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 4-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair G. Holets S. Stein L. Truame No 0 Abstain 0 RESOLUTION RA-2a: Moved by G. Holets, seconded by S. Stein: WHEREAS, 604 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an attached garage, as part of a larger scope of work involving rehabilitation of the historic residence and construction of a new addition, submitted by architect Allan McLane Chambliss for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on June 14, 2007 the ILPC reviewed the submitted documentation including the following: • A narrative description entitled Proposal for an Addition and Alterations to 604 East Buffalo Street part of which describes the proposed garage demolition, submitted by the project architect to accompany preliminary design drawings, L01, site plan dated 4/22/07, A01, floor plans dated 4/22/07, A11 dated 4/22/07, showing north, east and west elevations of the residence and proposed two-story addition, and A11 dated 5/25/07, showing the north, east, south and west elevations of the existing residence and the proposed one-story addition; four black and white photocopied photographs showing different views of the residence, a letter from property owners Leah Summers-Dimaris and Charis Dimaris explaining the proposal to construct a new addition and nine photocopied photographs of the 2 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 existing residence of which three through eight show the existing garage. • The City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Significance Statement drawn from documentation prepared by Lucy Breyer, former Program Analyst with the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation pursuant to the district’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its local historic district designation under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. 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 on June 14, 2007, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As revealed in the historic district summary, the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District is 1830–1932. As indicated by comparison of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from 1919 and 1929 the garage was constructed in the 1920s, within the district’s period of significance. As a result of a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the ILPC in August 1997, the northerly portion of the original the garage has been partially demolished. As described in the submitted materials, including the narrative description and the letter from the property owners, the proposal involves demolition of the remaining portion of the garage. The purpose of demolition is to allow for construction of an addition on the site of the existing garage as part of a larger scope of the rehabilitation. As set forth in Section 228-4F(1) to prohibit demolition of structures erected on landmark sites or within historic districts the Commission must deem that the structure is of ”particular architectural or historical significance”. 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 3 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 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 228-4E (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. #5 Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. Given the scope of the proposed rehabilitation, including construction of the new addition, removal of the garage cannot be avoided. The garage does not exhibit sufficiently distinctive features, finishes or construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship to deem the garage to be of “particular architectural or historical significance”. The limited view of the garage is a factor that reduces the degree to which the garage can reasonably be considered a historic feature that characterizes the property as stated in Standard #2. WHEREAS, the proposal 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 criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 4-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair L. Truame S. Stein G. Holets No 0 Abstain 0 RESOLUTION RA-3: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by L. Truame: 4 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 WHEREAS, 604 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations pursuant to rehabilitation of the residence has been submitted by architect Allan McLane Chambliss for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the actions under consideration are the installation of new French doors on the north wall of the dining room, replacement of windows and beadboard infill on the sun porch, west elevation, relocating and reconfiguring of the powder room window, remedial work on the foundation, and the construction of a new front porch railing, all shown on drawing A11 dated 5/25/2007, north, south east and west elevation drawings 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 for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on June 14, the ILPC reviewed the submitted documentation, including the following: • A narrative description entitled Proposal for an Addition and Alterations to 604 East Buffalo Street part of which describes the alterations to the existing building, submitted by the project architect to accompany preliminary design drawing shown on sheets L01, AO1, A11 dated 4/22/2007, and A11 dated 5/25/2007, showing the north, east, south and west elevations of the existing residence and the proposed addition; four black and white photocopied photographs showing different views of the residence, a letter from property owners Leah and Charis Dimaras explaining the proposed alterations, and a series of 9 photocopied photographs. The commission also reviewed additional materials submitted by the architect at the meeting including drawings dated 6/14/07, page1 west elevation, page 2 south elevation, page 3 east elevation, page 4 north elevation and manufacturer information on porch balusters and window and door specifications. • The City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Significance Statement drawn from documentation prepared by Lucy Breyer, former Program Analyst with the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation pursuant to the district’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its local historic district designation under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and 5 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 14, 2007, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As revealed in the historic district summary, the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District is 1830–1932. According to the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form the residence was constructed c. 1872, within the district’s period of significance. Despite numerous alterations over time many of the changes occurred with the district’s period of significance and the alterations have generally acquired significance in their own right. The residence retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance as a representative example of a mid-to-later nineteenth century residence that has been added to and altered over time. The actions under consideration are the installation of new French doors on the north wall of the dining room - north elevation; changes to the window and walls of the existing porch enclosure - west elevation, alteration of windows on the east and north façade each to accommodate a powder room and construction of a front porch railing, all shown on preliminary design drawings on sheet A11dated 5/25/07 showing of the north, south, east and west elevations with the proposed one-story addition. The purpose of the proposal is to accommodate interior alterations, to upgrade materials, to increase safety and thermal insulation and meet current building code requirements. 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 228-4E (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: 6 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 #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. #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. #5 Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. #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. #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. The addition of French doors on the north (rear) façade will not remove historic materials or alter features or finishes that characterize the property, in keeping with Standard #2. The addition of the French doors does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new doors are differentiated from the old and are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the residence in keeping with Standard #9 Any future removal of the French door will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment, in keeping with Standard #10 Based on type of materials and construction, the current configuration of the sun porch appears to have taken place well after the district’s period of significance. The proposed reconfiguration of the sun porch and replacement of its windows does not remove historic materials that characterize the property. The reconfiguration will include architectural 7 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 detailing and new windows designed to preserve the feeling of the porch enclosure and therefore will not alter features and spaces that characterize a property, in keeping with Standard #2. Reconfiguration of the sun porch and replacement of the existing porch windows will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The proposed reconfiguration of the sun porch and replacement of windows will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property, in keeping with Standard #9. The essence of the earlier porch is retained and future removal of the proposed enclosure will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment, in keeping with Standard #10. Relocating and reconfiguring the powder room window as shown on A11 dated 5/25/2007, north elevation, is a minimal exterior alteration that does not entail the removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize the property in keeping with Standard #2. Relocating and reconfiguring the powder room window as shown on A11, north and east elevations, is a minimal exterior alteration that will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property in keeping with Standard #9. Relocating and reconfiguring the powder room window as shown on A11, north elevation, is a minimal exterior alteration that if removed in the future will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property or its environment would be unimpaired in keeping with Standard #10. The installation of a handrail between columns on the front porch will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features of the structure, in keeping with Standard #9. Any future removal of the railing will not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment, in keeping with Standard #10. The proposed remedial work to the foundation at the northerly end of the enclosed porch shall be undertaken using the same materials and construction as the existing foundation. The footprint of the foundation will be identical to the existing footprint and in consideration of these facts the work shall be considered an in-kind repair and shall require no further ILPC review. 8 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 WHEREAS, the proposed alterations 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 criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the following conditions: staff review and approval required for all hardware, balusters, windows, and doors. RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 4-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair S. Stein L. Truame G. Holets No 0 Abstain 0 RESOLUTION RA–4: Moved by L. Truame, seconded by S. Stein: WHEREAS, 604 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new addition pursuant to rehabilitation of the building has been submitted by architect Allan McLane Chambliss for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the construction of a one-story addition that will be built to accommodate the later addition of a second story, as shown on preliminary design drawings LO1 site plan, A01 floor plans, and A11 dated 5/25/2007 north, south east and west elevation drawings 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 for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on June 14, the ILPC reviewed the submitted documentation, including the following: • A narrative description entitled Proposal for an Addition and Alterations to 604 East Buffalo Street part of which describes the alterations to the existing building, submitted by the project architect to accompany preliminary design drawing shown on sheets L01, AO1, A11 dated 4/22/2007, and A11 dated 5/25/2007, showing the north, east, south and west elevations of the existing residence and the proposed addition; four 9 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 black and white photocopied photographs showing different views of the residence, a letter from property owners Leah and Charis Dimaras explaining the proposed alterations, and a series of nine photocopied photographs. The commission also reviewed additional materials submitted by the architect at the meeting including drawings dated 6/14/07, page1 west elevation, page 2 south elevation, page 3 east elevation, page 4 north elevation and manufacturer information on porch balusters and window and door specifications. • The City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Significance Statement drawn from documentation prepared by Lucy Breyer, former Program Analyst with the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation pursuant to the district’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its local historic district designation under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. 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 on June 14, 2007, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As revealed in the historic district summary, the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District is 1830–1932. According to the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form the residence was constructed c. 1872. Despite numerous alterations over time many of the changes occurred with the district’s period of significance and the alterations have generally acquired significance in their own right. The residence retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance as a representative example of a mid-to-later nineteenth century residence that has been added to and altered over time. The action under consideration is the construction of a one-story addition to the north, rear, façade of the residence to increase interior space to add a “mud” room storage areas, and a family room, as described in the narrative description of the proposal shown on drawings A01 floor plans and A11 dated 5/25/2007, showing north, east, south, and west elevations. The purpose of the proposal is to increase interior space with the addition of a mud room, a storage area, a family room. 10 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 As shown on the floor plan A01, and on elevation drawings A11 dated 5/25/2007, the smaller foot print of the addition is deferential to the historic building in size and scale. As shown on elevation drawings A11dated 5/25/2007, the one-story addition is unobtrusively sited at the rear of the residence with only a small portion visible from the street. Proposed detailing and materials differentiate new work from the old but draw on detailing and materials of the earlier building to promote compatibility. 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 228-4E (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: #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken #5 Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. #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. #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. 11 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 The proposed one-story addition respects the earlier portion of the building as a physical record of its time, place, and use. The architectural design and detailing of the new addition does not attempt to create a false sense of historical development, in keeping with Standard #3. The proposed one-story addition preserves much of the historic fabric of the earlier residence including distinctive features, finishes and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the earlier portion of the building in keeping with Standard #5. The proposed one-story addition does not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new addition is located at the rear of the house is sited and designed to be obscured from view to passersby on East Seneca Street. The new work is differentiated from the old and is compatible with the massing, size, scale, architectural features and finish materials of the historic portion of the building and its environment, in keeping with Standard #9. The construction of the new addition will 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 in keeping with Standard #10. WHEREAS, the proposed alterations 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 criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the following conditions: staff review and approval required for all hardware, balusters, windows, and doors. RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 4-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair S. Stein L. Truame G. Holets No 0 Abstain 0 B. U. S. Postal Store, 213 North Tioga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District — proposal to reconfigure entrance area. There was no one present to address the ILPC concerning the application. Commission members briefly discussed the proposal. 12 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 Public hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by G. Holets, Chair A. Pieper opened the public hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, A Pieper closed the public hearing on a motion made by G. Holets, seconded by L. Truame. RESOLUTION RB: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by G. Holets: WHEREAS, 213 North Tioga Street, US Postal Service Store is located within the DeWitt Park Local Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for reconstruction of the postal store entrance area has been submitted by Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering for the Town of Ithaca for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the actions under consideration are the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing entrance ramp, installation of a new concrete sidewalk, the addition of a planter and relocation of the existing lamp and bench, 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 for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on June 14, the ILPC reviewed the submitted documentation dated March 7 2007, including the following: • A letter describing the proposal dated June 1, 2007 from Creig Hebdon, accompanied by plan drawing #1 Demolition Plan dated 11/29/05 and plan drawing #2 Construction Plan. • A copy of the City of Ithaca DeWitt Park Historic District Summary extracted from An Architectural Walking Tour of the DeWitt Park Historic District, prepared by Pamela M. Bush for Historic Ithaca and from the 1971 National Register nomination form prepared by Margaret Marriott under the direction of Historic Ithaca. WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and 13 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 14, 2007, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As revealed in the historic district summary, the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District is 1820–1930. The US Postal Service store occupies an addition to the Post Office that was constructed in 1961. The purpose of the ILPC review is to prevent adverse impacts of the proposed alterations on other improvements in the historic district. The purpose of the proposal is to remove an existing tripping hazard caused by differential settling of concrete and asphalt materials, to prevent future settling of the access ramp and to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities. 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 ILPC 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 228-4E (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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be 14 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 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. #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. The demolition and removal of the existing asphalt and partial demolition of the existing access ramp to the 1961 addition occupied by the Postal Service store does not entail removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize the property, in keeping with Standard #2. Proposed reconstruction of the entrance area, walkway and access ramp exhibits contemporary design and employs contemporary material thereby respecting the 1961 addition as a physical record of its time place and use and avoiding changes that create a false sense of historical development, in keeping with Standard #3. Proposed demolition and removal of the existing asphalt and partial demolition of the existing access ramp to the US Postal Service store does not destroy historic materials. The design and construction of the new work is of its own time and is compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural feature to protect the historic integrity of the property and it environment, in keeping with Standard #9. If the proposed alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired, in keeping with Standard #10. WHEREAS, the proposed alterations will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the DeWitt Park 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 criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: Respond in writing to the Commission question regarding whether or not the design allows for sufficient pedestrian flow. RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 4-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair No 0 Abstain 0 15 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 S. Stein L. Truame G. Holets C. 204 Williams Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal to demolish fire damaged residence There was no one present to address the ILPC concerning the application. Commission members briefly discussed the proposal. Public hearing On a motion by L. Truame, seconded by G. Holets, Chair A. Pieper opened the public hearing. There being no one present to address the Commission, A. Pieper closed the public hearing on a motion by G. Holets, seconded by S. Stein. RESOLUTION RC: Moved by L. Truame, seconded by S. Stein: WHEREAS, 204 Williams Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Chapter 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish a fire damaged residential building has been submitted by property owner Pam Johnston for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, (ILPC), 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 for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, at the meeting held on June 14, the ILPC reviewed the submitted documentation including the following: • A letter dated May 30, 2007 from Pam Johnston requesting Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition, accompanied by photographs of the fire damaged building. • A Structural Condition Assessment from Greg Dende, PE, Dende Engineering Structural Consultants. • A letter dated January 21, 2006 to Pam Johnston from City of Ithaca Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke “declaring that the building… is unsafe, and prohibiting its use and occupancy until such time as the building has been brought into compliance with the City’s Codes and Ordinances through repair or demolition…” 16 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 • Photographs of the building taken in 1992, 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 on June 14, 2007, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: Numerous alterations visible in the photograph of the building taken in 1992 show that a substantial loss of historic fabric and integrity had occurred prior to the incident of the fire on January 20, 2004, including window and door replacement, probable alteration of fenestration pattern, significant removal of architectural detailing and the application of substitute siding material. As set forth in the Structural Conditions Assessment completed by Greg Dende PE fire and water damage resulting from the 2004 fire included: • 80 % destruction of building finishes • damage to 50% or more of the framing • damage requiring complete replacement of the roof and roof framing. As set forth in Section 228-4F(1) to prohibit demolition of structures erected on landmark sites or within historic districts the Commission must deem that the structure is of “particular architectural or historical significance”. As a result of the fire of January 20, 2004, the building, which had already exhibited a substantial loss of integrity prior to the fire, sustained additional damage to the degree that prohibition of demolition would result in the preservation of only a minimal portion of the building’s historic fabric, now therefore be it RESOLVED that given the loss of historic fabric, the structure’s integrity is compromised to the degree that the building cannot be deemed to be of “particular architectural or historical significance” as set forth in Section 228-4F(1), and be it further RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal to demolish the remaining structure meets criteria for approval under Section 228-4F(1) of the Municipal Code. 17 ILPC Meeting June 14, 2007 RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 4-0-0 Yes A. Pieper, Chair S. Stein L. Truame G. Holets No 0 Abstain 0 II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR A. Administrative Matters B. Public Comment on Matters of Interest C. Communications III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 12, 2007 On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by L. Truame, the April 12, 2007, minutes were approved without corrections. IV. OLD BUSINESS - None V. NEW BUSINESS A. Summer Interns B. St. John’s Episcopal Church 1. Preliminary consideration of proposed door replacement — ILPC decided that the door was considered an exterior door and should be repaired, if possible, or a more compatible replacement should be selected. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 18