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