HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2009-06-11Approved by ILPC — 7/9/09
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
June 11, 2009
Present:
Nancy Brcak
Kristen Brennan
Alphonse Pieper, Chair
Sue Stein
Lynn Truame
Mary Tomlan, Common Council Liaison
Leslie Chatterton, Staff
Brendan Haggerty, Intern
Bryan McCracken, Intern
Chair A. Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public
hearings. He rearranged the agenda order to allow the applicants in attendance to be heard first.
I. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Handwork Cooperative, 102-106 West State Street, Clinton Block Historic District –
proposal for replacement door
Thomas Nix, contractor for the Handwork Cooperative, and Carol Schmoock, owner of
102-106 West State Street, were present to address the Commission concerning the
proposal. T. Nix referenced the addendum included in the Commission meeting packet
explaining that the current door configuration is a violation of the Fire Code of New York
State (FCNYS) Section 1028 which states that egress doors “shall be readily operable
without the use of a key or special knowledge” (FCNYS §1028.2) and the doors shall
have a “minimum egress width as calculated in FCNYS §1008.1.1. (FCNYCS §1028.3)
FCNYS §1008.1.1 states that a two-leaf door without a mullion shall “provide a clear
opening width of 32”.
Commission members discussed the 2007 adoption to the FCNYS, “NYS Existing
Buildings Code” (NYSEBC) which appears to allow the code enforcement official to
approval alternative life-safety systems in existing buildings. The Commission also
discussed the product, “Monarch F-XX-V Series Fire Rated Vertical Rod Device,”
researched by L. Truame.. T. Nix, stated that the cost for each door would be $1281,
exterior hardware would cost an additional $200, and the product would need to be
modified in field, adding to the expense.
C. Schmoock presented a booklet that was published in the 1970s, Surroundings: Ithaca,
New York, a manual for peripheral street improvement, which illustrates proposed façade
improvements included the façade in question. The book shows an image depicting the
replacement of the paired doors with a single door. According to C. Schmoock,
replacement of the doors was recommended to improve security following the 2008 fire.
C. Schmoock added that the current tenants find the doors to be inconvenient, inhibiting
the easy movement of materials in and out of the building. Letters from the current
tenants, Mighty Yoga, 2nd floor, and TRC Solutions, 3rd floor, describing their discontent
with the doors were presented to the Commission. The replacement of the doors would
allow the owner to provide secure and convenient access to the second-and-third-floor
rental spaces. C. Schmoock reported speaking with a representative at the Center Ithaca
1
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
Building about the installation and operation of magnetic locks on the doors and learned
that this system would be prohibitively expensive.
K. Brennan stated that the intent of the Commission is to preserve the craftsmanship of
the door adding that life safety issues are not provided for in the guidelines for
determining the appropriateness of an alteration.
N. Brcak stated her opposition to the proposal, adding that the Commission is concerned
about safety. She did not feel that retention of the doors made the building unsafe.
T. Nix added that if the proposal is not approved he would make an argument for an
economic hardship. L. Truame explained that an economic hardship appeal could only
be filed as an appeal, after the Commission voted down the proposal. She added that an
economic hard ship appeal would take into account the larger context of the building’s
annual revenue and expense
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by N. Brcak, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing. There being no one present to address the Commission, the public hearing was
closed on a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by L. Traume.
With the applicant’s approval the ILPC, by unanimous vote on a motion by N. Brcak,
seconded by K. Brennan, tabled the application until the next meeting.
B. 418 E. Seneca Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal to replace existing wood
siding with “Cemplank”.
Janis Whitlock, owner of 418 E. Seneca Street, was present to address the Commission
regarding the proposal. Chair A. Pieper, noted the likelihood that the current wall
cladding on the 2nd and 3rd stories is not historic and was possibly added in the 1960s or
70s. He suggested that effort be make to determine the original cladding during removal
of the existing shingles.
Public Hearing
On a motion by N. Brcak, seconded by S. Jones, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed
on a motion by K. Brennan, seconded by S. Jones.
RESOLUTION: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by K. Brennan
WHEREAS, 418 East Seneca Street is located in the East Hill Historic District,
designated as provided for in Section 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 has been
-2-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
submitted by property owner Janis Whitlock for review by the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS, the action under consideration is to replace existing siding and
WHEREAS, the project is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and thus requires no further environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the documentation dated May 19, 2009 including
an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the narrative
description of the proposal, and
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 11, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill
Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic
District Summary as 1830-1932.
The residence at 418 East Seneca Street was originally constructed circa
1915,
Constructed within the district’s period of significance, 418 E. Seneca Street
retains a high level of integrity and is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
As addressed in the narrative dated May 19, 2009, the proposal involves
the replacement of the existing shingle siding on the second and third
stories.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace deteriorated shingle siding in
conjunction with the addition of insulation.
WHEREAS, in its evaluation the ILPC has considered the following:
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations,
new construction or demolition in historic districts, the Commission
-3-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
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 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 Deteriorated features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design,
color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
As shown on photographs submitted with the application, the shingles do
appear to be deteriorated to the extent that partial repair is not a practical
approach and that total replacement is warranted in keeping with Standard
#6.
WHEREAS, the proposal to replace existing deteriorated “replacement” shingles 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 Commission approves the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness with the following conditions: Applicant will attempt to
determine what siding material, if any, exists beneath the exterior shingles.
A. Pieper, Chair will attempt to locate an early assessment photograph that
might show original siding.
If existing siding is revealed, and is in useable condition, applicant shall
contact staff for further direction.
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried: 5-0-0
Yes
A.Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
No
0
Abstain
0
-4-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
S. Stein
L. Traume
K. Brennan
C. 314 E. Buffalo Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal to install furnace
ventilator on west side of the residence.
A representative from Burris Plumbing and Heating Co. was present on behalf of the
applicant to address the Commission concerning the proposal. The representative
explained that due to condensation produced by the high efficiency boiler, ventilation
through a conventional chimney would result in the deterioration of the masonry as well
as the contiguous materials and finishes. The Commission discussed allowing the
location installation of the vent adjacent to the gas meter installed by NYSEG.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Jones, seconded by K. Brennan, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing. The being no one present to address the Commission, the public hearing was
closed on a motion by A. Pieper, Chair, seconded by K. Brennan.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Brennan, seconded by N. Brcak.
WHEREAS, 314 East Buffalo 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 Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, Landmarks
Preservation, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness has been
submitted by property owner LeGrace Benson for review by the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the installation of a furnace vent,
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, the ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated May 18, 2009
including an Application for Certificate of Appropriateness with a
narrative description of the proposal, a separate narrative description dated
May 12, 2009 submitted by LeGrace Benson, photographs of the proposed
location of the furnace vent, and product specifications for a Weil-McLain
GV gas boiler, and
-5-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
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 the Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the meeting held on June 6, 2009,
and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill
Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic
District Summary as 1830-1932.
Constructed between 1898 and 1903, the building is architecturally
significant as an excellent example of a Colonial Revival residence.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance and
retaining a relatively high level of integrity, 314 East Buffalo
Street is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District.
As addressed in the narrative descriptions dated May 12, 2009 and May
18, 2009, the proposal involves the installation of a furnace vent on the
exterior of the west side of the property. The vent will be approximately
8” x 11” and will extend approximately 2” from the façade of the house.
The plastic vent will have a matte black finish. As shown on the
submitted photos and stated in the narrative descriptions, the vent will be
installed in the same area as the NYSEG meters and an impact pole.
The purpose of the proposal is to accommodate replacement of the
existing furnace with a modern energy efficient unit requiring an external
vent that cannot be utilized within the chimney.
WHEREAS, in its evaluation the ILPC has considered the following:
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for
alterations, new construction or demolition in historic districts,
the Commission 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
-6-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
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:
#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, exterior alterations, 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.
As described in the narrative and shown on the photocopied photograph of
the west side of the residence submitted with the application materials, the
vent will be grouped with other non-historic elements related to building
utilities that are located at the basement level on the building’s west side.
The installation of the furnace vent on the exterior of the building’s west
side will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The
new work will be differentiated from the old, and the proposed installation
will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment, in
keeping with Standard #9.
The installation of the furnace vent 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 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) of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code;
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 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission approves the request
for a Certificated of Appropriateness.
-7-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 5-0-0
Yes
A. Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
K. Brennan
S. Stein
L. Truame
No
0
Abstain
0
D. Llenroc, University Hill Historic District – proposal for handrail on the south piazza
Neither the applicant, Delta Phi Association, nor a representative for the applicant was
present to address the Commission. The Commission reviewed the application material
and noted that the installation requires drilling into the stone steps of the south piazza,
which could allow for water infiltration. K. Brennan, who has served as a past consultant
for work at Llenroc, described the deteriorated condition of Llenroc’s stone exterior that
she believes is the result of acid rain. Without efforts to address and repair the wall
condition, the installation of the railing could cause further deterioration. .
After examining the design plan, A. Pieper suggested removing the mailbox from the
railing. The railing would terminate with a simple post and the mailbox, currently
located on the steps of the piazza, could remain in its current location.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Brennan, seconded by S. Stein, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed
on a motion by K. Brennan, seconded by S. Stein.
RESOLUTION: Moved by L. Traume, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, Llenroc, 100 Cornell Avenue, is designated as an individual local
landmarks and later included in the University Hill Historic District as
provided for in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Christopher B. Colosi
of Shaw Law Firm on behalf of the property owner, Delta Phi Association,
for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the installation of a handrail on
the south piazza, 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
-8-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated May 19, 2009
including a Certificate of Appropriateness Application with a narrative
description of the proposal, a project plan of the proposed handrail, and a
first floor plan showing the proposed location of the handrail, and
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 11, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the University Hill
Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s University Hill
Historic District Summary Significance Statement as 1867-1927.
Llenroc was constructed between 1867 and 1875 and designed jointly by
the Albany-based architecture firms of Nichols & Brown and Thomas
Fuller. The residence is architecturally significant as Ithaca’s finest and
best-preserved masonry Gothic Revival Style residence.
The property is highly significant through its association with Ezra
Cornell, inventor, industrialist, philanthropist and co-founder of Cornell
University.
Llenroc was listed as an historic property on the National and New York
State Registers of Historic Places in 1980, was designated a local
landmark under the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance in 1984 and
later as part of the University Hill Local Historic District in 2003.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance and retaining
sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance,
Llenroc is a contributing element of the University Hill Local Historic
District.
As described in the narrative description of the proposal and shown on the
project plan, the proposal involves the installation of a handrail at the
entrance of the south piazza. The railing will consist of a bronze moulding
top with a 1½” flat bar underneath and 1¼” tempered steel railing posts.
All steel will be painted black. The existing mailbox will be mounted on a
new post.
The purpose of the proposal is to meet building code requirements.
-9-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
WHEREAS, in its evaluation the ILPC has considered the following:
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations,
new construction or demolition in historic districts, the Commission
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:
#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 a manner that if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would
be unimpaired.
As shown on the application materials, including the drawing by
Rauli & Sons, the installation of the handrail will not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. As described in the narrative
and shown on the project drawings submitted with the application,
the proposed handrail will be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features in
keeping with Standard #9.
The installation of the handrail will be undertaken in such a manner
that if the railing were to be removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the property would be unimpaired in keeping with
Standard #10.
WHEREAS, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the University
Hill Historic District as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a) of the
Municipal Code, now, therefore be it
-10-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
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 shall review the manner in which the handrail is mounted to the
stairs or wall. If the stairs or walls are deteriorated to the extent that
attachment of the railing is not possible or that attachment would
exacerbate the deteriorated condition, then an alternate, independent
means of support shall be considered.
The mailbox shall be mounted in a location separated from the handrail.
RECORD OF VOTE: Carried 5-0-0
Yes
A. Pieper, Chair
N. Brcak
K. Brennan
S. Stein
L. Truame
No
0
Abstain
0
E. 210 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District – proposal to replace an existing deck
Chair recused himself from the deliberation due to his previous work on the applicant’s
residence. .Property owner Thomas Hanna, was present to address the Commission
concerning the proposal. He stated that the replacement will comply with current
building codes. He added that the proposed replacement deck would be 2’ larger than the
existing deck. He noted typographical errors in the project proposal prepared by Kevin
Rose, with the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness to the Commission on 27
May 2009. The existing deck is 12’ X 16’, not 10’ X 16’, and the proposed deck is 14’ X
16’, not 12’ X 16’.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Brennan, seconded by S. Stein, Chair A. Pieper opened the public
hearing. There being no one to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed
on a motion by K. Brennan, seconded by N. Brcak.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by N. Brcak.
WHEREAS, 210 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Historic District as provided for
in Section 228-3 and 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
-11-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by property owner Thomas
Hanna for review by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission,
(ILPC), and
WHEREAS, the action under consideration is the replacement of an existing
deck, 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, the ILPC has reviewed the submitted documentation dated May 27, 2009
including 1) a Certificate of Appropriateness Application submitted by
Thomas Hanna, and 2) a project proposal from Kevin Rose of Freeville,
NY, including photographs of the existing deck, project specifications and
a plan drawing of the proposed deck, and
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 11, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property
and the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill
Historic District is identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic
District Summary as 1830-1932.
Originally constructed between 1872 and 1874, the building is one of the
oldest houses on Eddy Street. The modest scale of this residence has
enabled it to remain a single-family house unlike many of the other larger
homes on Eddy Street. It was extensively remodeled in 1923 with the
addition of the south section of the house and the bay window on the north
side.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance and
retaining sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural
significance, 210 Eddy Street is a contributing element of the East
Hill Historic District.
-12-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
As addressed in the narrative and shown on the submitted drawing,
the proposal involves the removal of the existing 12’ x 16’ deck,
stairs, and return landing. The existing deck will be replaced by a
14’ x 16’ deck, stairs, handrails, and landing, all constructed of
pressure treated #2 pine lumber. Footers and joists will also be
installed according to building code. The deck is located on the
west (rear) elevation of the property and is not easily visible from
the street.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace the deteriorated lumber of
the existing deck. The proposed project will also bring the deck
into code compliance.
WHEREAS, in its evaluation the ILPC has considered the following:
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for
alterations, new construction or demolition in historic districts,
the Commission 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:
#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.
#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.
-13-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
As described in the project specifications and plan provided by Kevin
Rose, the replacement of the existing deck 12’ x 16’ deck with a 14’ x 16’
deck will not require alteration of the main house in keeping with h
Standard #2.
As described in the project specifications and plan provided by Kevin
Rose, the removal of the existing deck and construction of the new deck
will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The deck
is differentiated as a new element and is compatible in massing, size and
scale to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment in
keeping with Standard #9.
As described in the project specifications and plan provided by Kevin
Rose, future removal of the proposed deck will not impair the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment in keeping
with Standard #10.
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 4-0-1
Yes
K. Brennan
S. Stein
N. Brcak
L. Traume
No
Abstain
A. Pieper, Chair
II. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Administrative Matters
None.
B. Public Comment on Matters of Interest
None.
-14-
ILPC Minutes
June 11, 2009
C. Communications
None.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
With the correction of minor typographical errors, the minutes from the March 12, 2009
meeting were approved on a motioned by S. Stein, seconded by L. Traume.
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by L. Traume, the minutes from the May 14, 2009
meeting were approved.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Collegetown Terrace, East State Street – proposal for new construction of student
housing complex – City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s Request for Lead
Agency Status
The Commission agreed with the intent of the Planning and Development Board to
assume lead agency status for the environmental review. The Commission went on to
discuss the variances the project would need to obtain in order to develop as planned.
Issues related to height and occupancy variances were raised. Concerns were raised about
the loss of variety of building form and the impact on the streetscape with the removal of
16 residences on State St. In addition the Commission discussed the project’s proposed
two-story parking. L. Truame briefly presented information she obtained during a
conference on green construction, adding that in her opinion the Collegetown Terrace did
not appear to measure up as a green.
B. The Ithaca Gas Works, a. k. a.“Markles Flats,” Environmental Impact Study
Staff reviewed the proposed schedule for the draft Environmental Impact Statement being
prepared by ICSD.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. by Chair A. Pieper.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie A. Chatterton, Secretary
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
-15-