HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-05-12Approved by ILPC:06/09/2015
1 of 21
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – May 12, 2015
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Katelin Olson
Susan Stein
Stephen Gibian
Jennifer Minner
Michael McGandy
Ellen McCollister (Common Council Liaison)
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. B. McCracken noted there would be one
additional agenda item: a presentation of the Simeon’s restaurant reconstruction proposal. No objections
were raised.
I. OLD BUSINESS
132 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Modify Window
B. McCracken observed the applicant is not present. Consideration of the application was deferred until
later in the meeting.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 410 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval to
Demolish West Porch & Proposal to Construct Porch
Applicant Mark Howe recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the existing west
porch is severely deteriorated. The porch roof partially collapsed in the fall. Since he did not believe it
was safe to leave the remaining part of the roof in place, he had it removed. All that currently remains is
the porch floor, which is also in poor condition. He noted that City Code Inspector Bob Ripa examined
the remains of the porch and indicated it should be removed. M. Howe contacted three contractors for
estimates for demolishing the rest of the porch and replacing it in-kind. All three contractors stated they
could not do anything with the existing porch and it would need to be completely rebuilt. The cost
estimates were very high (amounting to nearly a third of the house’s property value). M. Howe
emphasized that the porch is on the west side of house: it cannot be seen from the street and was not
original to the building.
D. Kramer asked if the applicant ever obtained photographs of the original porch. M. Howe replied, no.
He tried finding something through the History Center. D. Kramer asked if the applicant contacted the
listing agent. M. Howe replied, no, although he searched the photographs listed on the realty web site.
K. Olson asked what the replacement cost estimates were based on. M. Howe replied they were based
on the total reconstruction of the two-story porch, modeled on the appearance of the existing north and
south porches.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
2 of 21
D. Kramer remarked that when the building was for sale he walked through the house himself. He
specifically remembers how attractive and interesting the back porch looked, with its detailed carpentry.
He would very much like to see photographs of it to base the reconstruction on. He would be surprised
if the listing agent had not taken photographs of the entire building.
M. McGandy asked if there are any architectural drawings or plans for the proposed new porch. M.
Howe replied, no. M. McGandy responded he is not sure if the Commission can make a decision on the
project without any drawings or plans.
J. Minner remarked it does not make sense to build a new porch if it does not reflect what was actually
there to begin with. M. Howe responded that he did examine numerous porches along the street. The
intent would be to have the new porch wrap around the house, reflecting the same design as the south
porch.
E. Finegan asked how much that approach would cost compared to repairing what remains of the back
porch. M. Howe replied, it would only be a fraction of the cost, perhaps 20-25%.
D. Kramer indicated the Commission does not take the cost of a project into consideration, at this initial
stage in the Certificate of Appropriateness application process. The Commission begins by simply
considering the merits of any proposed alterations. Only if the application is denied can the applicant
return and make an economic hardship argument for approval.
M. McGandy agreed with J. Minner: constructing an entirely new porch on a different façade would not
compensate for the loss of the original porch.
J. Minner wondered if the Commission would conceivably have approved the demolition of the back
porch.
S. Stein responded it would be difficult to speculate, since the Commission has no photographic
evidence of the original porch. She asked how the applicant would treat the rear of the building. M.
Howe replied it would feature plain siding and include a small porch up to the rear with steps for a rear
exit and painted in the same color as the rest of the house.
S. Stein indicated she believes the Commission really needs to see a more detailed proposal, before
moving forward.
M. Howe asked if the proposal could be bifurcated. He could return to the Commission in the future
with a proposal for the front porch.
K. Olson expressed concern with that approach, since that would require the Commission to approve the
demolition of what remains of the back porch, which she is not convinced is justifiable. The
Commission only has the applicant’s verbal statement that the original porch was such poor condition.
Approving the demolition under those circumstances would set a precedent she would prefer to avoid.
In light of the information the Commission has been given so far, she would not have approved the
demolition.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
3 of 21
D. Kramer remarked he does not recall in detail the structural condition of the back porch roof when he
visited the house. While he remembers it was in rough condition (and there is no question the rest of the
house was in poor condition), he also remember how attractive and distinctive it was.
K. Olson asked if the applicant could reach out to the listing agent or someone else to obtain
photographs. M. Howe replied, possibly. He only examined the photographs on the original listing. D.
Kramer encouraged the applicant to do so.
E. Finegan added the Commission should also have a statement from City Code Inspector Bob Ripa. B.
McCracken indicated he would contact Mr. Ripa tomorrow.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Jose Guisado, 310 Southworth Rd., Dryden, NY, remarked that, given the applicant’s statement about
the cost of repairing the existing back porch, it does not make sense to require him to do so.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by S. Stein.
S. Gibian noted that the Commission simply does not have enough information to proceed.
J. Minner indicated the application should be divided into two: the demolition; and the rest of the
alterations to the property. E. Finegan agreed.
J. Minner added the applicant should also provide suggestions for how would the back of the building
would be treated if there were no porch.
B. McCracken noted that consideration of the application will be tabled.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
B. 413 S. Albany St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval of
Solar Panels
Applicant Keith Liblick, Renovus Energy, described the details of the application, explaining that the
project was originally approved at the May 13, 2014 Commission meeting. At that time, the
Commission approved the installation of solar panel modules with black frames and black hardware.
Fully black modules with black backsheets, however, produce 10% less energy than ones with white
backsheets, which would have required installing another module to compensate for the loss. So
Renovus Energy went ahead and installed the modules with white backsheets, believing they were
acceptable. K. Liblick indicated he never saw any documentation from the Commission to suggest that
the modules needed to be entirely black, or he would have halted the installation. He stressed there is an
environmental impact associated with removing the current solar modules, since Renovus Energy would
be barred from installing them anywhere else.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
4 of 21
S. Gibian asked what the backsheets are. K. Liblick replied the backsheets are physically attached at the
factory: they are the protective coating that lies underneath the solar cells. White backsheets keeps solar
cells cooler than black ones, thus producing more energy. It is not possible to replace the backsheets on
the modules.
K. Olson observed the original resolution specifically required black backing.
D. Kramer recalled there was considerable discussion of the subject at the time.
K. Liblick noted that if the Commission decides the backsheets absolutely must be black, the owner
would loss a substantial amount of energy saving. An addition solar panel module could be installed to
compensate for the loss; however, arrangement would no longer be symmetrical. The removed solar
panel modules could not be reinstalled and would simply sit unused in a warehouse.
J. Minner indicated she would oppose removing the modules and installing new ones, since it does not
make that much of an aesthetic difference.
E. Finegan asked why Renovus Energy could not use the panels somewhere else. K. Liblick replied the
agencies providing the grants for the solar panels require installing completely new products.
M. McGandy responded they could probably be placed on the secondary market. K. Liblick replied that
there is no significant secondary market.
K. Olson noted the Commission has discussed the issue of solar panels at length, over the course of
several meetings. The Commission wholeheartedly supports solar panel installations, but only in
specific configurations and under specific conditions, which is how other solar panel applications have
been handled.
M. McGandy noted it seems the applicant simply made a mistake and should remove the panels.
K. Liblick replied there is no question some kind of mistake was made, but he does not believe Renovus
Energy made it.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D.
Kramer.
E. Finegan asked Commission members for their views of the proposal.
M. McGandy noted he believes the panels should be removed and reinstalled. The Commission’s
standard for solar panel installations is to have black materials and a black frame.
S. Stein agreed, noting the Commission spent a lot of time discussing the original application.
Foreseeing it would likely see an increasing number of solar panel applications, the Commission made
every effort to establish a clear set of standards for approval.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
5 of 21
D. Kramer indicated he is not personally offended by the appearance of the solar panels; however, the
Commission did go to a lot of trouble to specify how they should appear. The resolution was read aloud
at the May 13, 2014 Commission meeting and he does not believe the language of the resolution could
have been any clearer. He could not justify circumventing that original decision.
E. Finegan observed if the current installation with white backing had been submitted for approval at the
May 13, 2014 Commission meeting, it would probably have been approved. But the Commission is
really trying to establish a clear process for these kinds of applications; and he would have difficulty
supporting retaining the solar panels as installed.
K. Olson agreed with the other Commission members’ comments.
S. Gibian noted he appreciates all the comments, but the current installation does not appear sufficiently
objectionable to warrant its removal.
J. Minner agreed. It is not worth wasting the solar panels. She suggested the Commission establish
some clear written guidelines for solar panel installations for future applications, including specific
standards for the backsheets.
D. Kramer questioned the purpose of being specific, if the Commission ends up retroactively approving
installations that do not conform to the Commission’s original decisions.
K. Liblick recalled that at the May 13, 2014 Commission meeting the facts that the house sits on the
edge of the Historic District and that the panels were not going to be visible on the front façade were
considered to be mitigating factors.
K. Olson replied that adding another solar panel would not be an insignificant change.
M. McGandy noted he does not recall the Commission ever discussing the difference between the black
backing and the white backing.
D. Kramer suggested perhaps the applicant could provide the Commission with a better understanding
of how it could craft the language in its resolutions to ensure it is as clear as possible.
K. Liblick explained that the BACKSHEET is the white portion of the installation one can observe around
the solar panels (as well as the “dots” or diamonds on the interior). The solar panel FRAME is another
segment of the installation; and then there is the MOUNTING HARDWARE, including the RAIL and
FLASHING, where the panel is attached to the roof. The flashing is an aluminum sheet that keeps the
whole installation watertight. K. Liblick suggested the Commission be very clear and call for “all
mounting hardware” to be a given color. He added that bolts can be painted, while panels cannot. Also,
when a panel is being installed right up to the edge of the roof, a U-shaped CHANNEL is used. The
channel could easily be overlooked in the application process ― and it is not available in black.
D. Kramer noted he is not offended by the appearance of the panel system as installed. It can also be
removed. He just wants to establish a clear understanding of what the Commission can expect to see in
a solar panel installation.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
6 of 21
S. Stein recalled the Commission spent a lot of time discussing the color of the installation. She
specifically remembers the Commission referring to the darkness of the roof, for example. But she does
not recall any discussion of a white backing; and yet the Commission was very specific about all the
details of the installation.
J. Minner noted while the color is an important consideration, all the other elements of the installation
were implemented in accordance with the Commission’s original decision. Furthermore, the
Commission does do not regulate paint color in Historic Districts. She would be comfortable approving
the current installation.
K. Liblick recalled that at the original Commission meeting there was a discussion of a large tree on the
west side of the house, which is one reason the applicant opposed installing an additional module on the
top row, since it would have been shaded by the tree.
D. Kramer suggested adding a condition to the resolution that the installer recognizes the mistake and
that this type of situation will not be repeated. K. Liblick agreed to the condition.
K. Olson responded she does not believe that would hold much weight. She would not have a problem
with the white backing, if it were on a secondary façade and not visible to the public.
D. Kramer observed it is ultimately a judgment call; and it would be difficult for him to justify removing
the current installation.
K. Olson noted the crux of the issue is whether the Commission would have approved the current
installation. If not, and the Commission approves it this evening, it would set a precedent.
J. Minner observed that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are sufficiently
flexible that approving the current installation would not necessarily set a precedent, one way or the
other.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 413 S. Albany Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated April 22, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Renovus Energy on behalf of property owner Robert
Sparks, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a statement from the owner
authorizing submission of the application; (3) a photograph showing the proposed
location of the solar array; (4) one photograph of the installed array; (5) one sheet of
technical information for the proposed panels; and (6) two photographs of similar arrays
that have been installed elsewhere in the city, and
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
7 of 21
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 413 S. Albany Street, and the City of Ithaca’s Henry
St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
installation of twelve solar panels with white back sheets on the south roof slope, facing
North Titus Avenue, which work has already been completed, and
WHEREAS, the proposed array was reviewed by the ILPC and following the necessary public hearing
on April 13, 2014, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the installation of 12
solar panels on the south roof slope, facing Titus Avenue. In their resolution approving
the solar array, the ILPC noted the following: the proposed array is not visible from any
point facing the primary elevation of the building, due to its location on a rear wing
behind a cross-gable. The visual impact of the new installation will be further reduced by
the black color of both panels and frame against the existing black roof shingles, and the
presence of existing mechanicals and skylights in this area of the roof, and
WHEREAS, based on the original Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness dated April 28,
2015 and the information provided by the applicant at the regular ILPC meeting on May
13, 2014, it was understood that the back sheets of the solar panels would be black, and
WHEREAS, the installed photovoltaic modules have white back sheets that contrast dramatically with
the black color of the roof, increasing the visual impact of the array, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 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 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 Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
May 12, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 413 S. Albany St. was constructed circa 1932
in the Colonial Revival style, and was the last building to be built in the Henry St. John
Historic District within its period of significance. It occupies a generous corner lot and as
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
8 of 21
a result its secondary elevation along N. Titus Avenue is significantly visible to the
public.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Henry
St. John Historic District.
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 228-5
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of solar
panels with white back sheets on the south roof slope will not remove distinctive
materials but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed solar array is not
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Henry St. John
Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
9 of 21
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines the proposal does not
meet criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, K. Olson
Against: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
M. McGandy asked if the Commission would we ever want to delegate these kinds of applications to a
staff-level review. S. Stein replied she believes the Commission should have the opportunity to discuss
them.
C. 527 E. State St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposals to Demolish Porch & Garage and
Replace Stucco
Applicant Jose Guisado described the proposed project. Removing the stucco and replacing it with
siding should be relatively straight-forward. He proposed demolishing both the back porch and the
garage. The back porch (which does not belong to the original building) is sagging, severely
deteriorated, and unsafe. Likewise, the garage suffers from major structural flaws (e.g., cracks, water
damage). Once the garage has been demolished, the garage retaining wall would be fully repaired. J.
Guisado added that the windows/doors currently in the back porch would be replaced with new
windows.
S. Stein asked if the roof would also be replaced. J. Guisado replied, if necessary. He has not yet
investigated the roof, but it does not seem there is a major problem with it (other than the garage roof).
Every eave, the trim, and any rotten boards would be repaired. S. Stein suggested the roof may be the
cause of the deteriorated stucco.
E. Finegan asked why the porch could not be restored. J. Guisado replied it could conceivably be
restored, but he does not see the need to do so since it has no historic significance. It was only added to
the property later on. The porch also obstructs the more beautiful building façade.
M. McGandy explained that when the Historic District was established both the porch and the garage
became part of the period of significance.
D. Kramer noted he owns all the buildings across the street from the property, which he really loves.
While there is no disputing the stucco’s terrible condition, that could be remedied. Likewise, while it is
clear the garage is suffering from structural failure, it is also a wonderful structure. There is nothing
comparable to it in the rest of the city. There is no evidence to suggest that garage’s substructure cannot
be repaired. It should definitely be saved. The applicant and the Commission need to identify the best
way of doing that.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
10 of 21
(D. Kramer departed at 7:15 p.m.)
S. Stein remarked that she lives in a house with a similar small garage, built around the same time; and
she was able to repair it by working from the inside out. She believes the garage at 527 E. State Street
can also be fixed. She strongly encouraged the applicant to consider how to accomplish that.
E. McCollister agreed, noting the majority of Ithaca sits on a slope, including many retaining walls
people have re-built over the years, so it is definitely possible. The primary problem with the property is
that it is suffering from years of deferred maintenance and neglect. The Commission is not responsible
for approving alterations to properties that are the result of long-term neglect. She does not see that the
applicant has made a genuinely compelling argument that the garage cannot be repaired/rebuilt.
E. Finegan noted he sees no reason the retaining walls could not be rebuilt, while some other temporary
means of supporting the garage are devised.
S. Gibian asked why the applicant did not consider keeping the stucco. J. Guisado replied that the wood
underneath the stucco is horizontal wood siding and the building has a lot of various rooms, windows,
and other elements. While he could certainly replace the stucco, it would be more expensive and labor-
intensive, since the stucco would have to be completely removed and replaced.
S. Gibian observed some of the detailing on the house would not work with wood siding, whereas it
works rather well with the stucco. The stucco siding appears to have been added in conjunction with the
major renovations that took place in the 1920s.
K. Olson added that she imagines the garage was also sided in stucco: it appears on a 1919 Sanborn Fire
Insurance map as a combination of brick and stucco.
S. Gibian noted the applicant mentioned window replacements, but the application contains no reference
to that. J. Guisado replied, no, since he would only replace windows if necessary.
J. Minner indicated that work would also need to be reviewed by the Commission. J. Guisado replied he
did not know that, so he would like to retract his proposal to replace the windows.
E. Finegan remarked that the property owner knew the house is in an historic district when she bought it.
It can certainly be more expensive to own and maintain a property in an historic district. None of the
major changes being proposed appear take into consideration that the house lies in an historic district.
K. Olson observed it sounds like the roof is the primary culprit behind the deterioration of the garage. J.
Guisado replied, certainly at least part of it.
K. Olson asked how long the owner has owned the building. B. McCracken replied, 10 years.
K. Olson remarked that the City has a law explicitly prohibiting ‘demolition by neglect’ ― and the
property appears to have been seriously neglected. The garage is in a condition that could have been
prevented with regular maintenance. She finds it impossible to believe not a single contractor in the area
has the expertise/experience to repair the garage. Perhaps the property owner should identify another
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
11 of 21
contractor. She would certainly not feel comfortable approving the wholesale demolition of the garage
and porch.
M. McGandy agreed. There is no evidence in the application to substantiate the applicant’s argument
for demolition. At the very least, the Commission should hear from an objective third party to testify
about the structural integrity of both structures. Until then, it has no grounds to authorize the two
demolitions.
J. Guisado remarked that it is possible to rebuild and renovate the two structures. He has performed a
significant amount of historical preservation and renovation work over the years. If the Commission
truly wants both structures to be preserved, then that is what will be done.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
J. Minner remarked that she has sat on several historic preservation commissions. A compelling
argument for a Certificate of Appropriateness needs to refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation. There is insufficient information in the application for the Commission to make a
satisfactory determination.
J. Guisado replied that the property owner would not be able to afford to perform all the desired
alterations, if that requires meeting all of the Commission’s demands. As a result, so very little work, if
any, would end up being done for the property.
B. McCracken responded that would be a case of demolition by neglect.
E. Finegan asked the rest of the Commission how it feels about the application.
S. Gibian responded that, given the style of the building, the stucco siding is much more appropriate
than any other kind of siding (especially with the deep returns and tapered columns). Regarding the
garage, when he examined it himself, he thought the walls appeared plumb and there was not an
alarming amount of sagging. So he would not agree that the entire structure needs to be demolished.
On the other hand, he does not have a particularly strong opinion about the porch; but it could certainly
be repaired.
J. Minner suggested if the applicant has documentation to substantiate his plans, he could restore the
siding to reflect an earlier state in the history of the house.
K. Olson replied that no one knows what the condition of the clapboard is, under the stucco, so she does
not see that the applicant could do that. In her opinion, removing all the stucco and installing wood
siding would not qualify as restoration.
M. McGandy remarked that the Commission permits economic hardship appeals, but not at this stage in
the process. The applicant should also keep in mind that both the Commission and City staff have now
been alerted to the fact that the building needs significant attention.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
12 of 21
J. Minner encouraged the applicant to think about creative solutions to help preserve the entire property.
S. Stein suggested the applicant divide the proposal into several different applications.
At this juncture, B. McCracken noted the Commission can either take action on the application at this
meeting, or the applicant can withdraw the application and return to the Commission next month.
J. Guisado asked if the garage and porch could be left out of the discussion at this time, while he
proposes resurfacing the entire building in stucco (matched to the texture and color of the original).
B. McCracken indicated he would not be comfortable approving the removal of the stucco at the staff
level, since it would be such a substantial alteration.
J. Guisado indicated he will propose replacing the stucco on the house and repairing of the porch, at the
next Commission meeting. Any work on the garage would need to be addressed in another phase of the
project.
B. McCracken suggested the applicant also come up with a proposal for at least shoring up the garage,
so it is does not suffer further deterioration in the meantime, given the applicant’s statements about its
structural integrity. He reiterated that the Commission has been placed on notice regarding the condition
of the garage; so the property owner could be cited by the City.
J. Guisado asked if the City notifies property owners in historic districts of the Certificate of
Appropriateness process. B. McCracken replied, yes, on an annual basis.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
D. 100 Ridgewood Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows &
Dormer Cladding
Applicant Chad King described the proposed project, noting that Cornell University contracted him to
repair the roof section on the east elevation. That section of the roof suffers from a leak along both
dormer cheaks, which has made its way into one of the student rooms. The project would simply
involve replacing the one window with a casement, awning-style window (a Marvin window, with wood
interior and clad on the exterior in evergreen, like the rest of the building). C. King indicated the
window is definitely beyond repair. He noted when one examines the dormer in the photograph, it is
sided on the end walls with three-tab shingles, which is consistent with the rest of the building but is
probably not the original siding that would have been put on the dormer end walls originally. He
believes that is why water penetrated in that area. He proposes cedar split shake, which is more
consistent with the building. As for the roof shingle, there is a mixtures of three-tab shingles in some
areas and architectural shingles in others. He proposes installing architectural shingle, in a ‘desert tan’
color in the subject location.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
13 of 21
C. King noted the other part of the project involves a roof section that was recently added (on the
northeast elevation). Unfortunately, the flashing around the parapet wall was not properly installed.
Both the flashing and some limestone caps on the roof would need to be surgically removed, to enable
getting the ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber membrane over the two-foot parapet
wall. The original limestone caps would then be reinstalled.
E. Finegan asked if the applicant indicated that copper flashing would be used. C. King replied, yes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein
S. Gibian remarked the proposal seems appropriate to him.
B. McCracken noted that he could approve the limestone capping at the staff level, since that was not in
the original application.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 100 Ridgewood Road is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as
listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated February 11, 2015 but received by ILPC staff on March 11, 2015,
was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by
Finger Lakes Forestry and Service on behalf of property owner Cornell Corp of Beta
Theta Pi, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) samples of the proposed
roofing and siding materials, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 100
Ridgewood Road, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacing in-kind the asphalt-shingle roof on the northeast roof slope and two non-
historic, casement-style windows in the dormer at the same location. It also involves
replacing the three-tab, asphalt-shingle, cheek-wall cladding of the same dormer with
wood shingles, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 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
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
14 of 21
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 Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
May 12, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights
Historic District is 1898-1937.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Tudor-
Revival-Style residence was constructed between 1909 and 1911 for Cornell University
professor of law, Alfred Hayes, Jr.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell
Heights Historic District.
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 228-6
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
15 of 21
Standard #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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the roof, window and siding
replacements will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces
that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed wood shingle siding and
architectural-style roof shingles are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition:
The product to be installed is Owens-Corning, architectural-style, asphalt shingles in
Desert Tan.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, M. McGandy, K. Olson
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: D. Kramer
Vacancies: 0
E. 110 Westbourne Avenue, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Roof
Applicant Duane Austin described the proposed project, noting he has been contracted to remove the
wood shakes and install an asphalt-shingle roof system (including the garage).
E. Finegan observed the proposal is considered an acceptable replacement. B. McCracken replied, that
is correct, but since it involves a change in materials, he chose to defer the decision to the Commission.
S. Gibian asked if the color had been decided on. D. Austin replied, not yet, although he discussed it
with B. McCracken.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
16 of 21
B. McCracken noted the Building Division asked him to incorporate any color selections in resolution
conditions.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by J. Minner, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Michael Sterman and Kelly Sterman, owners of 100 Ridgewood Rd., indicated the ‘weathered wood’
color would be acceptable to them.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by S. Stein.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 110 Westbourne Lane is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as
listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated April 24, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Duane Austin on behalf of property owners Kelly
and Michael Sturman, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) three
photographs documenting the existing condition of the roof, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 110
Westbourne Lane and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacing the wood shingle roofs on the primary structure and accessory garage with
asphalt, architectural-style shingles, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 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 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 Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
May 12, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
17 of 21
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights
Historic District is 1898-1937.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Craftsman-
Style residence at 110 Westbourne Lane was constructed between 1912 and 1913 for
Cornell University professor of mathematics, Frederick W. Owens.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell
Heights Historic District.
The roof of the property in question is covered in wood shingles, a historic roofing
material that was once popular and extensively used but has largely been supplanted by
modern roofing materials like asphalt and fiberglass.
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 228-6
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic 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.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
18 of 21
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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the wood
shingle roof with asphalt, architectural shingles will remove distinctive materials but will
not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as documented in the photographs provided
with the application and described by the applicant, the severity of the deterioration of the
wood shingles requires their replacement. The proposed new work will be compatible
with the old in design, color, and other visual qualities. As noted in the City of Ithaca
Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, asphalt or fiberglass shingles have
been identified as an appropriate replacement material when it can be shown that the
original roofing material was wood shingle. The replacement of the wood shingles on the
subject property with GAF, Timberline-series, architectural-style, asphalt shingles in
Weathered Wood is in keeping with this determination.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition:
GAF, Timberline-series, architectural-style, asphalt shingle in Weathered Wood will
be installed.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: D. Kramer
Vacancies: 0
V. NEW BUSINESS
Presentation: 224 E. State St., Griffin Block, NR Downtown Historic District ― Simeon’s
Reconstruction Proposal
Applicants Jason Demarest and Jerry Dietz described the proposed project, noting they wanted the
Commission’s feedback, in advance of their application for historic tax credits to the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO).
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
19 of 21
J. Demarest noted the following highlights and points-of-interest of the proposed project:
Building materials would comprise copper, matched brick, elliptical arched top windows, and detail-
work on the frieze.
The cast-iron storefront was retained after the accident and will be re-used.
Original building would be replicated as much as possible, except for relocating the entry door
further to the left side, which would provide better ADA access, serve as more of a buffer, and
provide a better flow of people inside the restaurant. SHPO informed the applicants that the entry
has always been in the middle, so relocating it may not end up being acceptable.
To streamline and expedite the initial SHPO application, the applicants will submit their current
design and possibly amend it later.
The applicants would like the support of the Commission and the City (possibly in the form of a
letter).
K. Olson remarked she actually likes the proposal to relocate the entry: given that the rest of the building
would be so faithfully recreated, it would visually convey that it is a reconstructed building.
M. McGandy agreed, although he suggested identifying an additional way of indicating it would be new
construction.
J. Demarest noted the seam of brick on the Aurora Street façade may be a problem to duplicate with
matching brick. K. Olson replied it would not be terrible if the two sets of brick were not identical.
J. Demarest noted the building would include a return to the two-over-two windows depicted in historic
photographs. In addition, the angled bay would not be original to the building.
B. McCracken suggested that the SHPO application should explicitly state the windows were originally
two-over-two and that they would be restored to that condition.
J. Demarest noted they would also like to replace all the windows, probably with wood windows; and
simply do sash replacements on the existing windows.
K. Olson cautioned that SHPO tends to be strict in advocating repairing, rather than replacing.
B. McCracken added that SHPO will also be concerned with any changes to the interior. J. Demarest
replied there will no major changes to the interior, except for the open area in the center.
J. Demarest noted they have been considering filling in the stairs to the former barber shop below. B.
McCracken recommended against that, since SHPO would probably consider it to be historically
significant.
B. McCracken noted he would draft a letter of support and circulate it to the Commission for approval.
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
20 of 21
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
IV. OLD BUSINESS (continued)
Discussion: Discussion: Common Council Decision on Eddy Street Sidewalks
B. McCracken reported that the Eddy Street sidewalk replacement with concrete was not approved at the
last Common Council meeting.
132 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Modify Window
B. McCracken noted the applicant has still not appeared. The Commission could postpone the
application for one more month, or review it this evening.
S. Gibian observed there is not enough information in the application. He would probably be inclined to
approve the application if the owner was present and the Commission had more information.
B. McCracken noted he did inform the applicant that someone associated with the project needed to
appear this evening.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
ILPC Minutes
May 12, 2015
21 of 21
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by S. Stein, and seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications.
April 14, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:28 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission