HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-06-09Approved by ILPC: July 14, 2015
1 of 27
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – June 9, 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
Erin Frederickson, Intern
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 204 East Ave., Stimson Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Stone
Exterior Stair and Install Handrails & Guardrails
Applicant Brad Newhouse, Cornell University Assistant University Architect, recapitulated the salient
details of the proposed project, noting the Stimson Hall stairs have deteriorated to such an extent they
have now been condemned and need to be replaced to retain a path of egress from ground-level to street-
level. One option would be to replace them in-kind with treads spanning the width of the stair; however,
the likelihood of deterioration would be high due to local winter conditions and the university’s winter
maintenance procedures. The applicant therefore proposes to replace them with red tinted concrete
stairs, which would have a similar hue to the original sandstone. When the applicant reviewed this
proposal with City Director of Code Enforcement Mike Niechwiadowicz, he indicated the stairs would
need to be brought up to Building Code (e.g., including a guardrail and handrail), since the current
guardrail does not meet the ‘four-inch sphere rule’ for fall prevention. B. Newhouse explained the rails
could either be chosen to reflect the character and time period of the building, or they could be
composed of steel barstock and aircraft cable. He noted the stairs are set down into the landscape, so
they are very difficult to see from street-level. The handrails, however, would be quite visible.
E. Finegan asked how old the sandstone treads are. B. Newhouse replied he believes they are original
(i.e., circa 1902). E. Finegan asked if the applicants believe the concrete stairs would last as long as
sandstone. B. Newhouse responded that they could, but it would partly depend on where the
replacement sandstone is quarried from.
S. Stein suggested the stairs be replaced in-kind. It seems highly unlikely concrete would last as long as
the 110 years the current stairs have endured.
D. Kramer indicated that, while he ordinarily favors in-kind replacement, he does not feel strongly about
the issue in this case, since the stairs are below-grade and not visible to the public.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
2 of 27
M. McGandy asked for more detail about the proposed concrete. B. Newhouse replied it would be
produced using colored cement, with a compatible fine-grained aggregate. He believes it would be in
keeping with the sandstone. M. McGandy asked how long the concrete would last. B. Newhouse
indicated it would depend on the curing and coating, as well as the measures taken to ensure its
longevity (including rebar reinforcement). Regardless of whether the applicants use sandstone or
concrete, the placement of the handrails and how they are secured would also affect the stairs’ longevity
(e.g., from water migration, freezing, cracking).
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K.
Olson.
M. McGandy observed the Commission’s handling of the recent Eddy Street slate sidewalk replacement
is also relevant to this proposal.
K. Olson asked about the Commission’s history of approving material substitutions for original stairs ―
she does not recall the Commission ever accepting alternative materials. S. Stein agreed.
B. Newhouse indicated if the applicants replace the stairs in-kind, it would be stone for stone. A granite
stone with a similar coloring to the bluestone would be used.
S. Gibian observed the stairs emerge from a side entrance to the building and are not exposed to public
view. He imagines the feasibility of installing stone treading would be problematical.
K. Olson noted that sandstone would look worse as a substitution. Because the stairs are below-grade,
she could support a tinted concrete.
J. Minner remarked the building is not an individual local landmark. If the stairs were not part of a
primary entryway and not a character-defining feature of the building, the Commission would probably
have more leeway in terms of what it could approve.
K. Olson noted the Commission has given applicants more leeway for properties with older New York
State Building-Structure Inventory Forms that do not contain much detailed information. She believes
the Commission has more flexibility in identifying character-defining features, in this particular case.
M. McGandy asked how difficult it would be to replace the stairs with stone. B. Newhouse replied he is
not absolutely certain, since he is not sure how the haunches and formwork were created to support the
stones, or how deeply the treads extend.
S. Gibian suggested preserving only the top tread as an alternative.
Regarding the handrails, B. Newhouse noted one option would be to install ones similar to the ones used
at Morrill Hall and other buildings on campus. He noted the applicants would be required to include
small spindles in between the verticals of the guardrail. If the Commission prefers the more modern
railing or cable system, the applicants would probably propose a black color.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
3 of 27
M. McGandy noted whether the applicants install the in-kind stone or the colored cement will probably
affect the choice of railing. One way or the other, the two should be consistent.
S. Gibian expressed a preference for the traditional handrail.
E. Finegan noted it appears from the discussion that most Commission members prefer the traditional
railing option.
K. Olson indicated she likes S. Gibian’s suggestion for making the top step sandstone. E. Finegan asked
the applicant if that could be done. B. Newhouse replied, yes.
M. McGandy noted he does not see enough justification for approving colored concrete.
S. Gibian asked if Medina sandstone would be available. B. Newhouse replied, probably.
D. Kramer indicated he completely agrees with M. McGandy in principle, but the Commission does
have a different standard for areas not visible to the public.
M. McGandy emphasized that a replacement in-kind would also be a better investment than the
concrete, from a strictly economic perspective.
K. Olson asked if the Commission would approach the situation differently if the applicant were a
private homeowner. She sees no reason to hold Cornell University to a different standard than private
homeowners.
S. Stein noted that Stimson Hall has two primary entrances, of which this is one, and it is a character-
defining feature.
J. Minner asked if it is a high-traffic area. B. Newhouse replied, yes, although most people use the main
entrance and internal stairs to circulate through the building.
S. Gibian asked if the applicant intends to return to the Commission with further railing details. B.
Newhouse replied, yes. If he receives guidance from the Commission, he will provide drawings of the
handrail design.
B. McCracken suggested the Commission could also delegate approval of the handrails and mounting to
staff, if the Commission would prefer not to table it.
B. Newhouse remarked the applicant would prefer to have some kind of guidance regarding whether
stone or concrete is preferable.
B. McCracken asked if the handrails would be mounted to the wall or to the treads. B. Newhouse
replied that it depends; it could be a combination of the two.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
4 of 27
K. Olson noted that since the Commission agrees the stair treads are too deteriorated to re-use, it would
be helpful to explore how they were actually attached/installed. It would help determine how she would
be likely to vote. B. Newhouse responded he could have a mason remove the treads and examine the
sidewall conditions.
S. Stein suggested the applicant add a cap rather than completely replace the treads. B. Newhouse
responded he is dubious that could be done with sandstone.
B. McCracken asked if an as-built drawing exists of the stairs. B. Newhouse replied the applicant
already obtained all that was available in the archives from that time period.
B. Newhouse asked how the applicant should approach the handrail details, if installing the stone in-
kind turns out to be possible,
E. Finegan noted the Commission expressed a preference for the traditional handrails. B. Newhouse
reiterated the handrail system would need to include a 42-inch tall railing with vertical pickets (with no
more than 4 inches in between them).
B. McCracken noted he could approve the whole proposal at the staff level, assuming the applicant uses
the Julius Blum & Company handrail fittings, posts, and spindles. There were no objections.
S. Stein asked if the applicant could select a more decorative design for the vertical elements. B.
Newhouse replied, yes; however, the Commission should note they would not have been used
historically. He would ordinarily propose a simple and clean design for the vertical elements.
B. McCracken remarked the meeting minutes should record that the Commission delegated authority to
him to approve the proposal at the staff level for the in-kind replacement of the stairs and the details of
the Julius Blum & Company handrails. If it turns out that in-kind replacement is not feasible, however,
the applicant would return to the Commission for approval of an alternate material.
B. 116 W. Clinton St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Install Fence & Patio
Applicant Teresa Halpert Deschanes recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting 116
W. Clinton St. is an apartment building that abuts the Hotel Ithaca and McGraw House properties.
There was originally a backyard at that location, which is now a parking lot with a patch of grass. The
property’s tenants have asked if the existing fence could be continued for both safety and privacy
reasons. The fence currently extends around the parking lot. She proposes continuing the fence and
wrapping it back to the building, creating a patio area in the enclosed portion. The patio would be
covered in simple concrete pavers (placed in sand so they could be easily removed). The patio would be
behind the fence, so it would not be visible to the public.
S. Gibian asked about the height of the proposed fence compared to the existing fence. T. Deschanes
replied it would be 6-feet tall, although it would drop down so it would not reach as high as the existing
fence. She added the garbage enclosure would also be demolished.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
5 of 27
S. Gibian observed the fence height depends on what grade it is measured from. T. Deschanes replied it
would be constructed from 6-foot tall boards.
E. Finegan asked about the fence material. T. Deschanes replied it would be spruce (not pressure-
treated), painted the color of the house trim. Pressure-treated wood may be used for the posts.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
K. Olson noted it is important for the Commission to recognize that the proposal would protect the
house from everything around it. S. Gibian observed it is at the very edge of the Historic District.
S. Gibian suggested the applicant consider locust wood or another insect-resistant species for the posts.
He noted he is a little concerned with the concrete pavers. He asked if the applicant could use flagstone
instead. T. Deschanes replied flagstone would be expensive, so if that were the only choice, they could
probably not install it immediately. She would prefer installing the pavers now, so the tenants could use
patio. The pavers could be removed later and she could propose slate in the future.
D. Kramer observed that it seems an improvement to have the area fenced in. He is not too concerned
with the pavers, since they would not be visible to the public.
M. McGandy agreed: it is an improvement to the property; it is reversible; and it does not impact the
house itself in any significant way.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 116 W. Clinton St. 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 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated May 15, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Teresa Halpert Deschanes on behalf of property
owner Rosetree Properties, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) ten
photographs documenting the existing site conditions; (3) a survey map identifying the
location of the subject property; (4) a photograph showing a similar fence to the one
proposed at another property in the Henry St. John Historic District; and (5) a rendering
of the proposed gate design and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 116 W. Clinton St. and the City of Ithaca’s Henry St.
John Historic District Summary Statement, and
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
6 of 27
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
constructing a 6’ privacy fence in the northeast corner of the property and installing a
patio comprised of concrete pavers in the same location, 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
June 9, 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, 116 W. Clinton St. was constructed ca. 1871
as a modest Italianate-Style residence.
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.
Located mid-block along the 100 block of W. Clinton St., the house occupies a small lot
almost entirely covered by the principle structure and a large asphalt parking lot that
serves an adjacent commercial property. The proposal involves enclosing a portion of the
unpaved lot with a fence and installing a patio.
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:
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
7 of 27
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.
Standard #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 an d
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a fence and
patio 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 fence and patio are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the fence and patio can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic 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 Henry St.
John 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.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
8 of 27
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
C. 40 Ridgewood Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Remove Skylight
B. McCracken noted he received an e-mail from the applicant that he would not be able to attend the
meeting. The Commission may choose to either table the application or move forward with considering
the proposal, if there is enough information to do so.
B. McCracken noted the location of the skylight is extremely inaccessible. M. McGandy added it would
be virtually invisible to the public.
D. Kramer noted the proposal is simply to replace one skylight with another. B. McCracken responded
it would be smaller than the existing one.
K. Olson remarked that would be an improvement.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
David Ruff, 445 Hagadorn Hill Rd., Spencer, NY, indicated he is very familiar with the house. The
existing skylight is highly problematic: it receives sunlight all the time, which effects the temperature of
the interior, and has cracked several times.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by M. McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 40 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 May 20, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Thomas Fox on behalf of property owner Alpha Xi
Delta, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) product information for a Sun
Tunnel, a 10” tubular skylight; (3) a Google Earth image identifying the location of the
skylight in question; and (4) two photographs documenting the condition of the existing
skylight, and
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
9 of 27
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 40
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
removing the skylight on the west roof slope and installing a new tubular-style skylight in
the same location, 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
June 9, 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 Colonial
Revival residence located at 40 Ridgewood Road was constructed after 1924 but during
the districts period of significance.
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 proposal involves removing a skylight on the west roof slope of the residence’s
principle block. It is unclear whether a skylight in this location was an original feature of
the property or dates from the district’s period of significance. The existing skylight unit
was installed in the 1990s and is not visible from the public way.
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
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
10 of 27
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 #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.
Standard #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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of a skylight and
installation of a tubular skylight 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 tubular skylight is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment
With respect to Standard #10, the skylight can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic 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.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
11 of 27
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
D. 118 Triphammer Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Windows
Applicants David Ruff and Keith Smith recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting
the windows are steel-framed windows that they have not been able to find replacements for. The
purpose of the proposal is to get more light into the room, improve energy efficiency, and increase
security (there was an attempted break-in). They propose replacing the existing windows with glass-
block windows, which would be mortared in place, including some pre-installed vents in some of them.
S. Gibian asked if the applicants would definitely be using the vented version of the glass-block
windows. K. Smith replied, yes. There would be one vent in each of the windows, as well as where the
current dryer vents are located. The glass-block windows are sold as a unit.
S. Gibian responded he prefers the windows without the vents. K. Smith indicated the venting is not
absolutely necessary. S. Gibian conceded that the windows would be barely visible to the public.
K. Olson noted she had difficulty determining the condition of the existing windows. K. Smith replied
that they are broken, severely rusted, and inoperable.
S. Gibian remarked that glass blocks would have been in use in 1933, so they appear to be compatible.
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 D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
M. McGandy asked if there would be the same number of mechanicals in the new windows. K. Smith
replied, yes. M. McGandy noted the Commission should consider if it would be appropriate to add
another piercing in the form of the pre-installed vent inside the window unit.
S. Stein replied she has no problem with the vents. D. Kramer agreed.
In that case, M. McGandy suggested, the Commission should leave the vents to the applicants’
discretion. E. Finegan agreed.
J. Minner indicated she is not particularly enthusiastic about the windows’ vinyl components, but since
they would not be visible to the public, she would be willing to accept them. Had the windows been on
the primary façade, she would be more concerned with approving the glass-block windows.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
12 of 27
WHEREAS, 118 Triphammer Rd 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 May 26, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Ruff on behalf of property owner Delta Delta
Delta Alumni Corporation, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) ten photographs
documenting the existing conditions; (3) product information for “REDI2SET™” glass
block windows; and a narrative titled “Window Replacement 118 Triphammer Road, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 118
Triphammer Rd., 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 three sets of paired, metal-sash, basement-level, casement-style windows on the
west elevation with glass block units, 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
June 9, 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, 118 Triphammer
Rd. was constructed after 1924 but during the district period of significance as a
fraternity lodge for Kappa Alpha Theta.
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.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
13 of 27
The proposal in question involves replacing three pairs of seemingly original basement-
level, metal-sash windows, which are located on the west elevation.
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
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
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 three
basement-level windows will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features
and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photographs submitted
with the application the severity of the deterioration of the metal-sash windows requires
their replacement. The proposed new work will not match the old in design, color,
texture, and other visual qualities. The windows in question are located below grade in a
window well on a secondary elevation; they are not visible from the public way.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
14 of 27
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed glass-block window units
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.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
132 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Modify Window
E. Finegan noted that the Commission conducted a site visit to the property.
B. McCracken reported that he spoke with applicant, who would like the Commission to consider the
original proposal to shorten the windows. The applicant indicated that if her proposal is not approved,
she would simply cover the window from the interior. B. McCracken noted the mechanics/logistics of
shortening the window appears questionable. While repairing the stucco from the interior may be
possible, it is unclear that the applicants would be able to do a good job, especially in the 15 days before
the new tenants move in.
K. Olson asked if the applicants would simply leave the window in place and install sheetrock over it, if
the Commission denies the proposal. B. McCracken replied, yes.
K. Olson asked if the Commission members who visited the site are convinced of the need for the
replacement.
S. Gibian responded, while the condition of the window was not particularly good, it was not terrible.
E. Finegan remarked that installing sheetrock over the window seems an unfortunate choice. He
recalled that during the site visit the Commission discussed the possibility of replacing the window with
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
15 of 27
the applicants. B. McCracken replied that the contractor opposed that approach, since he believed it
would require more work and may not be possible given the time constraint.
K. Olson observed there appears to be no flexibility on the applicant’s part. B. McCracken replied, that
appears to be the case.
B. McCracken indicated the Commission should also consider the possibility that the applicants would
fail: they could take the window apart and not be able to put it back together.
E. Finegan suggested that, given it is located in the rear of the building, the applicants should be allowed
to proceed.
M. McGandy noted that since the applicants are not present the Commission cannot suggest any other
approaches.
B. McCracken explained that the applicants’ proposal to shorten the sashes was in response to his own
suggestion that they install a backsplash. If the applicants were able to replace the window with a
smaller one, then they would have been willing to do it.
B. McCracken noted that judging from the work the applicants have done in the bathroom, they appear
to be investing in the property in a responsible manner.
K. Olson noted the backsplash would have been the quickest and most economical solution.
M. McGandy noted the window is neither very visible to the public, nor is it distinctive, so perhaps the
Commission should allow the applicants to proceed. If they are unsuccessful, they may return to the
Commission with another proposal.
K. Olson noted she could not support approving the application.
J. Minner noted it seems a reasonably minor alteration. It at least retains a portion of the original
window. It is not an ideal situation, but it is certainly preferable to blocking the window with sheetrock.
RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 132 University Ave. is located within the University Hill Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2003, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated March 24, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Deanna Hill on behalf of property owner
Phat Cribs of Ithaca, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a “Work Needed”
document from contractor Jeff Jesmer; and ((3) three photographs documenting existing
conditions, and
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
16 of 27
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
University Hill Historic District for 132 University Ave., and the City of Ithaca’s
University Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
shortening the existing wood upper and lower sashes of a north-facing window, reducing
the total window height from 57” to 47”; the in-kind replacement of a rotten window sill;
and localized stucco patching around the window in question, 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
April 14, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that 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 University Hill Historic District
is identified in the City of Ithaca’s University Hill Historic District Summary
Significance Statement as 1867-1927.
As indicated in the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the University
Hill Historic District, 132 University Ave was constructed as a vernacular Tudor-Style
residence in 1915.
Constructed within the period of significance of the University Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
University Hill Historic District.
The proposal involves modifying a one-over-one wood sash window located on the north
elevation, which is not highly visible from the public way due to the topography of the
site. Wood windows have been determined to be a significant character defining feature
of properties in the University Hill 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
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
17 of 27
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
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, Standard #5 and Standard #9, the proposed
modifications to the wood sashes and window opening will remove distinctive materials
but will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The commission
notes that the proposed changes will remove distinctive materials and significantly alter
features that characterize the property. The total height of the window will be reduced
from 57” to 47” and each wood sash will be shortened by at least 5”, resulting in the loss
of historic sash material and exterior wood trim. However, the proposed project will
preserve the materiality, functionality and craftsmanship of this historic feature. The sill
replacement and stucco patching will visually and materially match the original.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed changes to the wood
sashes and window opening 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 University
Hill 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.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
18 of 27
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: J. Minner
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer
Against: K. Olson
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
410 University Ave., University Hill Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval to
Demolish Porch.
Applicant Mark Howe recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting he is requesting
approval to remove the rear porch at 410 University Ave. He has now provided the Commission with
photographs illustrating the deterioration of the porch; and City Code Inspector Bob Ripa has also
produced an e-mail describing the condition of the porch.
D. Kramer remarked that, as a neighbor and someone who has personally viewed the porch, he had been
very unhappy with the porch removal. He has since discovered that the porch had already been covered
with tarp in 2007, suggesting it was already considered an architectural loss by that time. As a result, he
has changed his assessment of the situation since the Commission’s last meeting.
M. McGandy noted it appears the Commission’s current position it that, while it is lamentable that the
porch was demolished, no one is at fault and replacing the original porch is not desirable.
K. Olson observed the situation definitely serves to highlight the impact of deferred maintenance on
historic buildings.
M. Howe noted the proposal now includes the installation of a frame around the original site of the
porch door, with a trim that matches the other doors on the property.
E. Finegan asked what the Commission would have done if the prior owner responsible for the neglect
were making the very same proposal. B. McCracken replied the Commission would have referred the
matter to the City Attorney, as a case of demolition-by-neglect.
K. Olson noted the Commission is only considering the porch demolition at this time. B. McCracken
replied, correct. The applicant withdrew his original proposal to build a new porch on the front (east
facing) side of the house.
M. McGandy observed the Commission has no narrative description for the proposal to install a frame
around the original site of the porch door. It only has the rendering to base its decision on.
K. Olson asked if the applicant still has possession of the porch door. M. Howe replied, yes.
K. Olson noted that affixing a frame around the original site of the porch door somehow does not seem
appropriate. S. Stein agreed.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
19 of 27
J. Minner agreed. She can see the benefit of installing the in-fill door frame in some cases (e.g., for
educational purposes), but not in this situation.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 410 University Avenue is located within the University Hill Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2003, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated April 21, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Mark Howe, including two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
University Hill Historic District for 410 University Avenue and the City of Ithaca’s
University Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
demolishing a two-story porch on the west elevation, which work has partially been
completed, 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:
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.
As indicated in the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the University
Hill Historic District, the modest Stick-Style residence at 410 University Avenue was
constructed in 1891.
Constructed within the period of significance of the University Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
University Hill Historic District.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
20 of 27
With turned posts, decorative brackets and a spindle-work frieze, the detailing of the
west-facing, two-story porch was similar to that of the south and north porches and was
characteristic of the era during which the residence was constructed. While not an
original feature of the house, the porch in question was built between 1910 and 1919,
during the University Hill Historic District’s period of significance, and was considered a
character defining feature of the property. Several porches similar to the one in question
were added to properties along University Avenue during the period of significance
presumably to take advantage of the steeply sloped topography and unique viewsheds of
their lots.
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 #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired
historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
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.
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.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
21 of 27
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #4 and Standard #9, the demolition of
the west porch, which work has been partially completed, will remove distinctive
materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. As noted
above, the west porch was constructed during the districts period of significance and has
gained significance in its own right. Its removal will substantially alter the building’s
relationship to its environment and the steeply sloped lot on which it sits.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as described by the property owner and
stated by the City Code Inspector, Robert Ripa, the severity of the deterioration of the
west porch requires its demolition. The applicant provided four photograph of the porch
taken prior to demolition, which does show a severely rotted post and an extensive
amount of water staining that could indicate additional areas of material decay. The
photographs provide enough information for the ILPC to determine that the deterioration,
in fact, required the porch’s demolition. The porch demolition represents a clear case of
“demolition by neglect;” which is the result of years of deferred maintenance by the
previous property owner. At the time the applicant purchased the property in the fall of
2014, the porch’s deteriorated condition already required its demolition.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial, yet
unavoidable, adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the
University Hill 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 conditions:
The west elevation’s second-story door, formerly providing access to the two-story
porch, and its casing will be removed and new wood clapboard that is feathered into
the existing will be installed to enclose the opening.
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, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
202 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Review Exterior Materials (pursuant to July 8, 2014
Certificate of Appropriateness condition)
Applicants Jagat Sharma and Nick Lambrou described the current status of the project, noting they have
now provided the Commission with all the details, specifications, and material samples, as required by
the condition. They believe the applicants have made every effort to faithfully reconstruct and replicate
the original building.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
22 of 27
S. Gibian noted the proposed materials and details look good. He asked how the two courses of roofing
shingles across the bottom would be treated. J. Sharma replied they would be changed to green shingles.
B. McCracken asked where the three original stained-glass windows would be installed. J. Sharma
replied they will be removed and probably installed on both sides of the wall in the front entrance porch.
They would be mounted as an appliqué to the panes of the new windows.
B. McCracken asked if the applicant could install the stained-glass windows in front of the new
windows. J. Sharma replied he does not believe that would meet Building Code requirements. The new
windows will need to be completely operable for egress purposes.
B. McCracken asked if there were any way the stained-glass could be integrated with the windows in the
front porch space, so they appear as part of the building. J. Sharma replied the applicants could modify
the two sidelights on either side of the front door to incorporate the stained-glass windows.
M. McGandy remarked he would be comfortable delegating the details to staff-level approval. There
were no objections.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 202 Eddy Street is located within the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Sections 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the reconstruction of a fire-damaged house on the site was approved
at the regular July 8, 2014, ILPC meeting, and
WHEREAS, a condition was placed on that Certificate of Appropriateness, requiring the applicant to
obtain Commission approval of all exterior materials, windows and doors, and develop
plan to incorporate the leaded-glass windows from the former structure into the
reconstructed building’s design, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has received a submission from Jagat P. Sharma, dated May 28, 2015,
describing the exterior materials that are proposed for inclusion in the project, including
the following: (1) one sheet titled “Construction Photos – 202 Eddy Street”; (2) one
sheet titled “Materials List”; (3) a sample and product information for HardiePlank Lap
Siding, Select Cedarmill; (4) a sample and product information for HardieShingles
Siding, Half Rounds (7 in. Exposure); (5) a sample and production information for
HardieTrim Batten Boards, Rustic Grain; (6) a sample and product information for
AZEK Building Products, Rams Crown and Sub Sill Nose; (7) a sample and product
information for Landmark Premium shingles in Max Def Driftwood; (8) product
information for a steel entry door with privacy glass; and (9) a model and product
information on Anderson 400 Series, Tilt-Wash Double-Hung Window
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
23 of 27
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed this submission for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of the
proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC finds that the proposed exterior and site materials and elements are
compatible with the architectural features of the property and its environment and are
approved for use, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the original condition placed on the project’s Certificate of Appropriateness has
been satisfied, with the following condition:
Staff shall approve the location of the three leaded-glass panels within the building.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
527 E. State St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Demolish Garage & Porch and
Remove Stucco
Applicant Jose Guisado recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He noted since the last
meeting he communicated with the property owner and they agreed to repair the stucco to generally
match the existing stucco, assisted by a stucco expert. J. Guisado remarked he does not believe it will be
possible to match the new stucco exactly to the original, since there would be slight differences in
texture resulting from differences in craftsmanship. He indicated the stucco would be medium-grade
with a fine finish. The final step in the process will be the application of a fine coat of stucco to blend
the repaired portions more effectively into the façade. He added that the garage will also be shored up
so it is structurally stable, until the applicant can work on it in the future.
D. Kramer noted if the applicant is only going to be repairing the stucco in-kind, he is not sure if the
Commission needs to review the proposal. B. McCracken responded that the submitted drawing
indicate “new stucco” finish on the entire buildings, appearing as though all the stucco would be
replaced.
J. Guisado noted the applicant submitted a set of exterior elevations showing where the damaged stucco
is on the façade. He has not yet provided any further details, since he has not had the opportunity to
examine the façade in the field. The description of what is being proposed in the revised Building
Permit application is accurate.
B. McCracken responded it remains unclear to him specifically what is being proposed, according to the
submitted drawings. It is unclear where the new stucco would be applied.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
24 of 27
J. Guisado replied it would all be blended together by the end of the process, so it would in effect cover
the entire façade. He added that in terms of the deteriorated back porch, which was also discussed at the
last Commission meeting, its structural integrity would be repaired, but it will look the same as the
original.
J. Minner asked for clarification of the legend on drawing sheet “A-4,” where it says “ Damaged wood
areas at back porch (to be demolished)” and “ Garage doors and windows in need of replacement.”
She asked if those are descriptions remaining from the prior application. J. Guisado replied, no. They
are descriptions of what is wrong with the building. He reiterated the owner will not perform all the
work immediately. The submitted drawings simply illustrate the existing condition of the building.
E. McCollister remarked she believes J. Minner’s point was that the drawings should not indicate there
will be any kind of demolition to begin with. J. Guisado responded he will revise the drawings. The
minutiae of the proposal will be documented in the Building Permit application.
E. Finegan asked for clarification from the applicant on what the Commission should now be
considering: (1) the stucco repair; (2) the repair of the wall in the garage basement; and (3) the porch
repair. J. Guisado replied, yes. He reiterated only the structural components of the porch would be
repaired. E. Finegan asked if the porch would look the same as it does now, once it has been repaired.
J. Guisado replied, yes.
S. Stein asked if the applicant would replace any windows. J. Guisado replied, no. He suggested that
the Commission designate someone to oversee how the project is developing once construction is
underway.
J. Minner indicated there are a number of things that staff can approve, so the applicant should consult
closely with B. McCracken.
B. McCracken explained that if the applicant happens to find a window he believes needs to be replaced,
it could not be approved at staff-level, unless it is strictly an in-kind replacement or repair, as guided by
Chapter 228 of the City Code (“Landmarks Preservation”).
S. Stein suggested the applicant may want to examine all the windows on the building to determine what
condition they are in.
J. Guisado replied the applicant would propose replacing any windows with Marvin Integrity windows,
matching the exterior trim of the original window.
B. McCracken explained that Marvin windows actually would not be a replacement in-kind, so that
would need to go before the Commission.
K. Olson explained to the applicant that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service
governs historic preservation rules and standards. The National Park Service has a variety of historic
Preservation Briefs ― one of which happens to address historic stucco, which B. McCracken could send
the applicant. It contains detailed information about which kinds of stucco are appropriate for a given
historical era, methods of application, recipes for stucco mixtures, and so on. The Preservation Brief
should greatly facilitate the applicant’s work.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
25 of 27
D. Kramer asked if the applicant needs to return before the Commission if it simply a matter of repairing
the stucco. B. McCracken replied if it is strictly only a repair, it could be approved at the staff level.
J. Guisado noted approximately 20% of the building’s stucco façade would need to be fully replaced;
and a thin coat of stucco would be applied at the end of the process so it all looks consistent. He added
the applicant may also seek to repair the stucco on the garage.
S. Gibian asked if roof replacement and gutter/downspout replacement would also be part of the project,
since those seem likely to be causing the deterioration of the stucco in the first place. J. Guisado replied,
no. The roof and eaves are not part of the current proposal.
S. Stein remarked that should the applicant need to replace the eaves, he could seek staff-level approval,
assuming they would be replaced in-kind.
M. McGandy asked B. McCracken if he would feel comfortable approving the work being proposed, in
light of the unsystematic nature of the current proposal. M. McGandy replied he would feel more
comfortable if all the steps of the process were clearly identified and documented. He would like to see
all the details of the project, in writing, from the applicant.
K. Olson reiterated that if the applicant reviewed the Preservation Brief, it would guide him in the
process of testing and identifying the right combination of lime, sand, cement, water, etc. for repairing
the stucco. Merely applying new stucco to the whole building is not the right approach. The applicant
should study the Preservation Brief and identify a plan that could be agreed to by both parties.
D. Kramer remarked he does not see how the Commission could approve the application without
considerable revision. The applicant lacks a detailed plan for precisely how he would repair the stucco.
J. Guisado replied that the plan is simply to repair the damaged areas of stucco and blend them in with
the rest of the building. If a plan cannot be agree upon this evening, he would need to return to the
owner and indicate that the Commission will not permit the work.
D. Kramer proposed the applicant meet with B. McCracken to prepare a step-by-step proposal for the
work.
J. Guisado asked the Commission allow him to move forward and repair the stucco.
B. McCracken explained to the applicant that the applicant’s definition of “repair” and the
Commission’s definition do not appear to be the same. He encouraged the applicant to meet with him to
design a plan that can be understood and agreed upon by all parties.
K. Olson noted the plan should clearly identify the proposed stucco materials and demonstrate they have
been matched to the historic condition. The Commission currently has no written narrative of the
proposed work.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
26 of 27
J. Guisado replied he has not been very specific, because he does not yet know exactly what he will
encounter. He would be happy to consult with B. McCracken as the project unfolds; but he would prefer
not to allow a whole month to elapse before obtaining any form of approval.
K. Olson stressed that if the applicant works out all the details to B. McCracken’s satisfaction, he would
not need to return to the Commission and wait another month for approval.
B. McCracken indicated he would initiate contact with the applicant tomorrow. It would be helpful if
the applicant could bring the contractor, so the three of them can review the Preservation Brief together.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
V. NEW BUSINESS
Discussion: Proposed Development at 118 & 119 E. Seneca St., Tompkins Financial
Headquarters & Drive-Through
Applicants Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects, and Nathan Brown, HOLT Architects, described the
proposed project, noting it would border the DeWitt Park Historic District. The applicants are providing
the Commission with the opportunity to review the design and provide some feedback.
Project Summary:
The applicant proposes to construct a seven-story, 110,000-SF office building as a new corporate
headquarters at 118 E. Seneca St., and to relocate the existing drive-through teller to the ground-floor
parking area of 119 E. Seneca Street. The new building will have a ground -floor footprint of
approximately 6,600 SF (66’ x 100’) and will include retail services, building core, and other
amenities related to the building. There will be 20-25 parking spaces accommodated on-site to the
north of the ground-floor footprint and under the building overhang. Each floor plate above the
ground floor will be 16,300 SF. The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street
line to align with the adjacent Hilton Garden Inn. 119 E. Seneca Street will include a new 985 -SF
drive-through teller building. Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified to create a teller
window drive-up lane, a vacuum-actuated drive-up teller station, and a through-lane for traffic. In
addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations, a new ATM will be added to the site.
Both sites are in the CBD-100 Zoning District.
M. McGandy remarked the appearance and quality of the building materials will be very important.
Also, while he likes the design of the large building, the proposed canopy seems inappropriate.
K. Olson noted she very much likes the fact the applicant is establishing a visual relationship with the
height of the DeWitt Building.
S. Stein suggested there may be too much black brick on the west side of the building.
D. Kramer observed the upper east side of the building would be very visible, so he would prefer to see
some more fenestration or ornamentation of some kind on that side.
ILPC Minutes
June 9, 2015
27 of 27
B. McCracken suggested that portions of the building could also be made more compatible with the
surrounding houses.
M. McGandy asked the applicants to provide some perspective drawings showing the building from one
or two blocks away.
Update: Eddy Street Sidewalk, East Hill Historic District
B. McCracken displayed a material sample of the slate that will be used for the 218-220 Eddy Street
sidewalk.
Update: Old Library Site, DeWitt Park Historic District
D. Kramer reported that the Tompkins County Old Library Committee recently recommended awarding
the sale of the Old Library site to Travis Hyde Properties. He is concerned with the future of the project,
when it comes before the Commission. He does not see how the proposed project would be compatible
with the Historic District, judging from the elevations.
102 E Court Street
D. Kramer reported that since the Commission reviewed a proposal at its 4/14/15 meeting to repair the
porch, chimney, and deteriorated exterior elements, the project has fallen apart. The contractor (Jerry
Stevenson, McPherson Builders, Inc.) has been dismissed and the project appears to be stalled. B.
McCracken responded he would check with City Prosecutor, Bob Sarachan, about how best to handle
the situation.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by J. Minner, and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with no modifications.
May 12, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:54 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission