HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-09-22Approved by ILPC: October 13, 2015
1 of 10
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — September 22, 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 5:32 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 416-418 E. State St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Install ADA Ramp, Sidewalk,
and Turnaround, Construct Deck and Stairs, and Replace Two Windows and Door
Applicants Cathy De Almeida, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC, and Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest
Architect, presented an overview of the proposed project, which would house a bar, existing and
expanded office space, one apartment, and unoccupied storage as an accessory use to the bar and office
spaces. C. De Almeida stressed the proposed bar would be an intimate and casual venue, towards the
rear of the property, not a nightclub as suggested by some community members. No changes would be
made to the building on the south elevation. The only change to the west elevation would be the
installation of doors in the same style as those in the rest of the building. Phase One of the project
would involve formalizing the parking area and retaining three parking spaces (one of which would be
ADA-accessible). There would also be an ADA-accessible ramp at the front of the property, as well as a
landing/patio area. Phase Two would involve adding a circular driveway in the front (1-way in/out),
which would require adding an additional curbcut. The owner is also prepared to hire a professional
sound engineer to address the noise concerns expressed by some neighbors.
E. Finegan asked if all existing vegetation would be removed from the front of the property. C. De
Almeida replied, yes, but not the existing street trees. Any shrubs would be replaced.
D. Kramer responded that in examining the site plan and parking area drawings, it appears the applicants
would have to remove all three hackberries in that vicinity. S. Gibian agreed.
S. Gibian asked if the applicants would retain the existing stoop and steps in front of the building. C. De
Almeida replied, yes. S. Gibian noted the existing stoop does not appear to meet current ADA standards
for accessibly due to its size.
M. McGandy asked if there were any elevations or specifications for the ramp. C. De Almeida replied,
no.
M. McGandy indicated the Commission does not appear to have enough information to make a
determination at this time.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
2 of 10
C. De Almeida remarked that a 9/22/15 letter to the Commission from the applicants further describes
the project, in particular how it would address the environmental concerns that have been raised.
S. Stein noted she would oppose the circular driveway: there does not seem to be enough space to make
it work. Nor does she see how the 3-car parking space area would work.
J. Demarest replied there are currently 3 legal parking spaces. Although part of that area would be
expanded to plant some vegetation, he believes there should be enough room. He added that the ramp is
not a ramp, per se, but more of a sloped walkway.
E. McCollister noted that, given the site is in a transitional area of the city, she does not see how a bar
situated so close to surrounding residences could be understood to be a satisfactory transition between
the downtown area and the adjacent residential district.
J. Demarest replied that the owner would be in a better position to address that particular issue himself,
but it is a permitted use as-of-right. The applicants intend to be as sensitive as possible to the
surrounding residential neighborhood. They have already had meetings with neighbors to hear some of
their concerns. J. Demarest also stressed that the indoor bar would be designed and operated to contain
any noise, after 10:00 p.m.
D. Kramer observed the site plan depicts a smoking area adjacent to 420 E. State Street. J. Demarest
replied that the site plan was actually developed prior to the applicants receiving feedback on the
project. The applicants will likely try to move the smoking area indoors, if at all possible.
M. McGandy remarked that one positive aspect of the proposal is that the site clearly needs considerable
work; however, neither he, nor any of the other Commission members, would like it to be at the expense
of losing greenspace. He also wonders why the applicant does not relocate the public venue/bar to the
front of the building, which seems to make more sense.
J. Minner asked if the circular driveway is genuinely needed. J. Demarest replied that the intent of the
circular driveway was provide a drop-off/pick-up space for the bar’s clientele.
J. Minner asked why the 3-car parking area is necessary. She suggested the applicants collaborate with
the Argos Inn to provide the two non-ADA accessible spaces. J. Demarest replied that it would be an
after-hours operation, so City Zoning Code requires parking spaces. Shared parking spaces with the
Argos Inn would not be possible.
J. Minner agreed with M. McGandy about the positive potential for rehabilitating the building, but the
proposed alterations to the landscaping seem excessive.
S. Gibian asked where the entrance to the bar would be. J. Demarest replied there would be an entrance
both at the front and rear of the property.
K. Olson asked if the applicants have an easement to accommodate the rear entrance. J. Demarest
replied that is currently being negotiated. The property line may also possibly be relocated.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
3 of 10
K. Olson noted it seems to make more sense to place the ADA-accessible ramp at the rear of the
property, to protect the greenspace in front. J. Demarest replied he believes there was an economic
rationale for locating the ramp in front.
K. Olson asked if an ADA-accessible lift had been considered, near where the windows would be
converted into doors. J. Demarest replied that is possible; however, any kind of development at all
would still require a rear entrance.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
David Halpert, 420 E. State St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting he spent a year
renovating a neighboring property and would never have thought to ask for an expanded parking area in
front, since it is not in keeping with the rest of the Historic District. He remarked that a bar is highly
problematic for the neighbors’ well-being. There would simply be too much noise. Bars inevitably
generate spill-over impacts, in terms of noise, vibrations, smoking, etc. Furthermore, the proposed path
the bar customers would need to traverse to reach the shared parking area is not pedestrian-friendly.
Neil Schill, 108 Schuyler Pl., spoke in opposition to the proposed project and urged the Commission to
reject it, since it fails to meet the criteria for rehabilitation (e.g., paving half of existing available surface
area and removing trees; creating a busy drop-off/pick-up area and generating considerable traffic;
establishing a smoking area, with prevailing winds bringing the smoke to his house). In addition, the
applicants have been uncommunicative with neighbors.
Neha Khanna, 420 E. State St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting it is a residential
neighborhood and the proposed circular driveway is not compatible with the Historic District. Her
property is only 5-6 feet away from 416-418 E. State Street, so noise of any kind would carry over to her
house; noise is very difficult to contain. She remarked the applicants have not been responsive enough
to neighbors’ concerns. Asking people to cross the street late at night to reach the shared parking area is
also a serious safety concern.
Kathrin Achenbach, 108 Schuyler Pl., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting that any
vibrations — noise aside — are felt by nearby residents. It is a fragile environment. She noted the bar’s
customers will inevitably park on Schuyler Place (on which she and her husband already have trouble
finding a parking space.) She has tried to reach out to the applicants, but with no result. She is also
concerned that once the property is established as a bar, there would be little to prevent it from
becoming a techno bar, or similarly loud establishment, in the future.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by S. Stein.
E. Finegan asked if the use of the building is beyond the Commission’s purview. B. McCracken replied,
yes, it is. The use of the building is determined by Zoning. The Commission’s purview is strictly over
any exterior alterations to the property, although there is certainly a relationship between any proposed
use and alterations to the property.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
4 of 10
K. Olson noted she does not believe the Commission has enough information to proceed. D. Kramer
agreed, noting it seems premature to arrive at a decision this evening. He suggested the application be
tabled. S. Stein agreed.
S. Gibian remarked there is very little information about the rear of the property, in particular.
E. Finegan noted the expansion of the parking area in the front of the building is especially problem atic.
J. Demarest responded that the building needs 3 parking spaces to conform to City Zoning Code. Any
conversion of the unoccupied space on the first floor would still require some version of the circular
driveway.
E. McCollister noted it would be far easier to get a Zoning Variance for a residential use.
J. Minner remarked that the applicants would have a more compelling argument to make to the
Commission if they sought a residential use of the property.
The application was tabled.
(D. Kramer departed at 6:28 p.m.)
B. 121 & 123 Heights Ct., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Install Fence
Applicant Bill Demo presented overview of project, noting the proposed fence would match the style of
a fence on the property that was previously approved by the Commission. The proposed fence would
replace an existing wire fence that was erected for the purpose of repelling small animals. It would run
the length of the lot line.
S. Gibian asked if the proposed fence would only run along the side property line. D. Demo replied,
yes. He clarified that there is no fence behind the shed, nor is one planned. The existing fence
terminates at the corner of the shed.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by M.
McGandy.
RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 121 and 123 Heights Court are 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 August 24, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners William and Sarah
Demo and Susan Coombs Hess, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
5 of 10
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four
photographs documenting existing conditions; (3) a map illustrating the location of the
proposed changes; and (4) two quotes for the proposed work, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 121
and 123 Heights Court, 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 the
installation of a 4’ and a 6’ section of red cedar sandwich style fence between the two
properties, 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
September 22, 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, 121 Heights
Court was constructed in the Colonial Revival Style between 1914 and 1915. 123
Heights Court was also constructed in the Colonial Revival Style between 1921 and
1922.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the properties are contributing elements of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
The project under consideration involves the installation of two sections of fence that will
match the style and material of the fence approved by the ILPC for installation at 121
Heights Court in June 2012. A 6’ high red cedar sandwich style fence will be installed
along the property line between the garages at 122. Wait Ave and 123 Heights Court,
from the approximate center point of the north wall of the former to the southwest corner
of the latter. A 4’ high red cedar sandwich style fence with a 4’ high red cedar gate will
be installed along the property line between the southeast corner of the primary residence
at 12 Heights Court and the northwest corner of the garage at 123 Heights Court.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
6 of 10
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 #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 installation of two fence
sections 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 sections are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed fence sections can be removed in the future
without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
7 of 10
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: J. Minner
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, S. Stein
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: D. Kramer
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None.
III. OLD BUSINESS
406 & 408 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District ― Informal Discussion
Applicants Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, and Andrew Sprague, Studio Mosaic
Architecture, walked through a presentation of the proposal, noting the site plan depicts the shared
elevator and stairway between the two buildings. As initially presented at the last Commission meeting,
the proposal remains to demolish 408 Stewart Avenue and construct a single, larger building on both
parcels.
A. Sprague noted one can see the connectors between the different portions of the building, recessed
towards back of building, on the elevations. The proposal is for a 4-story building, designed to be more
consistently integrated with the rest of the Historic District. The new building would borrow numerous
elements from existing surrounding buildings (e.g., gabled roof, half-arch in entryway). 408 Stewart
Avenue would be maintained above-grade, with two risers. The current proposal also slightly increases
the distance between 408 Stewart Avenue and 410 Stewart Avenue, serving to make the entire elevation
on Stewart Avenue considerably less imposing than the earlier proposal.
K. Olson responded that the fact remains that 408 Stewart Avenue is a contributing building. A.
Sprague replied that 408 Stewart Avenue was at one point covered with vinyl siding, which detracts
from its visual quality. The proposed new building would borrow features from the original building,
like the divided lights and existing door, recreating much of what 408 Stewart Avenue would originally
have looked like, without the vinyl siding. He stressed that any kind of original architectural detail on
408 Stewart Avenue is essentially gone. It is the applicants’ contention that all the details that made 408
Stewart Avenue a contributing building have been removed or lost.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
8 of 10
J. Minner observed that if the applicants retained the existing structure, they could benefit from historic
tax credits. J. Demarest replied that, to do that, they would need to completely renovate the existing
shell of the two building. He added that the proposed new streetscape/elevation would be much-
improved, with the glass connectors helping to break up and differentiate the building’s massing.
S. Gibian remarked it would be a better proposal without the top connector. J. Demarest replied the
applicants could conceivably build an internal unit between those floors.
K. Olson asked if the applicants compared the height in feet of the proposed new building with that of
the existing 408 Stewart Avenue building. J. Demarest replied the proposed building would probably
only be an additional 9-10 feet in height.
B. McCracken noted that the proposal alters the visual rhythm of the streetscape. In the rendering at
least, it appears and reads as one large block.
M. McGandy asked if the Commission would really prefer to see a knock-off of the historical building.
It seems to him to be a case of false historicity. He is not sure if that is the right approach.
J. Minner responded that the proposed building does look different from original; it would also be
difficult for a building with entirely new architecture to meet the compatibility standard. She personally
struggles with allowing the last remnant of the three buildings to be eliminated. She would like to retain
at least some of the history of the buildings.
K. Olson stated that she does not currently support demolishing 408 Stewart Avenue, since it remains a
functional building. Although its appearance has admittedly evolved into a more vernacular style, that is
not to say it retains no intrinsic historic value. She believes the applicants could take certain steps to
restore some of 408 Stewart Avenue’s former glory.
J. Demarest remarked that although 408 Stewart Avenue remains a viable building, it is also a fire trap.
The initial motivation behind the proposal was to address the fire safety issues associated with the
building, but in an economically feasible way.
K. Olson noted she very much appreciates the seriousness of the fire safety issue; however, there are
numerous historic preservation-friendly alternatives that would be less radical than the current proposal.
B. McCracken cautioned that if the Commission were to accept the applicants’ argument and approve
the demolition, it would likely trigger many similar proposals, merely on the basis of a given building
being a fire trap.
S. Gibian remarked that the building is an eyesore, at best. He does not believe there is much to salvage.
He would probably vote for the demolition.
M. McGandy stressed to the applicants that they will need to provide an exhaustive amount of detail to
support the argument for demolition, since it is functional building.
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
9 of 10
IV. NEW BUSINESS
400-404 Stewart Ave., The Chapter House, East Hill Historic District ― Informal Design
Discussion
J. Demarest walked through a presentation of the proposal, noting the original pre-Chapter House
building was the inspiration for design. Current zoning regulations permit a 30-foot tall building, which
would allow a third floor. He noted the Chapter House was somewhat of a mixture of architectural
styles. The current proposal would reconstitute certain elements of the Chapter House (e.g., interior
space, ambiance, bar and event space). J. Demarest explained that the owner is committed to the
reconstruction and wants to re-open by this time, or sooner, next year; so the project definitely needs to
move forward. He noted a Zoning Variance may be required, depending on whether the project would
be considered an extension or enlargement of the demolished building. The applicants may return to the
Commission with a proposal that has flat roof, but that allows the possibility of a third floor and
mansard roof. The better option would be the dormers, but that may trigger a Zoning Variance
requirement. There are several difficult issues to resolve.
E. Finegan noted that he prefers the appearance of the original building to that of the Chapter House.
J. Minner noted her sense is that the façade was a beloved part of the Chapter House.
S. Stein indicated she thinks it is an attractive proposal. She would have no objections.
S. Gibian observed it appears the Commission would be asked to approve a 4-story building. J.
Demarest replied, yes, that is the ultimate plan.
Ithaca City Cemetery: Stone Wall Replacement — Update
B. McCracken reported that part of a stone wall at the Ithaca City Cemetery that was damaged by a car
accident was recently replaced in a manner which generated some criticism from various members of
the community. Unlike the original stones, which featured a rough, hammered finish, the new stones
feature a sharp, cut finish. The Cemetery is not a locally designated landmark, so the alterations did not
require the Commission’s approval. An on-site meeting has been scheduled for interested participants to
view the new stone and find a solution which would address people’s concerns.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with three minor modifications.
August 11, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None
ILPC Minutes
September 22, 2015
10 of 10
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:55 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission