HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-12-08Approved by ILPC: January 26, 2016
1 of 13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — December 8, 2015
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Susan Stein
Stephen Gibian
Jennifer Minner
Michael McGandy
Katelin Olson
Ellen McCollister (Common Council Liaison)
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 408 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Install K-Style Gutters
Applicants Peter Rosen and Charlotte Rosen described the proposal, noting they would like to replace
the current half-round gutters with K-style gutters, which they believe would be more effectively handle
roof runoff. Water has been seeping in from the windows and infiltrating the basement. P. Rosen
indicated he does not believe K-style gutters would be less aesthetically pleasing, compared to the
current half-round gutters. The original building did not have even have gutters. The color of the new
gutters would be a better match and they would be significantly easier to maintain. P. Rosen observed
308 N. Cayuga Street (DeWitt Park Inn) has K-style gutters in front of the building, similar to what he
proposes.
S. Gibian observed the applicants appear to assume K-style gutters would hold more water. P. Rosen
replied, yes, from what he was able to determine. S. Gibian responded there is a larger size of half-
round gutter and downspout, which should resolve any concerns about effectiveness.
P. Rosen asked why the DeWitt Park Inn would not have been required to employ half-round gutters. S.
Stein replied that they were likely installed before the Historic District was designated.
C. Rosen indicated the applicants initially hired a contractor to install half-round gutters; however, they
never returned to complete the work. They subsequently hired another company (and paid a non-
refundable deposit), which would only install K-style gutters. She stressed the building is being
destroyed by water intrusion; some windows are even rotting.
E. Finegan noted half round gutters are definitely commonly available. Any contractor should be
capable of installing them. P. Rosen responded that the K-style gutters would appear just as good as the
half-round gutters, better matching the contours of the house.
S. Stein asked if the applicants consulted the Building Division at any point. P. Rosen replied, no. He
consulted his next door neighbors. It did not occur to him the gutters would be an issue.
M. McGandy observed the applicants could obtain half-round gutters and then simply employ a different
contractor to install them.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
2 of 13
J. Minner asked if gutters have been determined to be a character-defining feature in the past. B.
McCracken responded that they are considered a character-defining feature in the City’s Historic
Districts. The Historic District & Landmark Design Guidelines state that half-round gutters should only
be replaced with half-round gutters, unless it is determined that the performance of the historic system is
inadequate. Applicants can calculate the necessary gutter dimensions based on a simple formula
(something the contractor should be doing prior to installation).
P. Rosen asked if the Commission could provide a recommendation for a contractor. B. McCracken
replied he is prohibited from referring anyone to a specific company, but the applicants could consult
Historic Ithaca.
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 S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson.
D. Kramer wondered what the applicants’ contractor’s position would be about the non-refundable
deposit, given that the applicants never had a legal right to install K-style gutters in the first place.
C. Rosen stressed that large amounts of water have been entering the building since June 2015. There
are holes in the gutters and the water falls directly down into the windows.
D. Kramer asked if it would make sense for the Commission to table consideration of the application,
until the applicants can better determine how to proceed.
B. McCracken remarked he could approve the application at the staff level and the applicants would not
have to return to the Commission, assuming half-round gutters are employed. There were no objections.
The application was TABLED.
B. 55 Ridgewood Rd. (Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity), Cornell Heights Historic District Retroactive
Request for Approval of Landscape Sign
Applicant Steven Smolyn described the request, noting the fraternity replaced the sign approved by
Commission last year. The original stacked-stone sign was replaced with a concrete core, covered with
field stone, with a cap around the top of the sign. It matches the house’s ridge lines and window sills.
The date of the fraternity’s founding was also removed to avoid confusion with the street address. The
street address was relocated to the top, above the snowfall level. The sign is the exact same size as the
previously approved sign.
S. Stein remarked she actually prefers it to the earlier sign. E. Finegan agreed it appears more attractive.
K. Olson noted it seems more appropriate than the stacked stone. J. Minner agreed it seems compatible.
M. McGandy asked the applicants why the application was not submitted before the work was done. S.
Smolyn replied that those kinds of decisions are made by the fraternity’s executive board, which was
ignorant of the process.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
3 of 13
B. McCracken cautioned the applicant to avoid any contractors who are willing to perform work without
obtaining a Building Permit.
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 S. Stein
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 55 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 November 13, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Steven Smolyn on behalf of property
owner Pi Kappa Phi Properties, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and
(2) three sheets of architectural drawings and photographs, numbered A01-A03 and dated
November 13, 2015, depicting the installed sign and its context, and
WHEREAS, ILPC staff was notified by the City of Ithaca Building Division after a housing inspection
on October 21, 2015 that the installed sign did not reflect the one reviewed by the ILPC,
for which a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted on October 14, 2014, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 55
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
installation of a masonry monument sign at the base of the driveway, 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
December 8, 2015, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
4 of 13
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, 55 Ridgewood
Road was constructed circa 1918 in the English Revival style. It was originally known as
Green Trees and was the home of Frank L. Morse, president of Morse Chain. The
inventory form states that Morse commissioned Walter Burley Griffin, the well-known
Prairie style architect, to design the house, but Griffin did not complete the commission.
Instead, the home was designed by the New York architectural firm of Trowbridge and
Ackerman, designers of Killenworth, the George DuPont Pratt house in Glen Cove, NY,
and of the 1916 addition to Harvey Firestone’s estate, Harbel Manor, in Akron, OH.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell
Heights Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the
architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the
Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the
principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in
Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,
and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual
property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize
a property will be avoided.
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
December 8, 2015
5 of 13
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 new masonry monument
sign 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 new sign is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
With respect to Standard #10, sign 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.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, J. Minner, S. Gibian, K. Olson, D. Kramer, E. Finegan
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
C. 119 Heights Ct., Cornell Heights Historic District — Proposal to Replace Roof
Applicant François Elvinger described the application, noting when his house was recently inspected the
roof appeared in bad condition. The Building Inspector suggested repairing or replacing it. F. Elvinger
considered various shingles that would look very similar to the existing ones, but with a higher degree of
quality/durability.
Gibian asked why the applicant selected the Slateline® shingle. F. Elvinger replied, it would be an
upgrade from the current shingles — both more durable and aesthetically pleasing.
E. Finegan asked if the Commission ordinarily requires architectural shingles. B. McCracken explained
that he brought the application before the Commission, because it involves a change in detail. He would
not have been comfortable approving it at the staff level.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
6 of 13
S. Gibian asked if it is known what the original roof material was. F. Elvinger replied, wood shingles.
S. Gibian remarked that he examined two of the roof installations cited in the application and he is not
convinced they look entirely like slate. They also seem too large in scale, compared to the existing ones.
J. Minner noted the proposed shingles appear similar enough to what the Commission would ordinarily
approve and seem compatible to her.
B. McCracken asked if the Commission feels comfortable designating future such applications for staff-
level review and approval, as a material replacement-in-kind. J. Minner and S. Stein both replied, yes.
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 D. Kramer, seconded by J.
Minner.
B. McCracken asked if the Commission prefers a particular set of colors for the asphalt shingles. S.
Stein replied that they all seem appropriate.
K. Olson suggested the application be delegated to staff-level approval. There were no objections.
S. Gibian recommended selecting slightly smaller-scale shingles than those proposed.
D. 305 Thurston Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District — Proposal to Construct Shed
B. McCracken explained this agenda item is the continuation of the shed proposal the Commission
initially reviewed last month. He has been working with the applicant to prepare a revised proposal,
which the applicant reviewed and approved, although he could not appear this evening. The applicant
strongly prefers staining the shed, rather than painting it, since it would be easier to maintain. It would
be stained a dark brown or similar color to match the building.
K. Olson replied, brown would be preferable.
S. Gibian remarked it would be preferable to see larger roof overhangs (e.g., 8-12 inches).
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 305 Thurston Ave. 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
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
7 of 13
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, a revised Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, dated November 24, 2015, was submitted for review to
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by James White on behalf of
property owner Seal and Serpent Society, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) 2
drawings of the proposed shed; (3) a site plan showing the location of the proposed shed;
(4) a photograph of the storm damaged shed, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 305
Thurston Ave, 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
construction of a 10’X12’, shed-roof shed with shiplap siding near the southeast corner of
the property, 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
November 10, 2015 and December 8, 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 large Tudor-
Revival Style building at 305 Thurston Ave was constructed between 1927 and 1929 as a
lodge for an independent fraternal organization at Cornell University, the Seal and
Serpent Society.
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 proposed shed will replace a non-contributing shed damaged during a storm in the
summer of 2014.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
8 of 13
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 construction of a shed
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 shed is compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the shed 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,
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
9 of 13
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 shed shall be stained dark brown.
•••• The eaves shall be between 8” and 12”.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, J. Minner, S. Gibian, K. Olson, D. Kramer, E. Finegan
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca, spoke regarding the 400-404 Stewart Ave. (Chapter House)
proposal, noting that Historic Ithaca has some reservations about the current design, as summarized in
Mary Tomlan’s previously submitted written comments to the Commission. The principal objection
relates to incorporating incompatible elements from different historical eras, which were never actually
present in the building at any one time (e.g., mansard roof). The current elevation illustrates large
single-pane windows, but they are framed with wooden surrounds terminating in brackets — an odd
combination of two historical themes.
Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca, spoke regarding the reconstruction of the entryway to the City
Cemetery, and requested that the Commission author a memorandum of understanding between the
Board of Public Works (BPW) and the Commission for future City projects undertaken at the Cemetery
site to avoid the problems associated with the project. While she knows the possibility of designating
the Cemetery a local landmark has been mentioned, it would be helpful in the interim if the Department
of Public Works (DPW) and BPW have a clearer understanding of the restoration process. B.
McCracken replied he would explore what could be done in terms of designating the Cemetery.
Mary Tomlan, 200 Delaware Ave., spoke regarding the reconstruction of the entryway to the City
Cemetery, noting it is unfortunate that detailed project specifications were not identified at the outset.
She believes the Commission’s draft resolution covers important points of bush hammering and the need
to avoid making the stone look distressed and old.
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., Planning and Development Board member, spoke regarding the
reconstruction of the entryway to the City Cemetery, noting he is pleased with the wording of the
Commission’s draft Cemetery resolution.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
10 of 13
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., Planning and Development Board member, spoke regarding the Old
Tompkins County Library project, noting there should be a joint meeting of the Planning Board and the
Commission to discuss all the concerns associated with the project and enable both bodies to better
coordinate the review process.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 406 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District Discussion
Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, presented an update on the proposed project,
noting he has attempted to reference more of the original building. The proposed new building would
feature a recessed porch in front. The design of the middle connecting section on the east side has not
yet been finalized. The roof has also been decreased to two shed dormers. (He is considering more of a
hipped dormer.)
• 400-404 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District Early Design Review
Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, presented an update on the proposed project,
including the latest illustrative rendering and some building materials samples.
M. McGandy recalled that Historic Ithaca raised the question about the availability of simulated divided
light glass on the secondary market. J. Demarest replied that one company, Guardian, actually produces
glass very similar to it in detail. The applicants would either install simulated divided lights or true
divided lights. They are leaning towards installing windows along the entire storefront. The façade
would be raked joint brick, which is similar to what originally existed, with a salmon-shaded mortar
(which may be difficult to match). The stonework would appear like original Llenroc in terms of its
color, but would have a more regularize appearance.
J. Demarest briefly walked through some other recent design changes:
• first floor would be reinforced by bringing the awning roof all around the building
• first-floor design would be more in keeping with the former Chapter House (without industrial steel
windows), with stonework that appears older than the previous layered Llenroc
• area above the first-floor roof would appear more like the original pre-Chapter House building
• south side of the building would include stone
• cornice was further developed, with dentils added
• roof would have a small parapet wall
J. Minner remarked that the false window on the side façade diminishes the design. She strongly
encouraged the applicant to employ true divided lights. She also prefers the less conspicuous-looking
dentils from the earlier design. S. Stein agreed.
M. McGandy indicated he likes the proposal. He appreciates that it is an amalgam of different historical
styles. The intent should not be to merely reconstruct the former Chapter House. The entire building is
being rebuilt, not merely for the purpose of serving the Chapter House. His only reservation would be
that there seems to be too much stone in the empty space on the west side of the building.
S. Gibian suggested a slightly more formal stone may look better.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
11 of 13
• Ithaca City Cemetery Gate — Discussion & Resolution
B. McCracken indicated he drafted a resolution recommending the new stones be bush-hammered in an
orthogonal pattern to replicate the appearance of the original stone.
S. Gibian noted he would like to see a sample of the proposed work. He noticed some of the Cemetery
wall stones were bush-hammered, while many others were not (e.g., some of piers are finished with a
point and not a bush hammer).
Christine O’Malley, Historic Ithaca, reported that she consulted with an expert who explained that once
stone is bush-hammered it becomes vulnerable to the elements, removing the new-looking pale
appearance.
S. Gibian observed that part of the problem is that the stone is Pennsylvania bluestone.
D. Kramer indicated he does not feel qualified to make any decision, at this point in the process.
S. Gibian noted the Commission could approve the resolution with conditions. M. McGandy responded
that the Commission does not have jurisdiction in this case.
D. Kramer reiterated he does not understand all the technical details of the project to justify voting for
the resolution this evening.
B. McCracken indicated he would revise the draft resolution for review at the Commission’s next
meeting.
M. McGandy suggested the Commission also hold a meeting at the Cemetery.
J. Minner recommended pursuing what can be done in terms of designating the Cemetery as a local
landmark. B. McCracken replied that collecting the necessary materials for that should not be too
difficult.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• 312 N. Cayuga St., (Old Tompkins County Public Library), DeWitt Park Historic District —
Preliminary Discussion
Applicants Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, Graham Gillespie,
HOLT Architects, and Frost Travis, Travis Hyde, presented an overview of the proposed project.
G. Gillespie noted the applicants met with various community groups to solicit feedback about the initial
design. The existing building would be demolished down to its foundation, and the new building
incorporated into the adjacent Lifelong site. The design would include considerable new greenspace, as
part of a more accessible public-private space on the south side of the site. The new building would
house a range of rental housing units, targeted to a mixture of ages and income levels. Some covered
parking is now planned for the ground floor, in response to community concerns, but this will reduce the
amount of Lifelong programming and community space. In response to earlier feedback from the
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
12 of 13
Commission, the applicants have sought to improve the relationship of the building to the neighborhood
on the Court Street side (e.g., wood paneling elements, reduced scale).
K. Olson asked how much further set back the Court Street side of the building is, since it was originally
proposed. G. Gillespie replied it is the same as the original proposal.
G. Gillespie noted the Planning Board asked the applicants to reconfigure the garden and greenspace.
K. Michaels explained that the Planning Board objected to the lack of an urban edge, where the garden
had been proposed. She noted both the applicants and the Planning Board believe it would make sense
to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Board and the Commission.
J. Minner asked if the applicants reviewed the Historic District & Landmark Design Guidelines in
generating the design. G. Gillespie replied, only to a limited extent. A defined building footprint needs
to be established before completing that process and creating the details for the elevations. Considerable
development remains to be done.
S. Gibian observed the other buildings on Cayuga Street all vary in how far they are set back, so the
applicants need to identify which ones the proposed building would reference. The Court Street
buildings also possess a variety of depths.
S. Stein noted she would prefer to see the building set back more, so there is more distance between it
and the other buildings.
D. Kramer remarked that the Commission is charged with considering the size, scale, and massing of the
proposed building; however, it still looks massive. It is far too large and does not fit in with the
neighborhood. He would prefer to see the fourth story either more fully articulated or eliminated
entirely. The street wall on the Court Street side is far too imposing.
G. Gillespie replied that eliminating the fourth floor would not be feasible for the applicants, due to
financial considerations.
D. Kramer explained that the Commission conducts its primary, initial review of any proposal based on
design considerations alone. Only if the original proposal is rejected can the applicants return to the
Commission and plead a case of economic hardship.
E. Finegan asked if the applicants could step the upper stories back to any extent. F. Travis replied, yes,
but that square footage would need to be added somewhere else to compensate.
K. Olson agreed with D. Kramer that she would strongly prefer to see the building better articulated
(much like the DeWitt Mall building). S. Gibian agreed.
M. McGandy remarked that, in contrast to what members of the Planning Board expressed to the
applicants, he would prefer the applicants focus on establishing a transition zone, rather than an urban
edge.
E. Finegan suggested the applicants also examine how the building would impact houses on Geneva
Street.
ILPC Minutes
December 8, 2015
13 of 13
K. Olson noted it would be helpful to see more details of how the applicants propose to articulate the
landscaping and park space.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• (Approval of the draft 11/10/15 meeting minutes was deferred.)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Tompkins County Heritage Tourism Implementation Plan
B. McCracken reported that the Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Planning Board is developing a
draft Tompkins County Heritage Tourism Implementation Plan, which Commission members should
feel free to comment on.
• 421 N. Albany St. (former Alpha Phi Alpha site)
B. McCracken reported that the property owner has now hired an architect and submitted preliminary
drawings to renovate the building, which is encouraging news.
• Joint Planning Board & ILPC Meeting
B. McCracken reported that the Commission will hold a joint meeting with the Planning Board at the
regular ILPC meeting on Tuesday, January 12, 2015 to review the Old Tompkins County Public Library
proposal.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission