Loading...
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