HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-06-14Approved by ILPC: July 12, 2016
1 of 12
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — June 14, 2016
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian
Jennifer Minner
Michael McGandy
Katelin Olson
Susan Stein
Nancy Brcak, Alternate
Seph Murtagh (Common Council Liaison)
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 201 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District Proposal to Enlarge a Basement Window to Meet
Egress Requirements
Applicants Paul Karakantas, owner, and Chris Anagnost, Christopher George Real Estate, described the
details of the application. C. Anagnost explained that the building is a two-story, 1880s Victorian style
house, which has served as a rental property for many years. It received numerous housing inspections
and Certificates of Compliance. The basement room has historically been used as a rec room and family
room; however, a recent Building Inspection revealed the room never received Housing Board of
Review approval for its low ceiling height. The State Division of Code Enforcement and
Administration’s Board of Review then ruled that the basement could in fact be used as a bedroom;
however, the City indicated a Zoning Variance would first be required, which was ultimately granted.
At that point, it was discovered one of the basement windows does not meet emergency egress
requirements. P. Karakantas then worked with B. McCracken to identify a window that would conform
with both the Commission’s standards and Building Code requirements (i.e., lowering the existing
window far enough so it is no more than 44 inches off the floor, removing some stones, and replacing
the stone lintel). C. Anagnost stressed that the house sits significantly above street-level, so when the
bushes outside are in bloom the windows would not be visible to the public. (The applicants submitted
additional photographs of vegetation around the windows.) Karakantas noted he is proposing a Marvin
Integrity window, with a casement egress and 36 36-inch opening.
M. McGandy asked if the principal issue with the egress requirement concerns the basement being
generally habitable, or is it that the basement would be converted into a bedroom. P. Karakantas replied,
because it is a habitable space. M. McGandy observed that if the Commission does not approve the
alteration, then the owner would be out of compliance. P. Karakantas replied that is correct. He would
simply not be able to use the room.
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 K.
Olson.
S. Gibian observed the draft resolution indicates the sill would be maintained in its current
configuration. P. Karakantas replied that is correct. S. Gibian asked if the installation of the window so
deep into the wall would interfere with its operation. P. Karakantas replied, no.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
2 of 12
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 201 Stewart Ave. is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section
228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State
and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated May 10, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Paul Karakantas, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a floor plan of the basement level of the property; (3) 7
sheets of product information for two different proposed materials; (4) a Decision
(Petition No. 20145-0524) from the New York State Division of Code Enforcement and
Administration; and (5) 5 sheets of photographs documenting existing conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
201 Stewart Ave., and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
enlarging a basement-story window to meet egress requirements, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts
of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
June 14, 2016, 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 East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-
1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Folk-
Victorian Style residence at 201 Stewart Ave. was constructed between 1882 and 1893.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
3 of 12
The project involves enlarging and replacing a basement-story window on a highly
visible secondary elevation along E. Seneca St. Several courses of stones that comprise
the foundation will be removed from below the existing window opening and a larger
window will be installed. The existing window is a replacement unit and does not
contain any historic fabric. The larger window is require by Building Code to allow for a
change in use of the basement space.
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.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the window enlargement will
remove a minimal amount of distinctive materials but will not alter features and spaces
that characterize the property. The ILPC notes that the proposed replacement will not
result in the loss of a historic wood window sash as the window is already a modern
replacement unit. The visual impact of the alteration is mitigated by the enlargement of
the window downward without the need for a window well, its location on a secondary
elevation, and the retention of the existing grade and vegetation around the window. The
ILPC also considered the historic use of the basement as a habitable space and the need to
enlarge the window to allow this use in the 21st century.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
4 of 12
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed window is compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. The ILPC finds that the proposed fiberglass window is appropriate in this
application due to its near-grade location and its potential contact with water splash-back
and soil, which could promote and accelerate rot of a wood window.
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 201 Stewart
Ave. and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
A fiberglass, Marvin Integrity window shall be installed.
The window shall be set back from the face of the foundation the same depth as the
existing window to preserve the historic planar relationship between the foundation
and window.
The existing stone sill shall be re-installed in the new window opening, preserving the
dimensions of the sill horns and sill depth, and the new window surround will be
wood and will have the same dimensions and configuration as the existing.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
B. 318 S. Geneva St., Henry St. John Historic District — Proposal to Enlarge Existing Garage
Applicants John Barradas and George Hascup described the details of the proposal, noting they listened
to the Commission’s initial feedback at its May 2016 meeting. As a result of that meeting, they now
propose retaining and raising the hipped roof, but maintaining the same building footprint. The garage
is so deteriorated that all four walls would need to be reinforced. To avoid confusing the visual
historicism of the two parts of the building, the second-story windows would not reference the windows
below. J. Barradas stressed that, although a 1910 car could have navigated through one of the existing
doors, that is no longer possible with most contemporary vehicles. The applicants propose to install one
large door, with similar geometries as the existing door panels, in a single 16’6”7’door opening. The
building materials would be very similar to the existing ones, including shingles and stucco siding. The
existing soffited perimeter drip-edge would be restored, with a similar one on the second level. They are
still waiting to identify some structural elements, but they did provide the Commission with a framing
plan for the hipped roof, which would preserve the historic roof form.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
5 of 12
G. Hascup explained it is a double lot. The initial proposal was for a three-bay garage, but this was
changed based on feedback from Commission during Early Design Review. The wider garage door in
the revised proposal would provide the same function.
J. Minner observed that the door configuration is the last remaining aspect of the building that relates to
its historical significance, so she would be concerned with eliminating it. G. Hascup replied that the
proposed door would be the same size as the two original doors and panelized in the same way, but
merely missing the post in between the two.
J. Minner noted the change in the openings is more significant than anything the Commission would
ordinarily approve.
G. Hascup responded that the two existing doors are each about 7-feet wide, but they do not function
because the lintel above the garage is sagging. He noted the house next door features the same
panelized door as the one proposed for the larger opening.
K. Olson observed that a 1910 garage would have had a sliding door. It is important to remember the
Henry St. John Historic District designation survey for the property identified the garage as significant,
so the proposed alteration would be substantial. The proposed new building looks nothing like the
existing building. She could not imagine approving it, as currently proposed.
M. McGandy noted the applicants mentioned the sagging lintel and the need to reinforce the walls. He
asked if there is anything associated with preserving the building that actually requires the proposed
alterations. G. Hascup replied that the base of building would be conserved/restored, under his proposal.
The profile of the existing building would also be recreated (e.g. roof profile, spandrel, stucco quality,
window proportions). He noted all the surrounding secondary historic structures are 2-3 times the
garage’s scale. Making it squarer in proportion would actually make it fit better into the neighborhood.
K. Olson noted the garage was specifically built as a vehicular garage (compared to the others in the
Historic District that were built as carriage barns) and it was partly for that reason it was identified as a
contributing structure.
J. Minner asked if the applicants received any comments from neighbors (especially since the project
would block a stained-glass window of an adjoining property). G. Hascup replied that both Beverly
Baker and Irv Lewis [sp.] had no objections to the project.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner seconded by S. Gibian, 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.
J. Minner wondered if a creative solution would not still be possible. She observed that although the
garage is a contributing structure, it is a secondary contributing structure.
S. Stein remarked that elevating the garage to a second level changes its entire appearance, which seems
inappropriate.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
6 of 12
M. McGandy observed it is a case of an adaptive use being driven by the evolution in automobile
design. The applicants’ strongest argument is that they need to alter the existing structure to
accommodate modern cars; however, that does not argue for adding the second floor.
D. Kramer noted the structural integrity of the garage is in serious danger, which the proposal would
address; so that should be recognized.
E. Finegan noted none of the Commission members appears to support the second-floor addition.
S. Gibian noted the revised proposal at least preserves the original appearance of the garage more than
original proposal.
K. Olson indicated she would be willing to approve the second story, as long as the door opening were
preserved. She would be willing to allow a wider opening for the door if the second story was not
added. She stated that the roof form and the door opening were two of the remaining character defining
feature of the structure and, therefore, could not imagine approving both alterations
G. Hascup responded it does not make sense to maintain the garage at one story, but the applicants could
probably devise a way of retaining the existing door width and configuration.
M. McGandy indicated he could accept that compromise. S. Stein agreed. No objections were raised.
D. Kramer noted there should be a condition requiring the state of the existing building to be fully
documented. J. Barradas agreed to do so.
RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 318 S. Geneva St. is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 2, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by John Barradas, AIA on behalf of property owners
George Hascup, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one sheet of
architectural drawings; (3) 2 sheets of product specifications for the proposed garage
door; and (4) a sheet of product specifications for a proposed structural member, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 318 S. Geneva St., and the City of Ithaca’s Henry St.
John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
construction of an one-story addition on top of a contributing automotive garage and
combining the existing two door openings to create one large 16’ opening, and
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
7 of 12
WHEREAS, the project was revised by the applicant based on feedback from the Commission at the
meeting to include the construction of a one-story addition and the replacement of the
garage doors—the garage door opening will not be combined as originally proposed, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts
of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
June 14, 2016, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, 318 S. Geneva St. was constructed in c. 1916
and is a good example of a modest Classical Revival style residence. The property’s
early automotive garage was constructed between 1919 and 1924.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high levels of integrity, the residence and garage are contributing elements
of the Henry St. John Historic District.
The project under consideration impacts the property’s contributing garage, which retains
a high level of historic integrity. Apart from the replacement doors, the garage possesses
its original form and massing, stucco cladding, and hipped roof form. It does, however,
exhibit condition issues that are not likely the result of deferred maintenance but do
threaten the long-term survival of the structure. The issues include cracks in the
structural clay tile walls and sagging roof rafters. The proposed modifications to the
building will address these issues.
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
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
8 of 12
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 proposed addition and
door replacement will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and
spaces that characterize the property. The ILPC notes that the proposed modifications to
the garage as amended at the meeting the simple form and massing of the original garage
while adding an appropriate new mass on top. All salvageable components of the
original garage, including the walls, windows and historic door openings, are being
preserved. The addition will not result in the loss of historic roof materials as the original
roof rafters are deflected and would likely result in the total replacement of the roof
structure. The historic low-slope, hipped-roof form will be recreated on the new addition,
preserving the historic form of this element.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed addition and
replacement doors are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the addition can be removed in the future without
impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Henry St.
John Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
9 of 12
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 existing garage shall be fully documented with measured drawings and
photographs, and the documentation materials shall be submitted to ILPC staff
prior to the commencement of work.
All exterior finish materials, including roof shingles, wall cladding and trim, and
doors and windows, shall be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff.
The second-story addition shall be clad in coursed wood shingles to match those
found on the second story of the principal structure.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: J. Minner
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
David Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., and recused Commission member speaking as a private citizen,
spoke in opposition to the proposed 310-314 N. Cayuga St. (Old Tompkins County Public Library)
project, noting it is the most significant project the Commission has reviewed during his tenure on the
Commission. It is critical that the right design be approved. The current design is simply the wrong
size, massing, and scale to be historically compatible for the site. He urged the Commission to be
rigorous in applying the City’s Historic District & Landmark Design Guidelines.
Sara Schaffzin, 313 Utica St., spoke in opposition to the proposed 310-314 N. Cayuga St. (Old
Tompkins County Public Library) project, noting she has been trying to visualize the building. She
believes it would be inappropriate compared with the surrounding building heights and massings. It
would also be too visually jarring for pedestrians. It needs to serve as a more harmonious transition
from the downtown area to Cayuga Street.
Anna Kelles, 139 Linn St., spoke in opposition to the proposed 310-314 N. Cayuga St. (Old Tompkins
County Public Library) project, noting she agrees with the previous speakers. The project is too great a
departure from the Commission’s standards (e.g., set-back, parking lot, massing). It is not an
appropriate design for this particular site.
John Barradas, 404 E. Seneca St., spoke in support of the proposed 310-314 N. Cayuga St. project
(Old Tompkins County Public Library).
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
10 of 12
B. McCracken announced he also received written comments about the project from the following
people: Joan and David Brumberg, Camille Doucet, John Graves, Nancy Medsker, David Kramer,
Elizabeth Elliot Reed, Tom Seaney, Edie Spaulding, and Robert Stundtner.
III. OLD BUSINESS
310-314 N. Cayuga St. (Old Tompkins County Public Library), DeWitt Park Historic District
— Early Design Review
(D. Kramer recused himself from consideration of the proposed project.)
Applicants Graham Gillespie and Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects, Frost Travis, county selected preferred
developer, and Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, described the
details of the proposal, noting the design has changed significantly since it was first introduced to both
the Commission and the Planning and Development Board. With the feedback they received, the
applicants explored different building footprints, degrees of building articulation, and streetscape
designs. After the most recent joint-Commission and Planning Board meeting, it was conveyed to the
applicants that the massing still needed significantly more articulation.
K. Michaels noted the proposed building footprint includes the open space in front of the DeWitt Park
Inn, keeping the garden space and a portion of the wall untouched. The applicants invested considerable
time in sidewalk and streetscape design. The current design includes the same set-backs proposed at the
last Commission meeting, since the applicants received positive feedback about them. The building
aligns its Cayuga Street façade with the DeWitt Park Inn façade, and then juts out at the Court Street and
Cayuga Street corner. There had been considerable debate about the open surface-level parking
dedicated to the Lifelong tenant; however, Lifelong is no longer being integrated into the project, so the
open parking lot is no longer part of the project. All 25 proposed parking spaces would be inside, on the
first floor.
S. Hugo remarked that the applicants believe the design is compatible with the Historic District &
Landmark Design Guidelines. He noted the DeWitt Park Historic District is recognized as having a
diverse building stock, in terms of the size, scale, and types of buildings, containing a number of
architectural juxtapositions. Several churches in the neighborhood are even larger and taller than the
proposed building, as are both the Cayuga Apartments building and the DeWitt Building. There is,
therefore, already an existing context in the Historic District for larger buildings. S. Hugo noted the
applicants have been developing a tripartite expression on the building elevations. The building
materials would include the stone, clapboard, and brick prevalent in so much of the Historic District.
The base of the building would be heavier masonry, reflecting the church across the street.
E. Finegan expressed serious concerns with the proposed building set-back. It does not make sense to
align the building with the other buildings on Cayuga Street and Court Street. If anything, the building
should have the same set-back as the current Old Library, with a significant distance between the
building and the street.
S. Hugo responded that the First Presbyterian Church has a set-back of less than 10 feet, so it is virtually
right on the street, much like the residences across the street. In comparison, the proposed building’s
set-back is considerably greater.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
11 of 12
K. Michaels added the applicants are trying to achieve the right balance between activating the street-
level portion of the building and creating a reasonably generous streetscape that people feel comfortable
in. Moving the first-floor active-level uses further from the street would detract from that goal.
J. Minner observed the proposed building makes a strong architectural statement, but it does so using a
wide variety of building materials that are not consistent with the Historic District’s other buildings.
She would prefer not to see so many different building materials; they only make the building stick out
more.
S. Hugo replied that the applicants would certainly be willing to discuss some of those kinds of issues.
The applicants made an effort to break down the scale of the building through the use of materials, but it
does not necessarily have to be done in that way.
N. Brcak agreed with J. Minner that the combination of building materials appears too much like a
pastiche. Regarding the first floor, she suggested the applicants retain it where it is now at street-level,
but create set-backs for the floors above. The lawn area in the section facing Cayuga Street could also
be reduced.
K. Olson indicated she likes the proposed building, but not for this particular site. She stressed it is a
residential neighborhood, so the building would actually be pushing into the residential portion of the
Historic District.
S. Murtagh remarked that the City’s newly-adopted Comprehensive Plan explicitly designates the site
for “Urban Mixed-Use” development. The site also lies in a Central Business District (CBD) Zoning
District. The City is therefore quite comfortable considering the block as an urban-mixed use area. He
believes a project of its size is compatible with the residential neighborhood. In principle, it should
certainly be possible to develop a large building in an historically appropriate way. He agreed with
earlier comments about the profusion of types of building materials.
J. Minner noted she does not object to mixed-use development on the site, but it needs to be as
deferential as possible to the surrounding properties. It should ‘defer down’ to them in a more subdued
and elegant fashion.
K. Olson remarked that it is an interesting design and she is not opposed to mixed-use development on
the site; however, it is not sympathetic to its surroundings. The Commission’s purview is to protect the
integrity of the Historic District. The proposed building could be envisioned virtually anywhere: it does
not look unique to this particular part of the city.
K. Michaels asked for a definition of “sympathetic.” K. Olson replied that judging the massing, size,
and scale of the building should be the first step in determining the extent to which it is sympathetic with
its surroundings. The size of the proposed building does not relate to the neighborhood around it. She
suggested staggering the building; and she would support the applicants’ asking the City for approval of
taller building, if that would allow the design to be more sympathetic.
E. Finegan reiterated that the set-back is his principal objection to the project. He would not object to a
taller building, either.
ILPC Minutes
June 14, 2016
12 of 12
F. Travis noted that while applying for a Zoning Variance is certainly conceivable, there is a great
degree of uncertainty associated with that.
S. Murtagh observed that when Common Council changed the zoning regulations for that part of the
city, it discussed how tall buildings should be permitted to be and it (ironically) decided on 50 feet
partially out of deference to the Historic District.
N. Brcak suggested simplifying the building design as much as possible, with perhaps only two kinds of
building materials. She would prefer masonry. The Cayuga Apartments building is a good model or
inspiration for improving the design.
S. Stein agreed with all the prior comments made by Commission members. She observed that the
building’s massing has remained virtually unchanged since it was first conceived. She agreed the
building should be simplified and that the Cayuga Apartments building is a more complementary use of
space.
M. McGandy indicated he would like to see more daylight and transparency on the Court Street façade.
The horizontality of the current design overwhelms its verticality and it looks too busy. It still looks like
an imposing wall. The design has been improving, however; and it feels like a step forward.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by J. Minner, seconded by K. Olson, Commission members approved the following meeting
minutes, with no modifications.
May 10, 2016 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Historic Ithaca Day
B. McCracken announced the following event, celebrating Historic Ithaca’s 50th anniversary:
Historic Ithaca Day
Monday, June 20, 2016, 4:45–6:30 PM
The State Theatre, 107 W. State St./M.L.K., Jr. St.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:32 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission