Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-07-12Approved by ILPC: August 9, 2016 1 of 11 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — July 12, 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. — JOINT DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD — I. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION & PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD Present: Planning & Development Board: Garrick Blalock, Chair John Schroeder, Vice-Chair Robert Aaron Lewis Matthew Johnston Jack Elliott John Schroeder Mackenzie Jones-Rounds Lisa Nicholas, Staff JoAnn Cornish, Staff Presentation & Joint Discussion: 310-314 N. Cayuga St. (Old Tompkins County Public Library), DeWitt Park Historic District — Revised Proposal Applicants Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects, Frost Travis, Travis Hyde Properties (County-selected preferred developer), and Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, described the details of the revised proposal. K. Michaels explained the proposal was modified in direct response to the Commission’s prior concerns with the set-back and placement of building, the ‘busy- ness’ of the building materials and façade design, and the first-floor fenestration. K. Michaels noted the applicants removed three feet of the building along the Court Street side and moved the building closer to the property line adjacent to the DeWitt Park Inn, allowing 30 feet from curb-to-building. S. Hugo remarked the Commission raised concerns that the building did not pay enough deference to the larger buildings and single-family homes in the Historic District, so the applicants have been trying to address both types of buildings. They simplified the building materials — a granite base, first-floor limestone walls, beige brick on the second and third floors, and horizontal fiber cement board siding on the fourth floor — and selected lighter colors and shades. The façade’s tripartite form has been emphasized and the roofline simplified. The protruding balconies have been removed and replaced with Juliette balconies. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 2 of 11 M. Jones-Rounds remarked the prior design seems superior to the current design (e.g., degree of articulation, Court Street set-back, wood siding), since it conveyed a more human-oriented scale. The colors and articulation of the current design seem somewhat bland. E. Finegan asked how many more feet the building was set back on the Court Street side. K. Michaels replied, seven. E. Finegan observed the proposed building would be 30 feet closer to the street than the existing Old Library building. The Cayuga Street side of the building would be 25 feet closer to the street than the Old Library building, which is 50 feet away. The overall footprint of the building has only shrunk by approximately 1%, since it was first proposed. It remains massive, from a pedestrian’s perspective. S. Hugo responded that the discussion at the last meeting revolved around the other large buildings in the Historic District (e.g., Tompkins County Court House, Tompkins County Old Jail), which have set- backs of around 30 feet. The applicants have been seeking a middle ground in determining the set- backs. The project should be evaluated in comparison to the buildings throughout the Historic District, not just those immediately near the project site. S. Gibian noted he measured the sizes and set-backs of eight buildings in the area. The most comparable one he found was the Beverly J. Martin Elementary School, with an average set-back of 33 feet. Approximately 30 feet is probably the ideal comfort zone for a building the size of the one being proposed. The only building in the area larger than the proposed building is the DeWitt Mall. Also, it appears the upper floors have not changed at all in terms of their distance from the street. K. Olson remarked she was struck by the degree to which the Commission still remains unclear about the perceived size of the building, in comparison with other properties. She suggested the Commission consider the number of cubic feet of developable volume of the site (the parcel length multiplied by the parcel width multiplied by the height allowed by zoning) versus the volume of the proposed building (the average building length multiplied by the building width, multiplied by the building height) would actually occupy. She calculated the building would occupy 1,042,000 cubic feet versus 2,000,000 cubic feet of developable space, representing about 54% of available space, while the DeWitt Mall only uses 38% and the DeWitt Inn 10.4%. She asked B. McCracken to provide tax maps to help the Commission better grasp the sense of scale. J. Schroeder asked how far back the façade is from the curb on the Court Street side. S. Hugo replied, 30 feet. K. Michaels added that the garage portion is 23.75 feet from the curb. J. Schroeder indicated he appreciates the greater amount of green space between the building and the street, although he would like the garage portion pushed back more. There should also be planting beds with mid-story plantings between the street trees and the building, to soften the overall visual impact of the building. The current design definitely seems bland and institutional-looking. He suggested adding sun shades to add some visual interest. The proposed limestone can be very flat and plain-looking, so it should probably be articulated and textured in some way. The proposed paneling system risks looking too much like clapboard, which seems inappropriate for this building. He also suggested enlarging the Juliette balconies, with a little more projection. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 3 of 11 J. Minner agreed the building seems institutional-looking (e.g., the top floor looks a little like a dormitory). She asked if the first floor would be clad in genuine limestone. S. Hugo replied that the design does currently depict genuine limestone, although the applicants are considering using cast stone. J. Minner noted the Commission typically requires identification of all building materials. The rooftop mechanicals also need to be better defined. She does not like the proposed fiber cement board siding. F. Travis noted the Juliette balconies would include a railing and would be accessible through a full- sized door. Further details remain to be worked out. N. Brcak suggested the applicants create some more attractive and elegant fenestration patterns. A more prominent cornice would also help to improve the building. She noted the Commission still has not seen the roof-top mechanicals, which can make a great difference to its appearance and impact on the community. E. Finegan suggested the applicants also preserve some existing landscaping. K. Michaels explained that the amount of building volume is not something that can significantly change. It needs to be a four-story building with 57 units. F. Travis noted if it turns out that the project cannot move forward, that decision should probably be made now. He reiterated the footprint cannot change significantly. G. Blalock observed the crux of the conflict seems to be between the County and the Commission, rather than the Planning Board. J. Schroeder remarked that the Planning Board could require certain modifications to the project through the Environmental Review process. He urged the applicants to step back the top floor. R. Lewis indicated he is not particularly concerned with the size of the building. His principal concern is the design. M. Darling agreed with R. Lewis. He is not enthusiastic about the design. M. Johnston also agreed. J. Elliott suggested a discussion probably needs to take place with the County, if it appears the applicant cannot meet City requirements. He could personally accept the current set-backs and step-backs. The project seems fairly close to something the Planning Board could accept. M. Jones-Rounds indicated she would support a Zoning Variance to allow the building one more floor in height, which should help resolve many of the concerns that have been expressed. She would prefer breaking the building up and making it smaller, but most concerns could probably be addressed with more innovative design elements. J. Cornish explained that the applicants would most likely not receive a Zoning Variance. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 4 of 11 Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. B. McCracken reported he received written comments about the project from the following people: David Kramer, Sara Schaffzin, John Graves, Maude Rith, Don McNerney, George Dillmann, Jennifer Birnbaum, Tom Seaney, Lisken Cordes, Daniel Keough, Nancy Medsker, and Historic Ithaca. David Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., and recused Commission member speaking as a private citizen, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting he anticipated the conflict that has emerged between what the County originally approved and the Commission’s own requirements. The principal problem is that it is simply too large for the site. It should be reduced by a third or perhaps even by half. Sara Schaffzin, 315 Utica St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting if the project were to go before the County Legislature today for approval there would likely be a different outcome. She believes K. Olson’s cubic-foot comparisons makes a lot of sense. Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, spoke regarding the proposed project, emphasizing that the County consulted with the City on the zoning regulations and general City plans for the site, before issuing the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the project. The County also submitted five proposals to the Commission in January 2015 to obtain its feedback and this project was one of two projects the Commission appeared reasonably comfortable with. Considerable amounts of time, money, and effort have been invested in the project, based on the assumption it could be approved. The site has languished for almost 20 years. He stressed it is an ideal location for housing and would generate a considerable benefit to the community. Camille Doucet, 30 Marsh Rd., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the scale, massing, and style do not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. She would also very much like to see the magnificent oak trees on the north side preserved. Thomas Seaney, 308 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Inn, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the building’s size and massing preclude it from being compatible with the neighborhood. Nancy Medsker, 308 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Inn, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting she has been involved in the redevelopment process for the site from the very beginning. The County Legislature was forewarned about approving too large a building for the Historic District. The STREAM Collaborative/Franklin Properties adaptive re-use project proposal would have been superior and more easily approved. The applicant has also not provided depictions of what the building would look like in relation to the buildings around it. The existing landscaping and trees should be preserved; they are both important to the Historic District. Thomas Shelley, 118 E. Court St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting he lives nearby. The massing and scale issues need to be resolved. It is too large and out-of-scale with the neighborhood. John Lewis, Historic Ithaca, Executive Director, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the requirements of the County and the various other governmental bodies appear to be in serious conflict with each other. While a more innovative design could conceivably overcome some of the issues, the massing and scale of the building remain a critical consideration. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 5 of 11 Thomas Glecker [sp.], Utica St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting it seems the project is being needlessly rushed through the approval process. The public has not had enough information about the project or time to prepare. The design leaves a great deal to be desired. Linda Godfrey, 415 N. Cayuga St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the project’s scale is a critical issue for the Historic District. She would like to see some detailed visual depictions of the building to get a better sense of its massing. Susan Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., owner of 118 W. Court St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the County could have chosen another viable project, but the County Legislature seemed to favor the applicant’s design. There is no reason a building that meets all the criteria could not be approved. The building needs to be smaller. John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., Planning and Development Board member, spoke regarding the proposed project, noting the Planning Board did try to be proactive when it passed a resolution in June 2015 supporting the Franklin Properties/STREAM Collaborative project. The County, therefore, did have some additional feedback from the City. (J. Elliott departed at 7:01 p.m.) There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by J. Minner. J. Minner recalled several Commission members favored the Franklin Properties/STREAM Collaborative adaptive re-use project at its January 2015 meeting. While some Commission members also supported the applicant’s project, that was based on the initial design and the limited amount of information available at that time. She suggested the Commission consider denying the application; and perhaps a Zoning Variance could then be considered. K. Michaels responded that the applicants would like to move forward with the project, if there is any conceivable way to do so. There is no reason the building cannot be large and also fit in with the neighborhood. She asked if the Commission sees any way to mitigate the building’s impact, while retaining the number of living units. J. Schroeder noted the building would be more compatible with the Historic District if the upper floor were stepped back (or even just portions of it). Additional amenities could be added to that floor (e.g., rooftop garden) to compensate for the loss of square footage. On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Darling, and unanimously approved, the Planning Board portion of the meeting was adjourned. Certificate of Appropriateness Deliberations by ILPC K. Olson referred the Commission to the tax maps depicting the building footprints in the area. She reiterated that the building is too large; although she would not oppose a taller building, if it were designed appropriately. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 6 of 11 S. Hugo asked K. Olson if she examined the Cayuga Apartments building when performing her volumetric calculations. K. Olson replied, no. E. Finegan noted, at this juncture, the Commission needs to decide if it will accept the massing, scale, and set-backs of the proposed building. S. Murtagh asked if the applicants could return with another proposal, if the application were denied. B. McCracken replied, yes. F. Travis remarked he would like to know whether the Commission categorically objects to the current size, massing, and scale of the building, so he can determine how he will proceed. K. Michaels suggested one potential option would be to move the whole Court Street massing to the other side (although that would impact the DeWitt Park Inn). She noted that approach would probably not, however, change the essential nature of the earlier volumetric discussion. M. McGandy remarked that the Commission anticipated the applicant would eventually reduce the number of proposed living units and usable space, but it does not sound like that will be possible. F. Travis replied the current proposal includes everything the applicant absolutely needs to achieve (i.e., volume of rentable square feet) for the project to be financed and financially feasible. M. McGandy observed the issue is not necessarily exclusively the building’s size, per se — the building materials are also a highly significant component of the project. It could be constructed as a far grander, publicly prominent building. If the design cannot be changed in any substantial way, he is highly skeptical the Commission would approve it. S. Stein noted she has repeatedly stated from the beginning that the building’s size is too large for the site. She added that she likes the Cayuga Street side better. N. Brcak noted the building ‘feels’ too large to her; and she has been persuaded today perhaps it really is categorically too large for the site. She could possibly approve it, if it were set back some more and slightly reduced in size. J. Minner indicated the Commission has genuinely tried to provide helpful comments. She had been hoping for a collaborative solution. To some extent, many of the same concerns have simply been reiterated from one meeting to the next. The Commission should decide whether to table the application or move forward with a vote. K. Michaels observed it appears the project would be denied. If that is the case, that could be conveyed to the County and a conversation could be initiated between the County and the applicant to identify potential solutions. B. McCracken indicated the Commission could conduct a straw poll, recorded in the minutes, which the applicant could take back to the County. (All the Commission members subsequently indicated they would most likely vote against approving the application.) ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 7 of 11 E. Finegan noted he remains uncomfortable with the set-backs and scale of the building, so he would vote against the project. S. Gibian noted the original iteration of the project was attractive in that it featured a sleeker “L”-shaped design. Unfortunately, the set-back seems to have been progressively lost. He would insist on retaining the original set-backs. He would have to vote against the project. F. Travis expressed hope a solution can be identified to satisfy the Commission’s requirements. The existing building has been blight in the area for a long time. He would support tabling consideration of the application at this time. The application was TABLED. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 313 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District Proposal to Repave Driveway, Replace Retaining Wall and Metal Railing, & Install New Retaining Wall Applicants Elissa Cogan, owner, and Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, described the details of the application, noting that in place of the “Xs” and “Os” depicted on the railing in the application, some simple decorative panels (e.g., a cat, the address “313,” a monogram) would be inserted, and the tops capped with pineapples. S. Gibian asked if the applicant would replace the retaining wall. E. Cogan replied, yes. It is falling down and would be replaced with stone. The upper portion of the wall would taper down as it approaches the end of the wall. E. Cogan noted the cobbles in the middle of the driveway would granite sets, which have a more uniform surface. The cobbles along the edges would be rough and textured. S. Gibian asked about the cap on the lower wall. N. Demarest replied it would match the existing concrete/cast stone cap. D. Kramer asked what the Commission thinks about the decorative railing, since it is neither in-kind nor historic in any way. J. Minner replied it is compatible. K. Olson responded it does not pretend to be an older piece and it is also removable. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 8 of 11 RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 313 E. Buffalo St. 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 June 24, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Noah Demarest on behalf of property owner Barry Chester and Elissa Cogan, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) three sheets of design drawings titled “Existing Conditions,” “Site Plan,” and “Proposed Materials,” and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 313 E. Buffalo St., 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 replacing a concrete and asphalt driveway with a combination of poured concrete and granite sets, constructing a dry-laid stone retaining wall with a pre-cast concrete or stone cap along the east side of the driveway, replacing an existing stone retaining wall along the west side of the driveway with a stone veneered, poured concrete wall with a pre-cast concrete or stone cap, and replacing a metal pipe railing with a new decorative iron railing, 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 July 12, 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 Italianate Style residence at 313 E. Buffalo St. was constructed between 1861 and 1866. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 9 of 11 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. The project under consideration involves the replacement of a dry-laid stone retaining wall and metal railing along the west side of the property’s driveway. The date of installation of this retaining wall and railing is unknown, but could have been during the period of significance for the East Hill Historic District. The existing wall and railing will be replaced with a stone-veneered, poured-concrete wall and decorative iron railing. Salvaged stones from the existing retaining wall will be used to construct a new retaining wall on the east side of the driveway, preserving the potentially historic material and new stones matching the old will face the new poured-concrete retaining wall. 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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 10 of 11 Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #5 and Standard #9, the replacement of the retaining wall and railing, installation of new retaining wall, and re-paving of the driveway 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 retaining walls, railing and paving materials are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #6, the stone retaining wall is deteriorated beyond the point of repair as depicted in the submitted photographs, described by the applicant and property owner, and personally observed by ILPC members. 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 313 E. Buffalo St. 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: Final design of the decorative panels within the iron railing shall be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff. Final material selections for the wall caps and granite sets will be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST None ILPC Minutes July 12, 2016 11 of 11 IV. OLD BUSINESS Commission Retreat B. McCracken mentioned the Commission should decide when it would like to schedule its upcoming retreat. The Commission agreed to hold it during the third week of August 2016, with a specific date to be determined shortly. V. NEW BUSINESS None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by J. Minner, seconded by K. Olson, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with two minor modifications. June 14, 2016 (Regular Meeting) VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:39 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission