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