HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-08-09Approved by ILPC: September 13, 2016
1 of 11
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — August 9, 2016
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian
Katelin Olson
Susan Stein
Michael McGandy
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 521 E. State St., East Hill Historic District Retroactive Request for Approval of Removal of
Wood Windows, and Proposal to Replace Vinyl Windows with Composite Wood Windows
Applicant Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals, described the details of the application.
E. Finegan observed there was no mention in the application of a sample of the composite wood-product
replacement. C. O’Connor replied he is not familiar enough with the application to respond to that; the
application was prepared by his assistant, who was unable to attend the meeting.
S. Stein asked how many windows would be affected. C. O’Connor replied he believes it is 20
windows. It is the first Historic District property he has owned, so he is not familiar with the process.
M. McGandy asked if the applicant could provide evidence of the window deterioration (even if they
may have been discarded).
C. O’Connor replied that he knows the first two floors of windows were all wood and the third floor
contained vinyl windows, installed by a previous property owner. He asked if there are specific types of
windows the Commission believes would be appropriate, which he could then choose from. The
contractor recommended the ones that were installed; but he would be willing to purchase and install
another kind of window.
B. McCracken explained window replacements are not explicitly mentioned in the Historic District &
Landmark Design Guidelines, since they are not typically approvable — however, he could send the
applicant a list of the kinds of windows the Commission has approved in the past.
S. Gibian noted the operation of the new windows could be an issue. For example, Palladian windows
from 1922 were typically awning windows, but they had been replaced with double-hung windows. He
suggested the applicant try to match the original type of window as much as possible.
B. McCracken asked if the applicant intends to replace the windows the prior property owner replaced.
C. O’Connor replied he would defer to whatever course of action the Commission would like him to
follow.
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
2 of 11
K. Olson suggested requiring the applicant to replace the third-floor vinyl windows, as a mitigation of
the work that was already performed without a Certificate of Appropriateness. It is a difficult situation
for the Commission to address, since it would never have approved the replacement windows in the first
place. In the past, the Commission has been obligated to refer these kinds of situations to the City
Attorney’s Office for further negotiation; but that is not the preferred course of action. She
recommended the third-story windows all be replaced with the same kind of window, which probably
represents the best solution for the house. The Commission does not want to create an incentive for
property owners to simply replace windows without permission and then apologize after the fact.
D. Kramer agreed. He suggested that could be a part of the next iteration of the application.
M. McGandy suggested it not be literally cited as a “mitigation,” per se.
D. Kramer replied it could simply be included in the language of the resolution.
C. O’Connor indicated he has no objections to replacing the third-floor windows.
S. Gibian wondered to what extent the composite material is different from vinyl. For example, the
profile certainly appears appreciably different. Any further information the applicant could provide the
Commission in terms of how the windows would be installed and appear would be helpful.
B. McCracken indicated he could research whether the proposed windows have been approved in other
municipalities. He knows historic preservation commissions handle these matters differently.
M. McGandy asked the applicant for specifications sheets for both the composite material and the wood.
It would be best if the applicant could bring in physical samples so the Commission can see what they
would look like.
S. Gibian added it would be helpful to see how the windows would meet the existing sills and casings.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy.
The application was TABLED.
B. 300 N. Tioga St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Replace & Enlarge Signs
Applicant Martin Marino, Marino Sign Company, described the details of the application, noting the
bank is changing its name to Key Bank and wants to replace the existing signs (two of which would be
eliminated) and install three parking signs.
E. Finegan noted since the building itself is a non-contributing element of the Historic District, the
Commission merely needs to determine if the proposal would have a negative impact on the Historic
District as a whole.
B. McCracken noted the signs are larger, so that is one consideration. Both the existing and proposed
sign are internally illuminated, so that should not be a factor in the decision.
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
3 of 11
E. Finegan asked if the signs have been constructed. M. Marino replied, no. A Building Permit has
been issued for the work.
S. Gibian asked if the signs would be a standards size. M. Marino replied all he knows is that they fit
the openings.
S. Gibian noted the Building-Structure Inventory Form depicts the signs as exactly the same size as the
metal spandrel, aligning with the bottom of the horizontal spandrel. But they vary significantly in other
ways. It seems the building’s signs are getting progressively worse.
B. McCracken noted the current sign was approved by the Commission in the 1990s, with one or two
subsequent staff-level approvals for changes in the branding.
M. McGandy asked if the signs could be smaller than those proposed. M. Marino replied, yes, they
could be installed to take up the full width and brought down to the horizontal portion of the spandrel,
which would be in keeping with the historic examples.
M. McGandy observed the sign logo is the bank’s own logo, which would have to be modified in
proportion, otherwise the type would become taller and longer. M. Marino replied he would need to
return to the designer and determine what could be done.
K. Olson agreed with S. Gibian that the signs should not be getting progressively larger and larger over
time. The size of the existing sign should be maintained and the new signs should conform to those in
the rest of the Historic District. She would support a sign that is similar to the example contained in the
Building-Structure Inventory Form, or the existing sign.
E. Finegan noted the Commission does not appear to have any objections to the proposed parking signs.
K. Olson suggested, if the applicant could replicate the existing sign dimensions, that could be approved
at the staff-level. M. Marino responded he feels confident the signs could be redesigned to the
Commission’s specifications.
B. McCracken explained that the ideal situation would be to restore the sign to the 1979 version;
however, as long as it is the same size as the existing sign, it could be approved at the staff level.
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.
The application was referred to Staff-Level Approval.
C. 934 Stewart Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District — Retroactive Request for Approval of
Retaining Wall
Applicant Chris Hyde, Travis Hyde Properties, described the details of the application, noting the
carport and retaining wall were both been failing. A portion of the wall was held up with plywood.
There were also cracks in the cinder-block wall. The applicants believed it had become a danger to the
public, so they demolished it.
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
4 of 11
S. Gibian asked if the carport would be replaced or left open. C. Hyde replied it would be left open.
E. Finegan asked if removing the retaining wall would have any impact on the Historic District. C.
Hyde replied that it is located at the rear of the property and is not visible.
E. Finegan asked what the retaining wall would look like in 10 years. C. Hyde replied that he has seen
similar walls hold up very well. It will also be regularly treated with clear-coat to preserve it.
K. Olson asked if it would have been approved it if the applicants had brought it to the Commission
before it was built.
D. Kramer responded that it is a non-contributing structure and it is not visible to the public.
S. Gibian asked if a cap-stone is available for the wall, since it looks unfinished. C. Hyde replied that
there are caps available. That is probably something he could do.
K. Olson indicated that she likes the suggestion of a cap-stone.
S. Gibian asked if it would be possible to have a finished edge the end of the wall. C. Hyde replied, yes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, 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.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 934 Stewart 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
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated July 26, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Chris Hyde on behalf of property owner 934 Stewart
Ave. Associates, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a letter from Stacey
R. Becker from Becker Industries, Inc. to Travis/Hyde Properties dated July 1, 2016; (3)
a narrative scope of work for the project, titled “934 Stewart Ave. - Edgecliff
Apartments;” (4) a drawing illustrating the dimension of the proposed alteration and
building material; (5) 10 sheets of photographs documenting existing conditions; and (6)
two maps showing the location of the property and the proposal alteration, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 934
Stewart Ave., and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
5 of 11
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
retroactive request for approval of the use of a pre-cast concrete retaining wall system to
construct a 45”-high, 52’-long retaining wall, for which work is partially complete, 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
August 9, 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 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, 934 Stewart Ave.
was constructed between 1946 and 1956.
Constructed outside the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District,
the property is a non-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:
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
August 9, 2016
6 of 11
As a non-contributing structure, 934 Stewart Ave., by definition, does not possess historic
materials or features that are subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in
Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The
ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed project is therefore limited to the assessment of the
impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures and on the Cornell Heights
Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being that the proposed work must
not further reduce the compatibility of the non-contributing structure within its historic
environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the use of a pre-cast concrete
block system to construct a retaining wall will not remove distinctive materials and will
not alter features and spaces that characterize the Cornell Heights Historic District. The
location of the proposed retaining wall is not visible from Stewart Ave., the principle
vantage point from which the public views 934 Stewart Ave., nor is it highly visible from
Edgecliff Pl. Due to the topography of the lot, the retaining wall will also not be visible
from any adjoining properties.
The ILPC notes that the work on the retaining wall was initiated by the applicant without
a Building Permit or a Certificate of Appropriateness in an effort to expeditiously remedy
a hazardous condition caused by the severely deteriorated state of the removed retaining
wall.
Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed retaining wall is compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the 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 with the
following condition:
Caps will be installed along the top of the wall and on the exposed vertical ends of the
blocks on the south end of the wall.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: K. Olson, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, S. Stein, E. Finegan, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: J. Minner
Vacancies: 0
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
7 of 11
D. 109 Dearborn Pl., Cornell Heights Historic District — Proposal to Replace Exterior Cladding
Materials & Windows, and Construct Entrance Porches
Applicant Lee Ambrose described the details of the application, noting the building design has been
refined, since the last work that was approved by the Commission. The upper portion of the approved
design has been completed, with shed roofs and overhangs. The second phase of the project would be to
complete the exterior and refine it a little more. The only portion of the work that would be visible
would the shingle above and the stucco below. The design is very similar to a house just 100 feet away
and seems very characteristic of the area.
S. Gibian observed there are also window replacements proposed. L. Ambrose replied, yes. Some of
the windows did not let in enough light. He also noted that the building’s entrance was altered to include
a gable with columns, which seems very compatible with the neighborhood.
E. Finegan noted it is a non-contributing building.
D. Kramer indicated it definitely seems like an improvement.
B. McCracken noted some revised diagrams were submitted by the applicant, dated August 8, 2016.
That information included a reference to pre-cast blocks. L. Ambrose replied the blocks would run
around the base of the building and form a planter.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, 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.
S. Stein observed the front door appears to simply be a large panel, which does not look very attractive.
L. Ambrose replied that the additional submission should better illustrate what it would look like.
S. Gibian noted his only concern would be that the west and north sides are adorned with shingles, but
not the other sides. L. Ambrose replied that was done for financial considerations.
B. McCracken noted the Commission should discuss the proposed acrylic stucco, which has not been
approved in the past. Even though it is a non-contributing building, it would be worth having a
conversation about it.
L. Ambrose responded that the additional information he submitted describes how the acrylic stucco
would be 85% more energy efficient than any other material.
S. Gibian noted there are probably different finishes available and something more appropriate to the
historic context. L. Ambrose replied that several different finishes were identified in the submission.
He proposed a sand blast finish, which was recommended by the architect; it is also low-maintenance.
B. McCracken asked if it would be paintable in the future. L. Ambrose replied, he does not know.
S. Gibian suggested the Commission insert a condition in the resolution that the synthetic stucco finish
would need to be approved.
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
8 of 11
B. McCracken noted he could approve the final finish for the stucco at the staff level.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 109 Dearborn Pl. 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 July 26, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Dr. Lee Ambrose, including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and
Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two sheets of drawings titled “North Elevation Study” and
“West Elevation Study;” and (3) an image showing proposed design details, and
WHEREAS, additional application materials were submitted for review by the applicant’s architect,
John Page from Bero Architecture, on August 9, 2016, including: (1) a memorandum to
the applicant from the architect, dated August 8, 2016; (2) two drawings titled “East
Elevation” and “South Elevation;” and (3) six sheets of product specifications for
StoTherm® ci, two types of fiberglass doors, and Weathered Versa-Lok® Mosaic®, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 109
Dearborn Pl. and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, a phased redevelopment of 109 Dearborn Pl. was presented to the ILPC at their regularly
scheduled meeting on August 11, 2015, and at that time, the applicant was granted a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the first phase of the project, which involved the
reconfiguration of the roofline through the construction of wall dormers and eave
extensions, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the second phase of the
project involves re-cladding the exterior with a combination of wood shingles and
“modern” acrylic stucco, the construction of two entrance porches, the replacement of
two doors and numerous windows, and the construction of a low, pre-cast concrete block,
retaining wall, 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
August 9, 2016, now therefore be it
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
9 of 11
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, 109 Dearborn Pl.
was constructed in ca. 1942-1944 as a paleontological research laboratory building for
Cornell University’s Paleontological Research Institute.
Constructed outside of the Cornell Heights Historic District’s period of significance, 109
Dearborn Pl. is considered a non-contributing element within that 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:
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.
As a non-contributing structure 109 Dearborn Pl., by definition, does not possess historic
materials or features that are subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in
Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The
ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is, therefore, limited to the assessment of the
impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures in the district and on the
Cornell Heights Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being that the
proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non-contributing structure
with its historic environment.
With respect to Standard #9, the proposed cladding materials, porch additions, retaining
wall and window and door replacements are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the Cornell Heights Historic District.
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
10 of 11
Also with respect to Standard #9, the use of contemporary building techniques and
mixture of modern and traditional building materials will differentiate the work from the
surrounding historic properties. On the north and west elevations, the first story will be
clad in “Modern” acrylic stucco, identified as StoTherm® ci in the submitted product
specifications, and the second will be clad in traditional painted, wood shingles with a 4-
6” reveal. The ILPC notes that acrylic stucco is appropriate for use on this non-
contributing building because of its ability to differentiate the traditional aesthetic of
redeveloped property from the surrounding authentic historic fabric. The east and south
elevations, which are not highly visible from Dearborn Pl. or Wyckoff Ave., will be
almost entirely clad in the “modern” stucco material. Replacement windows will be
Marvin Integrity. All exterior trim and the architectural components of the new entrance
porches will be wood.
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 with the
following condition(s):
The texture of the acrylic stucco shall be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff prior to
its application on the building.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: J. Minner
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 regarding the proposed project at 310-314 N. Cayuga St. (Old Tompkins County Public Library).
He reported that shortly after the last Commission meeting at which the project was discussed, he and
Nancy Medsker (DeWitt Park Inn) had a discussion with the project owner, who provided some
interesting insight into his own limitations with the project. The project owner informed them he would
not be able to return to Tompkins County and re-negotiate the terms of the property sale, after all; so
there is really no means for him to design the project with fewer units. The project owner did think the
project team could remove some parking spaces, relocate the building further west, and step it back
further. D. Kramer indicated to him that he is skeptical those kinds of changes would be sufficient to
address all of the Commission’s concerns.
ILPC Minutes
August 9, 2016
11 of 11
B. McCracken indicated he believes the applicants currently intend to return to the Commission with a
revised proposal next month.
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
S. Gibian announced he has been retained as an architect for some work at 310 W. State Street,
formally owned by the Salvation Army, in the Downtown West Historic District.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members approved the following meeting
minutes, with no modifications.
July 12, 2016 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
B. McCracken announced there is a chance the Old Library project could be moved forward to the
Commission’s regular October 2016 meeting. He indicated that this meeting might have to be
rescheduled or cancelled due to a potential scheduling conflict and requested the Commission’s
comments on the situation. The Commission expressed a preference for scheduling the meeting as usual
on the second Tuesday of October and adjusting the schedule if it becomes necessary.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:18 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission