HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-09-13Approved by ILPC: October 20, 2016
1 of 11
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — September 13, 2016
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian
Katelin Olson
Jennifer Minner
Michael McGandy
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 130 University Ave., University Hill Historic District — Proposal to Replace Two Windows
(Applicant Deanna Hill, Phat Cribs of Ithaca, LLC, was unable to attend.)
On the applicant’s behalf, B. McCracken explained the application proposes to replace two rear awning-
style bathroom windows, situated in an alcove on the rear façade and not visible from the public way.
The existing sashes show evidence of deterioration, with L-brackets holding them together. The glazing
is severely deteriorated and missing in sections, making the panes of glass loose within the sash
openings. The applicant prefers replacing the windows outright, because they suffer from frequent and
heavy use by building tenants. The existing windows may also be a potential danger to the tenants. The
proposed new windows are wood-composite awning-style windows to match the existing ones (either
using the existing window stops or installing thin 1”x1” material on the outside to fix the windows in
place). B. McCracken noted the Commission conducted a Site Visit on August 29, 2016 to examine the
existing windows.
J. Minner asked if the Site Visit resulted in any discussion by Commission members. B. McCracken
replied that some Commission members conceded the windows appeared significantly deteriorated.
D. Kramer noted he believed the windows to be repairable and operable, although they admittedly need
serious repair. Since they do not appear to be visible from the public way, from any angle, he was
eventually persuaded they should be replaced.
K. Olson noted she would have opposed replacing the windows, had they been in any other part of the
building, but given their functional limitations and location, she would probably accept the need to
replace them.
B. McCracken noted the proposed replacements would be made of solid composite materials (40%
wood fiber, 60% polymers/resin) and would be paintable, according to the installer the applicant spoke
with. His own research suggests the windows could not be painted too dark a shade or they may become
deformed by heat. The proposed windows would be a cream color, with the house painted to match.
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
2 of 11
S. Gibian noted he also conducted research on composite-material windows and viewed samples of the
windows in question. They appear to have a far larger profile than, for example, Andersen® windows.
If the Commission chooses to approve the application, it should consider the appearance, longevity, and
profiles of the windows.
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 K.
Olson.
J. Minner asked B. McCracken for his opinion on whether the proposed windows would genuinely
replicate the existing sash proportions. B. McCracken replied he could not find enough information to
determine the extent to which they would replicate the existing historic windows; however, in this
particular location he does not know how crucial that would be. As far as he could determine, the
proposed windows are a reasonably good product. While they would not last as long as the existing
ones, they should probably be acceptable.
J. Minner suggested the Commission consider approving the windows on a pilot basis, given that the
building is a non-contributing structure and the windows would not be visible from the public way. She
thought she recalled the Commission approving composite-material windows in the past. B. McCracken
replied that those were only approved for new construction.
D. Kramer observed several windows on the highly visible south, east, and west elevations were already
replaced with vinyl replacement windows — without the required Certificate of Appropriateness and
Building Permit — which is a problem for him. The language of the resolution should document that
lapse.
J. Minner responded vinyl windows would certainly not be acceptable on the front façade. She was only
proposing approving the proposed windows in their current location, and only on a pilot or experimental
basis.
K. Olson remarked that if the Commission decides to take that approach, it should fully define what it is
trying to accomplish. Otherwise, she would not support it.
B. McCracken noted the windows are not necessarily in the ideal site for a pilot or experiment, as
inaccessible as they are.
J. Minner asked Commission members how they believe they would vote on the proposal.
E. Finegan observed the windows are not visible from the public way.
K. Olson indicated she would most likely not be comfortable approving the window product.
M. McGandy noted the issue of whether the windows can be painted is another significant factor, since
future property owners could choose to paint over them. Since the existing windows do not absolutely
need to be replaced, he suggested the applicant be required to install more appropriate ones than those
she proposed. He personally feels more negatively, than positively or neutral, about approving the
current proposal.
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
3 of 11
E. Finegan wondered if the Commission would perhaps be more comfortable approving fiber-glass
windows in this situation.
B. McCracken asked if most Commission members believe the windows should be replaced. If so, what
material would they feel most comfortable with. If there is enough support for approving the application
in concept, the details could be delegated to staff-level approval.
D. Kramer replied he is comfortable with the proposed material — as long as the resolution emphasizes
it should not be considered a precedent.
E. Finegan asked if the Commission would approve the application, if the proposed material were fiber-
glass.
J. Minner replied it would be best if it were wood on the outside of the windows, with fiber-glass on the
inside.
S. Gibian noted Marvin Integrity® windows are commonly used and can include fiber-glass inside.
Marvin Windows & Doors® has factory-applied coatings with considerably thicker finishes than typical
composite-material windows.
J. Minner indicated she supports delegating the details to staff-level approval.
K. Olson noted the resolution should not be interpreted to conclude the existing windows are irreversibly
deteriorated. The basis of the Commission’s approval should derive from the functional limitations of
the existing windows and the lack of visibility from the public way.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 130 University Ave. is located within the University Hill Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2003, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 30, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Deanna M. Hill on behalf of property
owner Phat Cribs of Ithaca, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three sheets of
product specification for the proposed material; (3) four sheets of photographs illustrating
existing conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
University Hill Historic District for 130 University Ave., and the City of Ithaca’s
University Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacing two awning-style, wood-sash window located on the north elevation with
CompositeWood® by Interstate, awning-style windows, and
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
4 of 11
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
September 13, 2016, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the University Hill Historic District
is identified in the City of Ithaca’s University Hill Historic District Summary
Significance Statement as 1867-1927.
As indicated in the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the University
Hill Historic District, the Italianate-Style residence at 130 University Ave. was
constructed in 1873.
Constructed within the period of significance of the University Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
University Hill Historic District.
On August 29, 2016, some members of the ILPC conducted a Site Visit at the property to
evaluate the condition of the subject windows. It was observed at that time that several
windows on the south, east and west elevations had already been replaced with vinyl
replacement windows. This work was completed by a previous property owner and
without the required Certificate of Appropriateness and Building Permit, after the
University Hill Historic District was designated in 2003, a violation of the Sections 228-4
and 146-5 of the Municipal Code. As the work was completed by a previous property
owner, the ILPC cannot require the current property owner to “restore the property… to
its appearance prior to the violation,” as prescribed in Section 228-12 B. of the Municipal
Code. However, the ILPC encourages the property owner to address this violation in
future Certificate of Appropriateness applications.
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
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
5 of 11
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 removal of the existing
windows will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property. The ILPC notes the windows are located on the rear (north)
elevation, which is not visible from the public way due to the lot’s topography and the
building’s configuration and massing. The windows that will be replaced are located in
bathrooms, where the need for frequent operation and resistance to high levels of
moisture are necessary. The operability of these windows has been compromised by paint
build-up on the window hardware, sashes, and jambs. Prolonged exposure to high levels
of moisture and repeated openings have also caused some damage to the sashes.
However, with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed CompositeWood®
windows are not compatible with the historic character and architectural features of the
property and the historic district. In making this determination, the ILPC reviewed the
product literature supplied with the application and additional information found by the
Secretary of the Commission and a Commission member. The proposed
CompositeWood® windows do not match the material of the original wood sashes,
containing only about 40% wood fiber and 60% polymers and resins. Questions about
the longevity of the exterior color coating and the ability to paint the sashes were also
noted. Finally, the size of the window frame was noted as being considerably larger than
the existing sash, resulting in a considerable change in the visual properties of the
window opening.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the removal of the original windows will not
have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance
of the University 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 to
remove the original windows meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the
Municipal Code; however, the proposal to install CompositeWood® windows does not
meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6, and be it further
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
6 of 11
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition:
CompositeWood® windows shall not be installed as the Commission has determined
that this window product is not compatible with the historic character and architectural
features of the property and the University Hill Historic District. The applicant shall work
with ILPC staff to select a window replacement product that is more compatible with the
historic aesthetic and material quality of the historic district.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
B. 521 E. State St., East Hill Historic District — Retroactive Request for Approval of Removal of
Original Wood Windows & Proposal to Replace Vinyl Windows with Wood Composite Windows
Applicant Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals, described the details of the proposal. He noted B.
McCracken suggested employing the same windows that were used at the 707 W. Seneca Street
property, which he would be willing to do (employing the same exterior stops).
E. Finegan observed the Commission has not yet seen any physical samples of the proposed product.
C. O’Connor responded he believes the proposed windows would have no projecting screens, would
have narrower sash and jam profiles, and would not extend beyond the original exterior window stops.
E. Finegan asked what would happen in 10 years, for example, if a future owner chose to paint the
windows. C. O’Connor replied he does not know.
B. McCracken noted the window interiors are paintable, so if the interior and exterior are made of the
same material, one could assume the exteriors would also be paintable.
D. Kramer wondered if the Commission would have approved the proposed windows, if the original
windows were being replaced.
C. O’Connor replied he takes full responsibility for replacing the windows, but he is willing to replace
the third-floor windows to mitigate the impact of his actions.
E. Finegan asked how many other third-floor windows had been replaced. C. O’Connor replied, the
large front window and 8-10 third-floor windows.
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
7 of 11
S. Gibian observed the new windows would match the original windows in terms of their planarity,
profile, and depth; but he is concerned the Marvin® 100 series windows do not include a set-back from
the frame in the sash and the sills do not match the original sills. He is not convinced the proposed
windows would be an improvement. On the other hand, the Andersen® 400 series includes models with
four different sill slopes, so the sill could be matched to the existing one.
D. Kramer observed it does not appear the Commission has enough information to make a determination
at this time. He suggested scheduling a Site Visit for the Commission to view the various options.
There were no objections.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by Jennifer Minner, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by
J. Minner.
The application was TABLED.
C. 109 Dearborn Pl., Cornell Heights Historic District — Proposal to Install Three Glass-Block
Windows
Applicant Lee Ambrose described the details of his proposal, noting he reconsidered his original
proposal since the August 9, 2016 meeting, when the Commission originally approved the exterior
alterations. After that meeting, it occurred to him he could get more light into three interior spaces
(bathroom, stairwell, and landing), using glass blocks.
E. Finegan asked if glass blocks were ever original to the building. L. Ambrose replied, no. He decided
glass blocks would be a good element and simply wanted to see if the Commission would find them
acceptable.
D. Kramer observed the building is a non-contributing structure in the Historic District, so the
Commission has some flexibility in making its determination.
E. Finegan explained the Commission’s only concern is whether the proposal would have a negative
impact on the rest of the Historic District. In this particular case, the glass blocks would not be highly
visible from the public way.
S. Gibian indicated he is concerned there are two entirely different kinds of windows within the same
elevation of the building, L. Ambrose responded that the glass blocks would not even be visible, when
the building is viewed from the street.
D. Kramer indicated he could support the proposal
S. Gibian expressed concern that the applicant submitted last-minute changes to his proposed elevations
at the Commission’s August 9, 2016 meeting, so he feels leery about anything else the applicant may
propose. He added that the proposed glass blocks actually would be somewhat visible from the public
way. They would also make the building seem to have a ‘split personality’. He reiterated his principal
objection is to the east elevation.
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
8 of 11
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, 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 J.
Minner.
J. Minner noted the fact the building is a non-contributing structure is a significant mitigating factor;
however, she agreed with S. Gibian that it would be odd to have part of house designed in one style, and
the other designed in another.
K. Olson responded it does not seem it would be enough of an aesthetic difference for it to impact the
Historic District as a whole.
B. McCracken added that glass blocks would also have been used during the Period of Significance for
the Cornell Heights Historic District, albeit probably in a more utilitarian application and not as a
window material in a finished or public space.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
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 August 31, 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) a drawing titled “East Elevation,” 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 the 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, the second phase of the project, which included recladding the exterior, constructing two
entrance porches, and replacing most of the remaining windows and doors, received a
Certificate of Appropriateness on August 9, 2016, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the proposal consists of
revisions to the design approved at the August 2016 meeting, specifically the replacement
of a casement-style window on the east elevation with one composed of glass blocks, and
the introduction of two new glass block windows on the same elevation, and
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
9 of 11
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, 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.
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
10 of 11
As a non-contributing structure, 109 Dearborn Pl., by definition, does not possess historic
materials or features 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 glass block windows are compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the Cornell Heights Historic District.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: M. McGandy, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: S. Gibian
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
116 N. Cayuga St., Clinton Block Historic District — Proposal to Install Mural
B. McCracken reported he received a phone call from a New Roots Charter School administrator with
an urban arts class interested in painting a mural on the building. Since it is an art installation, he is
bringing it before the Commission. The mural would be on the building’s west façade and would
generally not be visible from the public way. It would be a relatively small mural, addressing a social
justice subject, and painted over painted brick. He asked the Commission if the school should submit a
formal Certificate of Appropriateness application, or if it could be reviewed at the staff level.
D. Kramer replied it could be delegated to staff-level review. J. Minner agreed.
ILPC Minutes
September 13, 2016
11 of 11
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members approved the following meeting
minutes, with no modifications.
August 9, 2016 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Update: Predatory Contractors
B. McCracken reported that he spoke to Planning and Building Division staff about the predatory
contractors problem discussed at the Commission’s recent retreat. New York State law only holds
property owners responsible for work done on their property, including obtaining proper local regulatory
approvals, like Building Permits. Some local ordinances have been instituted in some places that
address the problem to some extent. B. McCracken spoke to Common Council member Seph Murtagh
about possibly instituting a similar ordinance in Ithaca. The Building Division generally seemed to
oppose the idea, driven partly by concerns about the administrative burden of enforcement.
D. Kramer indicated he would definitely like to see the City find a way to hold private contractors
responsible for lapses in regulatory compliance.
J. Minner suggested the City establish an open registry to document situations in which contractors
perform work without obtaining a Building Permit. B. McCracken replied he believes the Building
Division already keeps at least a partial record of those kinds of instances. The Building Division
acknowledged it is something that happens on a regular basis.
K. Olson wondered if the City could collaborate with a consumer-protection organization to inform
property owners of various tools they could use to hold contractors accountable.
M. McGandy suggested the Better Business Bureau or similar organization may have model legislation
the City could adopt.
B. McCracken indicated he will research several different options that do not involve enacting local
legislation for addressing the problem.
Historic Ithaca’s Old House Gala & Fair: Friday-Saturday, September 16-17, 2016
B. McCracken announced Historic Ithaca will be hosting its Old House Gala & Fair this weekend,
featuring various vendors, consultations with Old House Doctors, presentations, and demonstrations.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission