HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-10-20Approved by ILPC: November 15, 2016
1 of 13
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — October 20, 2016
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian
Susan Stein
Katelin Olson
Jennifer Minner
Seph Murtagh (Common Council Liaison)
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Ari Lavine, City Attorney
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 310-314 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Demolish Non-Contributing
Building & Associated Site Improvements, & Construct a Four-Story Mixed-Use Building
(D. Kramer recused himself from consideration of the proposed project.)
Applicants Tom Covell, Steve Hugo, and Graham Gillespie, HOLT Architects, Kim Michaels,
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, and owners Frost Travis and Chris Hyde, Travis
Hyde Properties, appeared before the Commission. K. Michaels noted the last time the applicants met
with the Commission there appeared to be consensus on the Commission’s part that the building should
be brought over closer to Cayuga Street. The applicants were also asked to move the building as far
back as possible from the street curb and decrease its overall massing. As a result, the building has now
been placed as far to the interior of the site as possible; and a generous streetscape has been incorporated
into the design, including more articulation on the façades. The North Cayuga Street side ranges from
20-31 feet from the curb, including sidewalk, trees, and a depth of plantings between the building and
the curb. The West Court Street side ranges from 33-37 feet from the curb, including enough space for
the streetscape treatments recommended by the Commission (e.g., treelawn, sidewalk, plantings). The
building corner has been maintained as an open plaza, with the community room on that corner.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
2 of 13
F. Travis explained the design team has made every effort to be as responsive as possible to the various
recommendations from both the Commission and the Planning Board, while conforming to zoning
regulations and site constraints. He stressed the County’s understanding of the site’s real property value
was largely based on the City’s own rezoning of portions of the Central Business District (CBD) in
2013. The property appraisal was based on what could conceivably be built as-of-right on the site;
however, the site is also burdened by some serious constraints. The County would like to see a
considerable amount of housing on the site, which the applicants have sought to achieve. F. Travis
indicated 57 dwelling units are required to achieve a ‘financeable’ project. Should the City ultimately
reject the application, the County’s original Request for Proposals would need to be re-issued.
K. Michaels remarked the applicants understood the Commission wanted to see less massing; so the
current design is a couple of feet shorter than the Old Library building, but it occupies the same
footprint, so the building is as large as the Old Library, in terms of its mass and scale. The ground-floor
parking has now been removed. Despite neighborhood concerns about parking demand, the applicants
believed it was something that could be removed. The fourth floor has also been pushed significantly
back 30 feet. The interior garden courtyard has been preserved and 10 parking spaces have been added
to the south end of the project site. The streetscape now features two rows of trees, with additional
vegetation between the building and the curb, as well as decorative pavers and benches. K. Michaels
noted the DeWitt Park Inn has been employing a retaining wall and 10 feet of garden space, which
actually fall outside its property line. While earlier designs tried to preserve the retaining wall and
garden space, the current design eliminates both. K. Michaels stressed that, while it may appear the wall
and garden space belong to the DeWitt Park Inn, no property is in fact being taken away from it.
T. Covell added there has been a significant reduction in the size of the fourth floor, mostly along the
Court Street side, but also along Cayuga Street. It also now includes both a private roof patio and shared
patio. (The applicants are also hoping to have a green roof.)
S. Hugo explained the applicants believe the design works well within the context of the DeWitt Park
Historic District Summary Significance Statement:
“With visual character strengthened by the diverse building stock, the district presents a distinct
urban setting for the city’s commercial, social, political and religious activities.”
Furthermore, S. Hugo noted, the City’s new Comprehensive Plan (Plan Ithaca) explicitly includes the
project site in its Future Land Use Map as an “Urban Mixed-Use” area. The site was also re-zoned as a
CBD-50 Zoning District, allowing a height of up to 50 feet tall, by Common Council. Zoning
regulations allow 100% lot coverage, which the current design does not even begin to approach.
S. Hugo noted the scale and tripartite structure of the proposed building are similar to those of other
buildings in the Historic District, with a strong base, cornices, and a penthouse. The building’s overall
proportions and window openings are all reflective of other buildings in the neighborhood. The design
team has also tried to reflect the regular, almost undulating, rhythm of the single-family homes across
the street, with a façade that steps forward and back.
S. Hugo then walked the Commission through a variety of three-dimensional graphical renderings,
(which the Commission had requested), illustrating both Summer and Winter views. The Court Street
façade includes sunshades and a canopy. The majority of the ground-floor space features smaller,
punched windows, wherever there is an apartment, and larger, taller windows wherever there is a
community or commercial space.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
3 of 13
Across from the Presbyterian Church, on North Cayuga Street, the entry expression is similar to the west
side of Court Street. Where there are ground-floor dwelling units, the building includes a setback and
landscaping in between the building and the street. Responding to the Commission’s request for larger
setbacks, the fourth floor has now been set back 30 feet. From most vantage points, the building would
appear as a three-story building. The penthouse would be composed of cement-board siding, which is
consistent with penthouses historically being lighter in materials and color, and receding from the rest of
the façade. K. Michaels added the applicants believe they should be able to preserve the existing trees
on North Cayuga Street.
S. Hugo indicated the design team is pleased with the building façade, which they believe is
contemporary-looking and representative of 2016 architecture. For this particular project, the façade is a
compositional expression of what is happening inside the building. Brick is being treated as panel
material, and not structural.
The ground-level of the building would feature a granite base. (The largest buildings in the Historic
District are composed of masonry.) The brick would have a reddish hue, with some variation. Solder
coursing would mark the horizontal banding and the metal paneling would be flat-seamed. The
applicants currently only have a rough outline of the roof mechanicals, which would be screened.
T. Covell presented a series of three-dimensional graphical animations, depicting various views of the
proposed building, with surrounding buildings modeled-to-scale.
B. McCracken remarked the Commission is two members short this evening, so for the application to be
approved today four Commission members would need to vote in favor. The Commission and/or
applicants also have the option of tabling further consideration of the application until next month, when
all Commission members should be present. The Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (see below)
requires the Commission take action within 90 days of the Public Hearing. If the Commission does not
take action this evening, the application would be automatically approved, unless both the Commission
and the applicants agree to extend the review period.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
4 of 13
J. Minner wondered why the large windows were not positioned more in the public realm, along the
DeWitt Park and Cayuga Street façade. S. Hugo replied that decision was based on the surrounding
context, as well as the relationship of the building’s interior spaces to the outside. On the Court Street
corner, for example, the large windows are placed in the community room and commercial tenant
spaces. The applicants could certainly be open to reconfiguring the large windows.
J. Minner expressed surprise at the inclusion of the driveway with adjacent parking spaces. She asked
about the screening for the on-street parking spaces. K. Michaels replied the applicants would build a
fence to serve as the screening, designed to reflect its relationship to the building.
J. Minner indicated she is not enthusiastic about the cementitious siding at the top of the building.
Furthermore, while on the rendering it appears vertical, on the elevation it appears more horizontal. She
suggested the applicants employ a darker color for the building (e.g., color of DeWitt Mall). The bottom
floor also appears too light. Other buildings in the Historic District feature building materials that are
consistent all the way down to the water table. S. Hugo replied the applicants would explore her
suggestions.
E. Finegan noted the parking spaces and their impact on the nearby DeWitt Park Inn are a serious
concern from several different perspectives (e.g., entry and exit into traffic on Cayuga Street). S. Hugo
replied it would not be possible to construct the parking under the building, so the applicants were left
with little choice.
K. Michaels added that when the priority appeared to become increasing the setbacks, with a decreased
emphasis on parking, the applicants believed there would still be a need for limited parking for some
building residents. The design team tried to create a parking area that would be as low-impact as
possible, radiating out like a driveway.
S. Hugo added the building design already included a very large setback near the DeWitt Park Inn, so
that seemed the most logical place to situate the parking.
K. Olson asked why the parking could not be located underground. F. Travis replied, primarily for
financial reasons. G. Gillespie added it would require excavating a considerable amount of the existing
building’s structural fill.
§228-7 F.
The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions or modifications the Certificate of
Appropriateness within 45 days from the completion of the public hearing, except as noted below. The failure
of the Commission to act within 45 days from the completion of the public hearing, unless an extension is
mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed to constitute approval.
1. In the event, however, that the Commission shall make a finding of fact that the circumstances of a
particular application require further time for additional study and information than can be obtained within
the aforesaid 45-day period, then the Commission shall have a period of up to 90 days within which to act
upon such an application.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
5 of 13
K. Olson noted the Commission has previously discussed the total cubic feet of the proposed building,
compared to the total allowable volume, as a means of envisioning the building’s size. It would be
helpful to have those kinds of figures for the current design, as a basis for comparison. T. Covell replied
the applicants could provide that information.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Elizabeth Reed, 215 N. Cayuga St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting from her
apartment she would see very large asymmetrical windows, at a larger-than-life scale, with light blazing
through them at night. She also does not like the excessive array of different colors and textures, which
do not seem compatible with a neighborhood where every other building is primarily composed of one
or two materials.
Thomas Seaney, 308 N. Cayuga St. (DeWitt Park Inn), spoke in opposition to the proposed project,
noting he is not encouraged by the applicants’ response to the Commission’s prior input. It also seems
like the DeWitt Park Inn has been sacrificed, with the proposed removal of its wall and garden area.
Nancy Medsker, 308 N. Cayuga St. (DeWitt Park Inn), spoke in opposition to the proposed project,
noting she would like to see an image of the parking canopy from the applicants. She stressed that the
inn’s wall and surrounding space were given to the inn when the existing Old Library building was built
for the express purpose of forming a buffer zone, given the proximity of the property line. She does not
want vehicular headlights shining into the inn’s backyard. She noted 192 people have signed a petition
opposing the project.
Therese Araneo, 201 Linn St. spoke in opposition to the proposed project and read the following
statement from the DeWitt Park Neighborhood Association petition:
“We, the undersigned, strongly urge the Ithaca Landmark Preservation Commission (ILPC) to reject this latest
Holt/Travis proposal; the ILPC should direct the developer to devise a more workable solution. This
neighborhood needs an aesthetically compatible building, green space, and adequate parking. The economic
motivation of the developers must not be allowed to outweigh the neighbors’ wish to maintain the integrity of
Ithaca’s oldest neighborhood and oldest historic district.
The proposed building appears institutional and generic, and does not harmonize with its nearby buildings or
enhance the site; its size and scale still dwarf its surroundings. This design does not respect or reflect the essence
of a historic district and does not appear residential. The dated, contemporary exterior design is more reminiscent
of commercial architecture, it lacks the detailing and stateliness of what one would find in the heart of the Dewitt
Park Historic District (DPHD).
We respect this historic district and many of us have been interested in its preservation, having worked hard to
preserve the neighborhood’s aesthetics by our involvement during the selection process with the Tompkins
County Legislature and during the ILPC design reviews. We remain vitally interested in protecting the look and
feel of the DPHD. We consider our investment in time and energy to be commensurate with the importance of
this decision, since this building will become a legacy we bequeath to those who come after us.
Parking: parking should not be located on N. Cayuga Street. It is difficult to enter into the traffic stream at many
times of day, and have already been near misses with pedestrians and vehicles. It is also not appropriate or
compatible to have a parking lot in the view of Dewitt Park.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
6 of 13
Ten parking spaces: completely inadequate to serve needs of the potential 90+ residents residing in the proposed
building. Where will their friends, family, and caretakers park? How will residents be dropped off in inclement
weather, or the mobility-impaired manage at any time? This lack of parking will result in too much competition
for parking in the neighborhood which will cause hardship on the existing neighbors & businesses.
Removal of retaining wall: will damage the aesthetics of the landscaped & natural area behind the Dewitt Park
Inn. The removal the ten foot-wide section from this garden that has, for half a century, graced the yard of the
1821 Dewitt Park Inn, one of Ithaca’s oldest and most significant structures, is simply unacceptable.
Parking Lot: the sloped-roof parking structure that is proposed suggests a rudimentary carport that would be
inappropriate next to the historic property at 308 North Cayuga Street and in the view of the neighborhood.
Building Design: the exterior design seems dated, more reminiscent of institutional architecture, it lacks
elegance, grace, and character. The window styling & placement fail at creating attractive detailing on the
exterior. The large windows proposed would potentially cause disruptive light pollution in a quiet neighborhood.
The aluminum parapet does not reflect the quality of materials desired in a historic neighborhood. The placement
of materials on the exterior also creates a strip-like effect that is not pleasing.
Although we appreciate the improvements HOLT/Travis has made to the new design by incorporating
suggestions from last ILPC meeting, we believe that the problems solved on the Court St. side have created more
problems on the South side of the building. We understand that a contemporary building design can work in a
historic neighborhood but, unfortunately, after three attempts by the developer, we have yet to see one. We ask
that this design be rejected by the ILPC.”
Patti Jacobson, 122 W. Court St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting her office
building is a commercial building designed for small businesses, which need a quiet, suitable
environment for their clients and patients. The proposed building appears ugly to her. She is also
concerned with the lack of sufficient parking for the building.
Isabel Rachlin, 318 N. Aurora St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting she does not want
to see a further ‘uglification’ of Ithaca. She does not like the proposed building materials, especially
towards the base.
Thomas Shelley, 118 E. Court St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting the building is
not appropriate for the Historic District. Its massing remains too large. If it were broken into multiple
smaller buildings, it would be better. Different building materials would also improve its appearance
(e.g., Llenroc stone). His greatest concern is the elimination of the wall near the DeWitt Park Inn, which
conceals a kind of hidden garden, which would be a shame to lose.
Sara Schaffzin, 313 Utica St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting she has followed the
project from the very beginning. The entire process has been distorted by the participation of so many
different groups, needs, and points of view, which are often incompatible with each other. She agreed
with virtually all the prior public comments. She is particularly concerned with the lack of parking,
since the building is partially designed for a senior population, some of whom will have cars and require
parking, which they depend on.
Susan Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting she lives very
close to the proposed building. She is concerned with the proposed parking area, which does not seem
an ideal location for vehicular traffic. Ten parking spaces seem inadequate. It is unrealistic to assume
seniors will walk everywhere. She is also concerned with the elimination of the DeWitt Park Inn
garden. The current design simply creates too many new problems.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
7 of 13
David Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., Commission member, but speaking as a neighboring property
owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting he also owns other nearby properties. He
certainly appreciates all the work the applicants have invested in the project, especially the re-design of
the Court Street façade, which is terrific. He cannot, however, support the proposed parking area and
removal of the DeWitt Park Inn’s brick wall and garden area, which is like nothing else downtown.
Thomas Shelley, 118 E. Court St., spoke in opposition to the proposed project, noting there are other
ways the project could be designed (e.g., Alexandria, Virginia, and its combination of old row houses
and new/renovated houses that reflect the rest of the neighborhood).
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded
by J. Minner.
B. McCracken indicated alternate Commission member Nancy Brcak was not able to be present this
evening, but she submitted the following written comments:
As I will be out of the country on October 20th, I am putting down my thoughts on the most recent iteration of
the proposal for a new building, called "Dewitt House," for the corner of West Court Street and North Cayuga
Street, by developer Frost Travis and the architectural firms, HOLT and Trowbridge Wolf Michaels. This team
should be applauded for their patience as well as their willingness to listen and respond thoughtfully to a long list of
suggestions and criticisms from multiple agencies. Their latest version is, I believe, their strongest to date.
It is important to note that their latest proposal has responded to the ILPC’s criticisms and concerns in specific,
substantial ways; these include:
• A more ample Court Street setback (of 34 feet) paired with substantial landscaping, including an allee of
trees; these changes help create a respectful distance from neighbors on the north side of the street;
• The reduction of the mass of the building;
• The fourth floor of the building has been stepped back, which reduces the perceived scale of the apartment
complex;
• The decision to use brick as the principal material (although not a structural material) of the design shows
deference to the historic district without attempting to mimic historic design; this material paired with the stone
façade of the ground floor appears to be a combination that is understated and quiet but substantial.
• A redesigned roof that has been simplified and provides a more contemporary look to the building;
• I also think that the metal cornice, which is reminiscent of one used on Breckenridge Place, is appropriate and
adds to the contemporary feel of the building;
• The fenestration pattern of the second and third floors of the design represents a significant upgrade from
earlier versions of the design -- I like both the rhythm and verticality of these windows, paired with the
complementary siding accents. My own preference would be a redesign of the windows on the ground floor to more
closely resemble, but not duplicate, this second- and third-floor fenestration pattern; such a redesign could further
unify the design and promote a quality of domesticity that seems particularly helpful to the Court Street
neighborhood of largely single-family structures.
It is indeed difficult to provide a balance between respect for historic fabric while, at the same time, creating an
appropriate contemporary design that is clearly "distinguished from the old." I think this latest iteration has come
close to doing that.
I do have some specific concerns:
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
8 of 13
• The driveway now placed on the Cayuga Street (east) elevation is problematic in terms of traffic
complications, and because it presents a rather wide opening to the street. Nor am I a fan of the parking “shed”
behind that opening, which does not seem to be in keeping with the rest of the design (or the historic neighborhood
fabric).
• While I favor the fourth-floor setback, I think the choice of color is unfortunate and something of an anomaly,
appearing nowhere else in the design. For this floor, I would prefer a hue much closer to that proposed for the
ground floor, thereby further tying together the overall design.
• I would prefer that the mass of the building be reduced even further, but I understand that that may not be
possible, given economic issues.
Finally, my opinion is that Ithaca needs more good quality housing; this project represents an opportunity to raise a
non-conforming, dilapidated building on an essentially abandoned lot and replace it with a useful, residential
complex -- and to do this in the near future, rather than in ten or twenty years from now. I would not be in favor of
this transformation if the proposed complex were replacing historic homes, but that ship sailed many years ago.
I very much regret not being able to hear the thoughts of my fellow Commission members. Good luck with your
deliberations!
S. Gibian expressed grave concerns with the introduction of the parking spaces and their impact on the
DeWitt Park Inn garden. Ten parking spaces seems inadequate for the project (although he is unsure if
that falls within the Commission’s purview). He wondered if there were a way to reconcile the need for
the parking spaces with the need to preserve the DeWitt Park Inn garden (and also preserve the pine
tree). He is also unconvinced the parking spaces actually need the shed-like structure around them,
especially since it seemed so objectionable to many of the public speakers. The current design is
essentially the same building proposed at the last two applicant presentations. He would also like to
emphasize that the Commission never asked the applicants to move the building as far back as possible.
It only ever requested the building be made smaller. At this point, he does not know how he would vote
on the project.
S. Stein expressed complete agreement with S. Gibian about the building design not having changed
very much and the inadequacy of the parking spaces. She would like to see a more uniform building
material employed from top to bottom (with a different building material on the fourth floor). The
building’s massing has not changed enough; and the façade continues to seem very long and imposing.
E. Finegan indicated he is comfortable with all the changes made to the building, but he is concerned
with the parking area, which will have a negative impact on the adjacent historic DeWitt Park Inn. If the
applicants could address that concern, he believes the rest of the design would work.
F. Travis responded the applicants will need time to incorporate all the Commission’s comments and
public comments into a revised design. He asked that further consideration of the application be tabled
at this time until either the December 2016 or January 2017 meeting.
K. Olson remarked she does not think the current design is very far from being considered compatible
with the rest of the Historic District. She agreed with E. Finegan about re-designing the parking area to
make it more open and more sensitive to the DeWitt Park Inn. She also stressed the building materials
should be of the highest possible quality, as J. Minner suggested.
K. Michaels indicated she will submit a formal request to B. McCracken for extending the timeline.
B. McCracken asked if the applicants would be comfortable with a 90-day extension. F. Travis replied,
yes. No objections were raised.
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
9 of 13
EXTENSION OF REVIEW PERIOD — RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner, S. Stein
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M. McGandy, N. Brcak
Vacancies: 0
The application was TABLED.
(K. Olson departed at 8:02 p.m.)
B. 120 E. Buffalo St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Construct Temporary Stairs on
South Porch
Applicant Susan Compton described the details of the proposal, noting the existing steps have been
crumbling. She tried to research a more permanent solution, but received estimates of $50,000-60,000,
which is simply not financially feasible at this time. As a result, she is asking for approval of a
temporary solution, designed to appear as aesthetic as possible, while ensuring public safety.
E. Finegan asked how long the temporary stairs are anticipated to be in place. S. Compton replied she
has investigated applying for a particular grant, but was told it was not a good year to apply. She hopes
to apply for the grant this coming Summer. She has also explored other means of funding. At this
juncture, she would surmise the stairs would be in place 3-5 years.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, 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. Gibian urged that the stairs should appear as nice as possible, even if they are only temporary.
B. McCracken indicated he spoke with the contractor, who indicated his intent is to match the existing
stairs as closely as possible (e.g., detailing).
S. Stein asked if the Commission could approve the application and ask the applicant to return to the
Commission after a predetermined period of time. B. McCracken replied, yes.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 120 E. Buffalo St., The Boardman House, is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed
on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated September 29, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Boardman House, LLC,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an estimate from Brotherton Construction, LLC
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
10 of 13
for the proposed work; (3) two sheets of drawings illustrating the proposed work; (4) a letter
from Randall Crawford to Susan Compton dated June 7, 2016; (5) five sheets of “Field
Sketches” documenting the existing conditions; and (6) five sheets of photographs
documenting existing conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 120
E. Buffalo St., and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement,
and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Changes, the proposed project
involves the removal of deteriorated stone steps on the south façade’s porch and
their temporary replacement with wood steps that have the same detailing as those
found on the west elevation’s porch, 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 Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on October 20,
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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is 1820-
1930.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 120 E. Buffalo St.
was constructed in 1866 and was designed by the locally prominent architect, A. B. Dale, in
the Italianate Style.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and
possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
DeWitt Park Historic District.
The proposal under consideration involves the removal of severely deteriorated stone steps,
which are potentially hazardous to the occupants of and visitors to the building. The
applicant is desirous of replacing the steps in-kind or with an appropriate masonry material,
and is seeking funding to cover the cost of the project. Unfortunately, the necessary funding
is not available at this time. The proposed wood steps are an interim measure intended to
maintain the usability of the primary entrance to the building while the applicant secures
funding for the long-term repair.
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
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
11 of 13
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.
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 replacement of stone steps
with wood steps will remove distinctive materials but will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as noted in the letter from Randal Crawford
and illustrated in the “Field Drawings” and photographs, the severity of the deterioration of
the siltstone steps requires their replacement. The proposed new work will not match the
old in design, color, texture, material and other visual qualities. However, the ILPC notes
that the size, scale and detailing of the steps are in keeping with the historic character of the
property, and while the proposed steps would not be an appropriate permanent replacement
for the historic stone steps, they are an acceptable temporary solution that will not detract
from the historic quality of the historic district, in keeping with Principle #2 and Standard
#9.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal for the temporary wood steps will not
have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
12 of 13
the 120 E Buffalo St and the DeWitt Park 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 the
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 temporary steps shall be in place no longer than three years from the date of the
Certificate of Appropriateness and the applicant shall provide yearly status updates
during that period.
Complete documentation of the stone steps shall be provided to ILPC staff prior to
their removal. Measured drawings are the preferred form of documentation.
The quarter round molding depicted at the base of each riser in the contractor’s
sketch of the proposed wood steps shall not be included in the constructed stairs.
Cove moldings shall be incorporated into the design under each tread, running along
the riser and wrapping around to the stringer. This detail will closely replicate the
tread profile of the original stone steps.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, S. Stein
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M. McGandy, K. Olson
Vacancies: 0
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Commission members approved the following meeting
minutes, with no modifications.
September 13, 2016 (Regular Meeting)
ILPC Minutes
October 20, 2016
13 of 13
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
B. McCracken announced the following upcoming community events:
Signage Ribbon-Cutting at Ithaca City Cemetery — October 22, 2016, 11:00 A.M.
Cemetery Sprint — October 29, 2016, 11:00 A.M.
Cemetery Tours — October 29, 2016, 1:00 P.M. & October 30, 2016, 11:00 A.M. & 2:00 P.M.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:50 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission