Loading...
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