HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-11-15Approved by ILPC: February 14, 2017
1 of 21
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — November 15, 2016
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian
Susan Stein
Katelin Olson
Jennifer Minner
Michael McGandy
Seph Murtagh (Common Council Liaison)
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 313 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District — Proposal to Install Wrought-Iron Gate
Applicants Barry Chester and Elissa Cogan described the details of the proposal, noting they would like
to add a gate at the end of their newly rebuilt driveway for security and aesthetic purposes. E. Cogan
noted that the railing along the rebuilt retaining wall has not been installed, but is in the process of being
fabricated. The proposed gate design was inspired by an existing gate on the property created by a
locally prominent ironsmith in the early 20th century. E. Cogan noted the gate would not be particularly
high.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by S. Gibian, 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 stated he cannot think of another property in the City of Ithaca that features a gate at the end of
its driveway, especially not in the East Hill Historic District. It seems a little ‘defensive’, in terms of
how it presents itself to the public. J. Minner responded that it does not feel ‘defensive’ to her because it
is not visually heavy and is highly transparent.
E. Cogan explained that the gate was designed to stop the considerable amount of traffic her driveway
receives, which could harm the new concrete.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by J. Minner.
WHEREAS, 313 E. Buffalo St. is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section
228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and
National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated October 24, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Barry Chester and Elissa Cogan,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) an artist’s sketch by Durand Van Doren of
the proposed alteration; and (3) an article from the April 10, 1982 edition of the Ithaca Journal
titled “The Ironwork Legacies of Ithaca’s Luigi Massucci,” and
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
2 of 21
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 313
E. Buffalo St., and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves installing a
metal gate at the property’s driveway entrance, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November
15, 2016, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Italianate Style
residence at 313 E. Buffalo St. was constructed between 1861 and 1866.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In
considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether
the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the
architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the
Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the
principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in
Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and
in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the
significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual
property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property will be avoided.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
3 of 21
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 installation of an entrance
gate will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed gate is compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The
gate’s contemporary hardware and extruded steal posts will differentiate this piece as a later
addition to the historic street, in keeping with Standard #9.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 313 E. Buffalo St. and
the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: J. Minner
In Favor: S. Stein, J. Minner, M. McGandy, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: K. Olson
Vacancies: 0
B. 123 Heights Ct., Cornell Heights Historic District — Proposal to Construct New Vestibule &
Rebuild Front Entry Deck/Stairs
Applicants Susan Hess and Lane Chambliss described the details of the proposal, noting it would take
care of some of the house’s various stylistic and functional problems. In the 1960s, a poorly designed
and constructed addition was built on the east side of the residence to provide access to a second-story
apartment. It contained a poor quality door and a porch roof structure that related oddly to an existing
window. Inside the entryway, one must go up a set of five steps to a landing and then down four steps to
enter the main living space, a configuration that is not convenient for the current owner. The proposed
new entryway would be slightly larger than the existing and would allow the entry to be at the same
level as the main living space. The existing door on the east exterior wall would become a door inside
the new entryway. A new exterior fiberglass door that matches the one in the sun room would be
installed.
L. Chambliss also reported that the new entryway and the property’s other zoning deficiencies received
a Zoning Variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals on November 1, 2016.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
4 of 21
E. Finegan asked how much further out the new steps would project into the yard. L. Chambliss replied,
one tread or approximately 11” or 12”.
M. McGandy noted that the proposal involves a part of the house that had previously received an
inappropriate and deeply incompatible alteration. While the proposal is still unconventional, it is clearly
an improvement over the existing condition.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by J. Minner.
J. Minner asked if the existing door has actual divided lights. L. Chambliss replied, it has a single large
square light.
J. Minner questioned whether the proposed fiberglass door would meet the design guidelines for the
Cornell Heights Historic District. B.McCracken replied that fiberglass doors have been approved by the
Commission in the past, but only for new construction or additions to contributing buildings that are not
significantly visible from the public way. He also requested additional information on the proposed
door, including details about the divided lights and the paintability of the fiberglass surface. L.
Chambliss responded that the door would have simulated divided lights and it would be paintable. B.
McCracken commented that he thought it would meet that design guidelines for the Cornell Heights
Historic District.
S. Stein noted that her only concern with the proposal was the fiberglass door. She felt it would more
appropriate to use a wood door, ideally salvaged and refinished. J. Minner agreed.
D. Kramer suggested visiting Significant Elements to locate one. L.Chambliss expressed concerns about
the use of a salvaged door, including the ability to find one that is the right size for this application,
maintenance requirements, and restrictions related to the New York State Residential Energy Code.
(K. Olson arrived at 5:53 p.m.)
B. McCracken relayed concerns about the use of a salvaged door, which might not be in keeping with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard #3, as it could create a false sense
of history.
J. Minner responded that she would not interpret the Standards in that way. It is her opinion that a
salvaged door from the district’s period of significance, and in keeping with the architectural style of the
property, would be acceptable. B. McCracken remarked that he would agree with this interpretation if
some photographic evidence of the appearance of the original door existed.
K. Olson said she would be abstaining when this project comes to a vote because she was not here
during the applicant’s presentation to the Commission and all of the subsequent discussion. She did,
however, note her objections to the use of a fiberglass door in this application.
J. Minner questioned whether the use of a salvaged wood door should be a condition of the approval or
merely a recommendation from the Commission.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
5 of 21
E. Finegan asked the Commission to consider the appropriateness of the fiberglass material before
suggesting an alternative. The Commission generally agreed that the use of a fiberglass door on the
primary façade of a contributing resource was not in keeping with the historic character of the Cornell
Heights Historic District and determined that the use of a wood door, either salvage or new, should be a
condition of any approval.
B. McCracken drew the Commission’s attention to the proposed use of composite wood decking on the
proposed deck and noted that this material has not been previously approved for use on the primary
façade. A sample of the material was distributed to the Commission for review. L Chambliss noted that
the same material exists on the current deck and has performed better in terms of slipperiness,
maintenance, and weather resistance than previous wood materials in this location.
K. Olson asked whether the composite decking in this location was approved by the Commission when
it was installed. B. McCracken reported that the deck was constructed before the historic district was
designated in the 1980s and it is likely that the composite decking was installed at that time. If this was
a true in-kind replacement, the composite wood materials would be allowed; however, this is not an in-
kind replacement. The size, configuration, and height of the deck will be change, making it a new deck.
K.Olson voiced her objection to the use of the material on the primary façade but conceded that it would
be approvable on a less visible secondary or rear elevation.
E. Finegan asked if other decking options were explored. L. Chambliss said no, this material was
preferred by the property owner.
M. McGandy remarked that this project attempts to recapture some of the integrity of the building that
was lost as a result of earlier changes. The use of composite decking would be counter to this objective.
B. McCracken noted that pressure treated lumber has been approved in other similar situations.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 123 Heights Ct. 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 October 10, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Susan Coombs-Hess,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four sheets of architectural drawings, titled
“Site Plan” “Plan – Lvl 1,” “Elevations,” and “Sections,” illustrating the proposed
changes; (3) one sheet of photographs documenting existing conditions; and (4) one
sheet of product specifications, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 123
Heights Ct., and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
6 of 21
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
demolition of an existing deck, the construction of a 32 sq. ft. addition and the
construction of a new deck at the northeast corner of the residence, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts
of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting
on November 15, 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, the Classical-
Revival Style residence at 123 Heights Ct. was constructed between 1921 and 1922.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell
Heights Historic District.
The project under consideration involves alterations to the “long, narrow, one-bay-wide
entry vestibule project[ing] from the east façade” documented in the New York State
Building-Structure Inventory Form for 123 Heights Ct. As determined by the review of
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from 1924 and 1965, this addition was constructed
sometime after 1965, outside of the Cornell Heights Historic District’s period of
significance. The applicant notes in Reasons for Proposed Changes that the single-story
vestibule addition was constructed by a previous property owner to provide separate
access to a second floor rental apartment.
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
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
7 of 21
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 #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.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the demolition of the
existing deck and the construction of an addition and new deck will not remove
distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed addition and deck are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment
With respect to Standard #10, the addition and deck can be removed in the future
without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition(s):
• Decking shall be solid-wood, pressure-treated lumber or a similar solid wood
material.
• The entrance door shall be solid wood, either salvaged or new.
RECORD OF VOTE:
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
8 of 21
Moved by: M. McGandy
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: 0
Against: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Abstain: K. Olson
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
C. 220 & 221 S. Geneva St., Henry St. John Historic District — Proposal to Install Two Concrete
Pads & Benches
Applicant Nancy Olts, TCAT, and Margaret Dennis and Mary Zigatelli, McGraw House residents,
appeared before the Commission. M. Zigatelli noted that she has gathered 64 signatures on a petition
asking for the approval of the benches.
M. Dennis explained that there is a genuine need for the benches on both sides of S. Geneva St. in front
of McGraw House. The large residential facility has 110 residents, all over 62. 40 of them have cars and
10 are homebound; leaving 60 people that rely on other forms of transportation, including TCAT. She
remarked that she is concerned about the safety of people waiting for the bus, particularly due to the
volume of traffic on the street and during periods of inclement weather.
N. Olts stated that TCAT is interested in installing a bench on the west side of the S. Geneva St., across
from McGraw House. Concrete pads would be installed on both the east and west sides of the street and
metal benches would be installed on them. McGraw House has already purchased an eight-foot long,
green metal bench; the words “McGraw House” are cut out of back rest. As similar bench without the
noted lettering would be purchased by TCAT for the west side of the street.
E. Finegan asked if the property owner of 221 S. Geneva St. has participated in the planning process for
these benches since one of them will be located on their property. N. Olts replied, no. B. McCracken
noted that the bench would be located in the City’s right-of way, but said he would personally contact
the property owner about the project if it was approved this evening.
J. Minner noted that the benches seem like a logical improvement and asked if there had been any
consideration of installing a shelter. M. Zigatelli replied that would be very nice, although she is not sure
if that would be possible.
N. Olts said that TCAT could purchase a structure, but first it would have to determine whether this was
an appropriated location for one.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer.
B. McCracken summarized that the Commission seems amenable to the installation of a shelter on this
street but cannot consider it this evening because the public notice only included the benches. The
petition for a cross walk involves paint, which is not within the Commission’s purview and can move
forward without approval from this board.
S. Murtagh inquired about the timeline for the installation of the benches.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
9 of 21
N. Olts responded that a contractor has been hired and is available next week to complete the work.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 220 and 221 S Geneva St are located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated October 31, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Nancy Oltz on behalf of Tompkins
County Area Transit and McGraw House, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and
(2) seven photographs documenting existing conditions and showing the locations and
design of the proposed benches, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 220 and 221 S. Geneva St., and the City of Ithaca’s
Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
removing two deteriorated concrete and wood benches from the tree lawn in front of 221
S. Geneva St. and the installation of two concrete pads and two new metal benches in the
tree lawns fronting both 220 and 221 S. Geneva St., one bench and pad in each location,
and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts
of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting
on November 15, 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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, the modest Greek-Revival residence at 220
S. Geneva St. was constructed before 1850 and is considered a contributing resource
within the Henry St. John Historic District. 221 Geneva St. is a senior housing complex
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
10 of 21
constructed in 1970, outside of the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic
District, and is considered a non-contributing resource within the designated area.
The project under consideration involves improvements within the tree lawns/street
right-of-way of the subject properties and does not alter the built resources. The two
benches that are scheduled for removal were likely installed at the same time McGraw
House was constructed and are not considered character defining features of the historic
streetscape.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to
the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any
alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #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.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of two benches
and installation of two concrete pads and metal benches will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed concrete pads and metal
benches are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
11 of 21
With respect to Standard #10, concrete pads and metals benches can be removed in the
future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Henry St.
John 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: S. Gibian
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
D. 232 S. Geneva St., Henry St. John Historic District — Proposal to Replace Windows & Door on
Enclosed Porch
Applicants Brian Davis and Noy Chansavath-Davis, Jason Demarest Architect, and property owner Jerry
Dietz described the details of the proposal, noting the owner wishes to the change existing enclosed
porch from unconditioned to conditioned interior space by replacing the windows and door. Updated
materials were distributed by the applicant, with the only changes being the addition of two windows
next to the door.
S. Gibian noted concerns with the four-over-four, divided-light pattern and composite wood material of
the proposed windows. Most of the other windows within the property are two-over-two, which is
indicative the Italianate Style. The use of two-over-two windows in the porch seems most appropriate;
however, the use of four-over-four windows would clearly read as a later infill of a formerly open porch,
which might be an appropriate way of differentiating the old from the new. He also noted that
composite wood windows have not been previously approved by the Commission.
M. McGandy elaborated on S. Gibian’s concern about the window material by calling out the proposed
use of a fiberglass door.
B. Davis summarized his discussion with B. McCracken about the proposal to replace the windows with
four-over-over units, mentioning an example of an enclosed front porch on an Italianate-Style house in
Norwich, NY with which B. McCracken is familiar. In that example, the original building has tall,
narrow, two-over-two windows while the enclosed porch contained multiple, smaller divided lights. B.
Davis provided a sample of the proposed window material.
D. Kramer announced that he had to leave but commended the property owner for the considerable work
that has been done on the property and voiced his qualified approval of the project.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
12 of 21
(D. Kramer departed at 6:39 p.m.)
K. Olson noted that enclosed porches dating from the district’s period of significance were usually
sleeping porches and were located on secondary or rear elevations. The location of this enclosed porch
on the primary façade is somewhat unique and allows for a greater amount of flexibility when
determining the appropriateness of proposed changes. She asked if the applicant had a preference for the
two-over-two or four-over-four light pattern. B. Davis responded that the proposed four-over-four
pattern is preferred by his client.
K. Olson asked if the windows would be paintable. B. Davis replied, yes.
B. McCracken asked whether they would be painted to match existing. J. Dietz replied, yes.
Public Hearing
On a motion by MM, seconded by KO, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public
comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by MM, seconded by SG.
K. Olson commented that she is reluctant to approve a fiberglass door on primary façade, especially
considering the earlier application. When asked by E. Finegan if a wood door could be installed instead,
J. Dietz replied, yes.
E. Finegan asked the Commission if they felt composite wood windows were appropriate.
B. McCracken recalled that the last time the Commission discussed composite wood windows there was
a discussion of approving a trial case. He suggested this may be the ideal situation. K. Olson observed
that no historic materials would be lost, making it a good location for a case study.
E. Finegan noted the proposed windows would be a major improvement over the existing aluminum
windows.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 232 S. Geneva St. is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated October 25, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property
owner CSP Management, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) one sheet of
architectural drawings titled “Porch Renovations – Exterior Elevations,” and
WHEREAS, revised architectural drawing showing minor changes to the proposed project were
submitted by the applicant at the ILPC meeting on November 15, 2016, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the
Henry St. John Historic District for 232 S. Geneva St., and the City of Ithaca’s Henry St.
John Historic District Summary Statement, and
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
13 of 21
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacing thirteen non-historic aluminum, triple-track windows and an aluminum door,
which enclose the east facing porch, with four-over-four, composite wood windows and
a fiberglass door, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts
of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting
on November 15, 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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John Historic District
is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included
within the Henry St. John Historic District, the Italianate-Style residence at 232 S
Geneva St was constructed between 1873 and 1874.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Henry
St. John Historic District.
The project under consideration involves the conversion of the enclosed east porch from
unconditioned to conditioned interior space. The applicant proposes replacing the
windows and door of the porch as part of this project. It is unclear when the porch was
enclosed; however, the use of aluminum triple-track windows and an aluminum storm
door suggest that the alteration was completed outside of the Henry St. John Historic
District’s period of significance and is, therefore, not a character defining feature of the
property. In fact, it is noted in the district’s nomination materials that enclosed porch
detracts from the historic integrity of the resource.
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
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
14 of 21
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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall
not be undertaken.
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 windows
and doors will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed windows
and door are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the
property and its environment. A section of the proposed window unit was provided at
the meeting, giving the Commission the opportunity to fully examine their components
and details and assess the compatibility of their visual properties with those of the
district’s historic aesthetic environment. The ILPC found their sloped sill, molding
profile around the glazing, and wide bottom rail and narrow side and meeting rails
approximated the characteristics of historic wood windows. As the project would not
result in the loss of any historic fabric, the ILPC felt this was the ideal location for an
experiment to evaluate the visual compatibility of these windows, once installed, with
the historic aesthetic environment. The ILPC notes that composite wood windows have
not previously been approved for use in contributing structures in the City’s historic
districts.
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 Henry St.
John Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
15 of 21
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition(s):
• The door shall be solid wood and either salvaged or new. The final panel and
glazing configuration of the door shall be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff
prior to installation.
• The light configuration of the composite wood windows shall be four-over-four and
the windows shall have simulated divided lights with grilles on the interior and
exterior and a spacer between the panes of glass.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: M. McGandy
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: D. Kramer
Vacancies: 0
D. 400-404 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District — Proposal to Add Service Door on West-
Facing Wall, Reconfigure Inset Vestibule on East-Facing Wall, & Replace All Third-Story Double
Hung Dormer Windows with Casement Windows
Applicants Brian Davis and Noy Chansavath-Davis, Jason Demarest Architect, described the details of
the proposal, noting they have updated materials to submit. Since the project received a Certificate of
Appropriateness, some exterior features needed to be changed to meet New York State Building Code
requirements. Changes include the reconfiguration of the entry vestibule, the substitution of double-
hung windows in the third-floor with casement-style windows and the introduction of a rear door.
K. Olson remarked that she preferred the new vestibule configuration, as it appears to be more
streamlined.
J. Minner noted that the change to casement-style windows in the third story resulted in the loss of some
facade articulation, which does not seem appropriate. Commission members agreed that casement
windows with simulated meeting rails would be most appropriate for the third-story window openings.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner , seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Goldman, managing partner of 400 Stewart Ave, LLC, commented that he is pleased with the
revisions to the design.
There being no further public comment, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by K. Olson.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
16 of 21
RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 400-404 Stewart Ave. is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated October 25, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property
owner 400 Stewart Ave,, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); and (2) two sheets
of architectural drawings, titled “Concept Perspectives” and “Exterior Elevations,” and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
400-404 Stewart Ave. and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, after the required public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on January 26,
2016, the ILPC approved the construction of a three-story, mixed-use building to replace
the building at 400-404 Stewart Ave. that was severely damaged in a fire on April 13,
2015, and
WHEREAS, after the required public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on March 8, 2016,
the ILPC approved alterations to the design approved on January 26, 2016, specifically
the removal of the mansard roof on the north elevation as required by NYS Building
Code, and
WHEREAS, it was determined during the final review of construction documents by the City of
Ithaca’s Building Division that some components of the proposed building were not
NYS Building Code complaint, specifically the east façade’s recessed vestibule and the
third-story windows, and some new design features were required to comply with NYS
Building Code, including a recessed door in the first-story of the west elevation and a
window in the basement level of the east elevation, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the proposed changes to the
approved design include the reconfiguration of the east façade’s recessed vestibule, the
substitution of the third story double-hung windows with casement-style windows, and
the introduction of a recessed door on the west elevation and a window on the east
elevation, 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
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
17 of 21
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 November 15, 2016, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-
1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 400-404 Stewart
Ave. was constructed between 1904 and 1910 as a large brick-veneered commercial
building on a primarily residential street.
400-404 Stewart Ave., known locally as the Chapter House, was completely destroyed
by a fire in April 2015. The lot is currently vacant.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the
proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the
improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district.
In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider
whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of
the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6
of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible
with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
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 #3 and Standard #9, the proposed modifications east façade’s
vestibule and the third-story windows, and the introduction of the door on the west
elevation and the window on the east elevation are compatible with the historic character
of the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment.
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
18 of 21
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 East Hill
Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition(s):
• Casement windows in the third-story dormers shall have simulated meeting and
lower rails to replicate the appearance of one-over-one double-hung windows.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: J. Minner
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: D. Kramer
Vacancies: 0
E. 309 N. Tioga St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Remove Exterior Sign & Replace
with Updated Sign
Applicant Katrina Medeiros described the details of the proposal, noting it is to replace the black portion
of the sign only, the pole and bracket will remain. The existing sign is old, has been painted numerous
times, and cannot be easily altered when new tenants move into the building.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by J. Minner, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by J. Minner, seconded by K. Olson.
S. Gibian commented that the original sign is more aesthetically appealing than the proposed sign and is
more appropriate for use in the historic district. He stressed the relationship between this sign and others
on this portion of N. Tioga St. The new sign’s size, shape and color seem out of place on the street.
M. McGandy observed that the curvilinear quality of bracket complements the shape of the old sign; the
new sign does not have the same complementary relationship.
S. Gibian asked what material would be used to construct the sign. K. Medeiros replied, I do not know.
B. McCracken asked how many spaces are needed for tenants on the sign. K. Medeiros responded, eight.
B. McCracken suggested tabling the application to allow the applicant to work with her sign contractor
to design one that is more aesthetically appropriate while still providing the flexibility needed by the
owner. All Commission members agreed.
—The application was TABLED.—
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
19 of 21
F. 315 N. Tioga St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Proposal to Replace Signage with More
Updated Signage
Applicant Kate Shanks-Booth and Nancy Olts described the details of the proposal, noting the existing
sign would be removed and a larger sign comprise of individual letters would be installed. Samples of
the proposed letters were distributed to the Commission for review.
S. Gibian commented that the existing sign is nothing special but questioned whether the larger sign
would be appropriate.
E. Finegan asked if sign needed to be as big as proposed. K. Shanks-Booth replied, no, that was the size
recommended by the sign company.
K. Olson commented that the sign appears unfinished. She read excerpts from the “Signs” section of the
City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, which outline the characteristic of
appropriate signs. She suggested mounting the letters to some type of backing that incorporated some of
the architectural details of the building. S. Stein agreed with this recommendation.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There
being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson.
—The application was TABLED and delegated to staff.—
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
• None
III. OLD BUSINESS
• None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• 310 W. State St., Downtown West Historic District — Proposal to Remove Slate & Install
Temporary Roofing Material
As the architect for the project, S. Gibian recused himself from the discussion. Property owner Fei Qi
and Project Manager Peter Wydyzinki were present to address the Commission.
B. McCracken explained that the remaining sections of slate roof are severely damaged and deteriorated,
and in need of immediate repair to prevent further water infiltration into the building. Due to the
complexity of the roof form and the need to complete work on an abutting chimney, it is impractical and
unsafe to simply tarp the roof at this time. The property owner would like to remove the slate, salvaging
any sound tiles, and install a temporary roof. An email from Brotherton Construction to B. McCracken
outlined this proposed scope of work. Since the slate will not be reinstalled or replaced in-kind
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
20 of 21
immediately, B. McCracken stated that he could not approve the work at the staff level. Driven by the
seasonal onset of inclement weather, the property owner and property manager requested to meet with
the Commission to discuss the situation.
P. Wydyzinki described the condition of the roof and summarized Brotherton Construction’s
recommendation for stopping the water infiltration. It was the opinion of the contractor and the project
manager that the damage to the interior of the building would be exponentially worse if the problem was
not addressed before the onset of winter. He requested approval to remove the existing slate shingles,
make any necessary repairs to the sheathing and structural members, and prepare the roof for a
replacement material, which would likely be slate.
B. McCracken asked if the Commission would be comfortable with a staff-level review and approval of
the slate tile removal given the exigent circumstances. The property owner would be required to return
to the Commission with an official Certificate of Appropriateness application if the slate is not replaced
in-kind. Only an in-kind replacement could be approved at the staff level.
M. McGandy commented on the urgency of the situation and noted that he would allow the staff-level
approval of the slate removal as long as future applications and discussion begin with premise these
sections of the roof had slate.
K.Olson was also comfortable with the staff-level review as long as the contractor made an effort to
salvage as much of the slate as possible, as described in Brotherton’s email.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein, Commission members approved the following meeting
minutes, with no modifications.
• October 20, 2016 (Regular Meeting)
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Downtown & Collegetown Design Guidelines — ILPC Review & Comment: Deadline:
December 1, 2016
B. McCracken explained that the City has hired Winter and Company, a planning firm based in
Colorado, to draft design guidelines for Collegetown and Downtown. The consultants have completed
the first drafts and the client committee would like the ILPC to review them to provide feedback since
both areas contain locally designated properties. ILPC members agreed to review the documents over
the next month and collectively prepare comments at the December ILPC meeting.
K. Olson asked if it would be appropriate to consider additional designations of historic resources in
Collegetown as part of the design guidelines process. B. McCracken responded that there are numerous
properties in the area that are worthy of designation and much of the research on them has already been
completed. He agreed to distribute the materials before the December meeting and to reserve time at the
next meeting for a discussion. K. Olson also requested invitations to the next ILPC meeting be extended
to the Common Council representatives for the Collegetown area.
• 2016 Certified Local Government Audit
ILPC Minutes
November 15, 2016
21 of 21
B. McCracken announced that the State Historic Preservation Office will be auditing the ILPC records
as part of the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. The SHPO is required to routinely audit
CLGs every four years; the ILPC was last audited in 2012 and no issues were reported at that time. As
part of the auditing process, a representative from the SHPO will be at the March ILPC meeting.
Based on a request from K.Olson, information on the CLG listserv will be distributed to the Commission
members, allowing the group to connect with other commission members and preservation staff
throughout the country. J. Minner also suggested subscribing to the Alliance of Preservation
Commissions listserv, which also allows members to interact with preservation professionals and
commission members.
• 2017 Meeting Schedule
B. McCracken distributed the tentative schedule of regular ILPC meetings in 2017 and asked the
Commission members to notify him of any potential scheduling conflicts.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:44 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission