HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2017-08-08Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — August 8, 2017
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Jennifer Minner, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Joseph “Seph” Murtagh
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Proposed Historic Landmark Designation – The Chacona Block at 411-415 College
Ave. (continuation of Public Hearing opened on 7/11/17)
Kyle Karnes, Chief Executive Officer of Student Agencies, Inc., 409 College Ave, expressed his
organization’s opposition to the local designation of the Chacona Block, reading the below
statement:
On behalf of Student Agencies, thank you for the opportunity to extend the discussion with the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) regarding the potential designation of our
property at 411-415 College Avenue as an individual local landmark.
The additional month has afforded us the opportunity to further engage our engineering consultant,
Taitem Engineering, in a deeper building conditions study to better understand the cost implications
of a potential designation. That work, as outlined in their report dated August 2, 2017, revealed
additional concerns that may impact the appropriateness of 411-415 College Avenue for
designation. In particular, Taitem’s report concluded that the façade, made up of stucco over clay
tile, “has reached the end of its useful life.” The clay tiles are “very brittle” and have separated from
the wood framing of the building, and the stucco itself shows numerous cracks and separations from
the clay tile, allowing moisture to intrude. Taitem estimates the repair of the faça de would cost
upwards of $720,000. That estimate assumes the use of standard materials, not materials meant to
comply with historic blends of stucco, which could be significantly more expensive. In addition,
there is question about whether the brittle clay tile would withstand such a restoration and whether
the community would support the closure of College Avenue for the length of time necessary for
the restoration of the façade.
As a nearly 125-year old not-for-profit organization and community member, we certainly
understand and respect the importance of preservation and proper stewardship of historically
significant entities. At the same time, though, we feel that the attempt to apply a historic designation
to 411-415 is asking for designation of a building whose façade could only be saved through
economically infeasible measures.
We are also troubled by the fact that the potential historic designation prioritizes the building and
what it represents over the historic and cultural importance of Student Agencies. Unfortunately, as
an independent not-for-profit organization, not connected to Cornell nor supported by grant funding,
taking this prioritization approach risks a long-term contraction in our mission funding and services.
As we have pointed out previously, our mission is dependent on the rents generated from our
properties, and 70% of that mission funding come specifically from income generated by 411 -415
College Avenue. To create a designation which would require costly repairs or limit our abilit y to
redevelop the property would create a significant hardship for our organization and would have a
direct negative impact on our mission for the next 125 years.
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
Finally, we understand that the aesthetic harmony of the block is driven by factors including the
consistent height of the ground floor brick base story, the upper stories of complimentary heights, a
consistent fenestration pattern, light earth tones for the upper portions of the buildings, and the
narrow slots between the buildings providing rhythm. Student Agencies would like the ILPC and
the public to consider that a redevelopment of the site could contribute to the excellence of this
urban block through deliberate design references to those characteristics, while providing housing
for more people in a building designed to contemporary safety codes and Ithaca’s environmental
standards.
Kati Smith, Community Outreach Coordinator at Historic Ithaca, 212 Center St, spoke in
support of the designation, reading the below statement:
Ithaca and Tompkins County have a variety of rich heritage assets and stories, and the collective
capacity and responsibility to tell them well. By eliminating this historic building from such a
prominent location, we are eliminating the opportunity to tel l an important story to the hundreds of
people who view it every day. Those who are new to the area and looking for a way to connect to
their surroundings, and those cemented in the community who look to these history-infused sites as
anchors to their home.
When we tell the story of Chacona block, we are really telling the story of the man for whom it is
named, and the story of the first Greek-Americans to immigrate to and thrive in Ithaca.
John N. Chacona was born in Greece and moved to Ithaca in the late 1800s with the first wave of
Greek immigrants to the area. He established confectionary and ice cream shops in various locations
before landing in what we now call Collegetown.
John was a leading businessperson for which other Greek-Americans looked to for example. The
entrepreneurship of the Chacona family was notable and their contributions to the Ithaca business
community were significant. Business and commerce just might be the leading example of the
impact of early Greek-American culture in Ithaca, especially in the realms of the food and realty
industries, and John Chacona should be regarded as one of the trailblazers in this movement.
Beyond John himself, we can easily talk at length about the platform he created that would go on to
house some of the most beloved Collegetown establishments. The Chacona Block has been known
for centuries as the site of businesses that are part of Ithaca’s social history, serving as a landmark
gathering place just off the Cornell University campus. Depending on when one lived in Ithaca, they
may fondly recall the building for their time spent in Collegtown Bagels. Rulloff’s. Oliver’s.
Muggsy’s, or Pop’s Place, which was a beloved student tradition from 1919 -1977.
To designate the Chacona Block as a Local Landmark would be to solidify a significant part of
Ithaca’s Greek heritage, as well as old and new student tradition.
Ira Brous, co-owner of Collegetown Bagels, current tenant of 415 College Ave, spoke in
support of the designation, noting the importance of the outdoor dining space currently on the
north side of the building at the corner of College and Oak Avenue. He relayed his fear that any
redevelopment proposal for the site would include the removal of this space. He commented that
Student Agencies seems to generate a considerable profit from the operation/management of the
411-415 College Ave. and this would not change if the building was designated. He argued that
the expense of rehabilitating the stucco façade could be passed through to the building’s tenants
and indicated he would be willing to pay the resultant higher rent. Finally, he posited that
students could learn a great deal about their place in history from preservation of the building.
Christine O’Malley, Preservation Services Coordinator at Historic Ithaca, 212 Center Street,
spoke in support of the proposed designation, stating that the building fulfills all five of the
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
criteria enumerated in Section 228 of the Municipal Code. She commented that the condition of
the stucco is not an indication that the structure of the building is in poor condition, noting the
Taitem Engineering report clearly states that the stucco façade could be repaired and the
serviceable life of the building extended. Finally, she stated that the current condition of the
building is attributable to the purchase of the building by Student Agencies in the 1970s.
Neha Khanna, 228 S. Geneva St., spoke in support of the proposed designation, stating that she
owns or is a co-owner of three buildings in City historic districts and understand the cost
renovating and maintaining designated structures. She spoke of purchasing and rehabilitating
deteriorated buildings on the verge of demolition in the Henry St. John and East Hill Historic
Districts; these buildings are now profitable rental properties. She concluded that, in her
experience, the cost of rehabilitating and maintaining a building does not increase if it is
designated.
Nancy Brcak, 5214 Jacksonville Road, alternate member of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission but speaking as a private citizen and an art and architectural historian, read the
statement below:
I am an architectural and art historian specializing in American architecture. My Ph.D. is from the
University of Iowa. I have taught at Ithaca College for more than 30 years; I serve as an alternate
member of the ILPC, and I’m a member of Historic Ithaca.
At the June 2017 Landmarks meeting when SAI first presented its argument against designation,
my reaction to their argument was that their statements were full of misinformation & faulty
assertions related to the history of Ithaca’s earlier days. For example: they asserted that John
Wilgus, Chacona’s designer, was not a recognized professional architect working in Ithaca at the
turn of the century. Information about Wilgus’s contributions to Ithaca’s built environment is
readily available in well-known local histories; additionally, Mary Tomlan has documented his place
in local architectural history and has presented this material to the ILPC. Also, at the June meeting,
SAF contended, incorrectly, that John Chacona, himself, was essentially a non -entity in our town’s
history, turning him into a kind of Ithaca phantom. Mr. Chacona’s history deserves to be
acknowledged, and his building, preserved as part of that history.
SAI actions regarding the Chacona Block (or perhaps I should say, “lack of action”) is no t, in my
estimate, “benign neglect” – it appears to be a willful disregard for the value and worth of these two
buildings, and an exploitation of this property. Owners should not be rewarded for this kind of bad
behavior.
What “bad behavior”? Excerpts from several letter, from 1997 to 2012, placed in the public record
by Historic Ithaca testify to SAI’s long history of code problems and numerous violations. Buidling
Department files point to multiple examples of inspection demands that were ignored, again and
again, by Student Agencies. These owners have not acted like responsible stewards; by all
appearances they are looking to ma nipulate the system and wring what profits they can from these
properties.
Finally, I’d like to point out another p roblematic assertion made by SAI. Their stance concerning
the building’s structural viability seems particularly misleading to me: the Chacona Block has a
steel frame (which is another distinctive element of its design, given the buildings date of
construction) and this information was not even mentioned by SAI or its cohorts. In an apparent
attempt to confuse the issue of its neglected, crumbling stucco façade with the viability of the
structural constitution of the Chacona Block, SAI’s obfuscation was, and is, on display; despite
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
neglect of Chacona by SAI, its structure, with its steel core, is viable and NOT a reason to demolish
this venerable building or remove it from consideration for Landmark designation.
Again, this building deserves to be saved as part of Ithaca unique history.
Mary R. Tomlan, 200 Delaware Ave, alternate member of the ILP but speaking as City
Historian and a private citizen, spoke in support of the designation, reading the below statement:
We have seen presented thus far a substantial amount of material concerning the history of the
Chacona Block—the chronology of its presence as a mixed-use type in Collegetown, its construction
as an enterprise of a well-known member of Ithaca’s Greek community, and its place in the career
of established local architect John M. Wilgus. Certainly our understanding of Ithaca’s history has
been expanded and enriched by the research that has been compiled on behalf of this designation
proposal, and whether the Chacona Block is designated and preserved or not, the knowledge and
understanding gained will remain to our, and the community’s, benefit.
But there is more.
Since becoming City Historian, I have become more aware of historic markers in our community.
These markers are useful, their words briefly identifying or describing a place, person or event
significant in local history. But compare a marker noting a house long demolished with, say, that in
front of the Boardman House, identifying this as the first stand -alone home of the Ithaca
Conservatory of Music, later Ithaca College. Viewing the house behind the marker, we can “see”
students with instruments and sheet music going in and out, and can understand this handsome,
repurposed dwelling as the hub of the conservatory’s and then college’s extensive downtown
campus before it moved to South Hill. This building, located in the DeWitt Park Historic District,
gives history a life and richer meaning in the present.
Thus in Collegetown, the presence of historic structures along with the many new ones, informs and
enriches our knowledge of that area and its development. The John Snaith house on the corner of
College and Cook, designated several years ago, is a tangible reminder of one of the English artisans
who came to construct the early buildings at Cornell, many of whom built their own homes in the
vicinity. And while the large frame boarding houses on the 400 block of College Aven ue are no
longer extant, the Grand View House at 209, also now designated, remains, its center tower designed
to announce its presence to possible student boarders. We likewise have the Eddy Street commercial
development visible to us as part of the East Hill Historic District.
Our understanding of the historical development of the 400 block of College Avenue is made real
to us today in the Chacona Block, the Larkin Building and Sheldon Court, whose presence with the
compatibly designed contemporary buildings on that block enriches our own sense of place in
history. The landmark designation of the Chacona Block, along with that of the Larkin Building,
will help assure that the history will remain more than words.
John Schroder, 618 Stewart Ave, member of the Planning and Development Board but
speaking as a private citizen, spoke in support of the proposed designation, noting his experience
managing the rehabilitation of a historic building and the considerable value the retention of the
historic fabric brought to the project. He thanked SAI for the outstanding programming and
services they provide to Cornell Students but noted that most of these functions are housed in
409 College Ave and the preservation of 411-415 College Ave would not prevent these functions
from continuing. He commented on the architectural and aesthetic quality of the existing
building and questioned whether a new building on the site would be as compatible with the
surrounding buildings, especially considering the newer building on the block were designed to
related to the older buildings.
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
Eric Rosario, 228 S. Geneva St., former Common Council member, spoke in support of the
proposed designation, noting the opportunity costs of redeveloping the site. These include the
loss of embodied energy, addition greenhouse emissions from the demolition of the building, and
the loss of a sense of place. He opined that not designating the building and allowing SAI to
redevelop the site because of the condition of the building would be tantamount to rewarding
deferred maintenance.
Susan Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St, owner and manager of twenty rental properties in the City,
all but two in historic districts, spoke in support of the proposed designation. She stated that her
tenants, particularly graduate students, appreciate the history of her properties and speculated
that tenants within a restored Chacona Block would feel the same. She commented on the
considerable loss of history and historic fabric within the Collegetown neighborhood and the
unrest many older residents feel over their loss of a sense of place in the neighborhood.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D.
Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
J. Minner commented that the revisions to the nomination strengthen the argument for
designation.
D. Kramer stated that the building meets all five criteria for designation outlined in Section 228
of the Municipal Code, which is unusual as most properties considered for designation only meet
one or two typically. He explained that the Commission’s decision is based solely on the criteria
enumerated in the Landmarks Ordinance and other factors like the proposed landmark’s property
owner, potential financial impacts on the property owner, and future redevelopment plans for a
property are specifically excluded from the ILPC review of a proposed designation.
In response, J. Murtagh explained that these broader concerns would be examined by Common
Council.
K. Olson summarized that the Chacona Block meets the high standard the Landmarks Ordinance
sets for the designation of individual historic buildings.
LEAD AGENCY RESOLUTION: Moved by E. Finegan, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with
local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the
lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue is a
"Type II Action" pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
Act and is an "Unlisted Action" under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed designation of the
Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: E. Finegan
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
RE: Proposed Local Designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue -
Environmental Determination
ENIVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer,
seconded by J. Minner.
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is considering a recommendation
to Common Council the local historic landmark designation of the Chacona Block
at 411-415 College Avenue, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review for the designation of the Chacona Block at
411-415 College Ave been conducted, including the preparation of a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and submitted for review to the
Conservation Advisory Council, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a "Type II Action" under the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (Sec. 617.5(C)(30) and an "Unlisted Action"
under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR Sec. 176-2),
and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, acting as Lead Agency, has
reviewed the SEAF, dated May 3, 2017 and supplemental information, and has
determined that designation of the individual landmark will not have a significant
effect on the environment and that further environmental review is unnecessary,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City
Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments,
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required
by law.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: J. Minner
In favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
DESIGNATION RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) may recommend to Common Council the
designation landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing opened on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 for the purpose of
considering a proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College
Avenue as a City of Ithaca landmark has been concluded on August 8, 2017, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form
dated August 1, 2012, including the Narrative Description of Property and the
Narrative Description of Significance prepared by the Secretary of the
Commission, L. Truame, based on materials submitted to the ILPC in 2012 by
Sara Johnson and Kristen Olsen of Historic Ithaca, Inc., with Mary Raddant
Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the revised New York State Building & Structure
Inventory Form dated August 8, 2017, including the Narrative Description of the
Property and the revised Narrative Description of Significance prepared by the
Secretary of the Commission, B. McCracken, based materials provided by
Christine O’Malley and Sara Johnson of Historic Ithaca, Inc., and Mary Raddant
Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the proposal is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review
Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires
no further environmental review, and
WHEREAS, consideration of the Chacona Block as an historic resource was introduced in a
report prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009 entitled
Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of
Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape
Features, and
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
WHEREAS, the Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, endorsed by
Common Council in August, 2009, recommends that “historically significant
resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation
as local landmarks, but which currently have no such protection, should be
identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and designated by
Common Council,” and
WHEREAS, based on the information provided in the Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy
of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural
Ensembles and Landscape Features document and the recommendation from the
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, the ILPC conducted
an intensive-level survey of twelve properties within the Collegetown Planning
Area that appeared to meet the eligibility requirements for local designation as set
forth in Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code in 2012 , and
WHEREAS, the New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form, which is being used as the
basis for considering this recommended designation, was prepared as part of the
aforementioned intensive-level survey, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the criteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of
the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or
nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by
virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own, the documentation and information more
fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building Structure Inventory Form
dated August 8, 2017, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the
proposed designation.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New
York State Historic Resource Inventory Form prepared by L. Truame and dated
August 1, 2012, the Chacona Block and the adjacent areas that are identified as
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
tax parcel #64.-2-1, is a structure deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its
value to the city as enumerated below:
Per criterion 1, the Chacona Block possesses special historical and aesthetic
interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the
City of Ithaca through its close association with the development and growth of
Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking housing in close
proximity to Cornell University, and for its role in the development of
Collegetown as an urban neighborhood separate from downtown Ithaca and with
its own distinct character.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance, Cornell
University offered few lodging opportunities for its students,
faculty and staff when it open in 1868. As a result, boarding and
rooming houses as well as many student-oriented service industries
were established in close proximity to the university starting in the
1870s and 1880s. By the first two decades of the 20th century,
preference in the rental housing market in Ithaca, particularly
among the faculty and staff living in the area that would become
known as Collegetown, had shifted away from single-room rentals
like those found in the boarding and rooming houses to flat-style
apartments—a urban-housing mode that contained kitchen,
bathroom and living areas in one private unit. Built between 1911
and 1912, the Chacona Block was one of the first mixed-use
mercantile-residential buildings to be constructed near the
University to meet this demand. Its three ground-floor commercial
spaces housed businesses that catered to the ever growing student
population while the upper-story flats provided independent
housing opportunities for professionals living in Collegetown.
The Narrative Description of Significance further notes that “the
construction of the Chacona Block was a key part of
Collegetown’s transformation from an extension of the downtown
housing and services to a vibrant neighborhood with a distinct
identity.” As one of the first mixed-use commercial-style
buildings on College Avenue, the construction of the Chacona
Block marked the beginning of the gradual urbanization of the 400
block of that street, a process that allowed the street to become the
commercial and housing center of a neighborhood centered on the
needs of students.
Per criterion 2, the Chacona Block is identified with historically significant
person(s) or event(s) through its association with the Chacona family, the
proprietors of a chain of successful confectionery and ice cream shops in Ithaca
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
and beyond in the late nineteenth- and early-twentieth centuries, and John N.
Chacona, specifically.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, John N.
Chacona, was an active and influential member of the Greek-
American business community in Ithaca at the turn of the 20th
century. John N. Chacona was born in Sparta, Greece in 1884 and
immigrated to the United States at the age of nine. He settled in the
Ithaca area in 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy Company
on East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona. John P.
Chacona was known as “Big John” and John N. Chacona was
known as “Little John”. The two operated successful
confectionary stores together and independently, not only in Ithaca
but also in Buffalo and Syracuse. When their partnership
dissolved, John N. opened several independent confectionary
shops, the first being at 416 Eddy St. He also operated the Sugar
Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona.
John N. commissioned the Chacona block in 1912 and opened
another confectionary shop in the storefront at 415 College
Avenue. With its close proximity to Cornell University, this shop
and John N. Chacona, himself, became important parts of the
social lives of Cornell University students
Per criterion 3, the Chacona Block embodies the distinguishing characteristics of
an architectural style.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the Chacona
Block is a good local example of the commercial form of the
Renaissance-Revival Style. The building’s architecture also
represents a community-supported movement to make the
buildings in Collegetown more fire resistant in the early-20th
century. The building was designed to be “fire proof,” and was
constructed of fire-resistant materials, heated with steam, and
illuminated with electric lights to reduce the danger of fire.
Furthermore, the building derives additional significance from its
unique architectural features that reflect the heritage of the family
that commissioned it. Positioned between the windows on fourth
story, the lion’s head and Greek cross decorative plaques denote
the Chacona family’s Greek origins.
Per criterion 4, the Chacona Block is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the
building’s designer, John M. Wilgus, was a locally well-known
architect in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. He
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
was responsible for the design of several Collegetown-area
mercantile-residential buildings, including the McAllister Block at
the corner of Eddy and Williams Streets (1907), the John J Gainey
Block (demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden
Rd (1899), and another Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue
(1908). He also designed the brick commercial building at 114-
118 South Cayuga Street and several downtown residences, many
of them located in National Register Historic Districts. Wilgus’s
pragmatic designs ranged widely in terms of architectural style and
programmatic use, and reflected the functional and economic
needs of his clients.
Per criterion 5, The Chacona Block represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues and opposite
the stone bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Chacona Block at 411-
415 College Avenue has served as a gateway building into the
Collegetown neighborhood from Cornell University since its
construction in 1912. As noted in the Narrative the Description of
Significance, this prominently located property was sought after as
a business location by the early 1900s and its development,
including marketing and sale of the property, design and
construction of the building, and the appearance and amenities of
the completed building, were well documented in numerous local
and regional publications.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue meets
criterion 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 defining a Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-4
of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommends the designation of the Chacona Block at
411-415 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca local historic landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
B. 112-114 Ferris Pl., East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace a Concrete
Walkway and Steps with Stone.
The applicant and property owner, Timothy Hollenbeck, did not appear before the Commission,
In his absence, B. McCracken summarized the proposal, explaining that it represent a project for
which some work has already been completed. The original concrete steps and walkway were
cited by the City of Ithaca Building Division during a recent housing inspection. The property
owner hired a contractor to make minor, in-kind repairs to fix the deficiencies; however, the
contractor’s work was more extensive than originally discussed. He installed new bluestone
treads and a metal railing, completely changing the appearance of the stairs and walkway. The
property owner would like to reverse these alterations and install new “bluestone” walkway
stairs and a walkway.
As the project does not impact any historic materials or character defining features and the
appearance of the alteration is more compatible with the historic aesthetic quality of the historic
district, K. Olson recommended delegating this project to staff-level review.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by K. Olson,
seconded by S. Stein.
On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer, the review and consideration of the proposal
to alter the concrete walkway and stairs at 114 Ferris Pl was delegated to the Secretary of the
Commission.
~ Application was delegated to staff-level review. ~
C. 106 The Knoll, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install a Basement-Level
Entrance, Stone Patio, Concrete Walkway, Stone Retaining Walls, Stone Steps and Metal
Guardrails, and Re-grade a Portion of the West Lawn
Noah Demarest, on behalf of property owner Phi Delta Sigma, Inc, appeared before the
Commission to summarize the details of the proposal, stating the intent of the design is to
provide a code compliant means of egress from the basement of the building. Two doors would
be installed in the basement wall of the southwest elevation and the other improvements in the
area facilitate their installation. He distributed a sheet of revised renderings, attached, and
explained that a few minor alterations were made to the proposal after the application was
submitted to the ILPC. The proposed guardrail will have vertical members spaced 4” apart
instead of the horizontal bars depicted in the rendering submitted in the original application
materials. Instead of large, fully-glazed doors, the proposal has been revised to include ones that
match other basement-level doors at the property.
B. McCracken questioned the appropriateness of the installation of two doors in this location and
recommended exchanging one of them for the installation of a window in one of the existing
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
openings, a configuration that would match others within the building. N. Demarest said this
could be done, but expressed concerns about the condition and appearance of the wall beneath
the existing window opening.
E. Finegan asked N. Demarest to explain the proposed lawn re-grading. N. Demarest replied that
there are currently no areas of level lawn at the property and the proposed regrading would
provide an area for recreational sports and social events. There will be no hardscape
improvements and the regraded area will have a similar appearance to the existing lawn.
K. Olson observed the highly variegated color of the proposed limestone quarry blocks and
asked if the rendering accurately depicts the material. N. Demarest responded, yes, the material
is highly variegated.
Public Hearing
On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer,
seconded by K. Olson.
D. Kramer commented that the proposed alteration is not visually appealing; however, it will not
have a substantial impact on the historic aesthetic quality of the property or the historic district
because of its location. The proposed retaining wall and other site improvements related to the
installation of the basement door will be located on a secondary elevation and screened by
landscape plantings. Additionally, the property is located on a private street and the residence,
itself, is not significantly visible from the public way.
J. Minner commented that the suggested modifications to the proposal discussed that evening—
the exchange of one door for a window and the changes to the style of the door and guardrails—
make it more appropriate and acceptable.
B. McCracken noted the fiberglass material of the proposed door and asked the Commission if
this was appropriate. E. Finegan responded that the door’s location below grade and the
likelihood of its regular contact with moisture makes this material appropriate in this location.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by J. Minner.
WHEREAS, 106 The Knoll is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and
as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989,
and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, dated July 12, 2017, was submitted for review to
the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Noah Demarest on
behalf of Paul Martorano, representative of Phi Delta Sigma, Inc., including the
following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two photographs documenting
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
existing conditions, (3) three renderings illustrating the proposed changes from
multiple angles; (4) two site plans, one showing existing conditions and other the
proposed alterations, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 106 The Knoll, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
the installation of a door and window, matching other basement-level windows at
the property, in the basement level of the southernmost bay of the southwest
elevation, and modifications to the landscape to accommodate the installation of
door and window, including the installation of two retaining walls constructed of
~12”x24” limestone “Seneca Stone” quarry blocks, a set of stone steps
constructed of 6”x12” pieces of the same stone, a “flag” stone patio, a concrete
walkway, and metal guardrails; the project also involves re-grading a 30’x90’
section of the west lawn, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required,
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on August 8, 2017, 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
Colonial-Revival Style residence at 106 The Knoll was constructed between 1899
and 1900 for John Tanner, professor of mathematics at Cornell University. The
residence was designed by the Cornell University’s first student of architecture
and locally prominent architect, William Henry Miller.
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.
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
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 installation of a
basement door and window, the associated site work, and re-grading the lawn will
remove distinctive materials but will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property. The ILPC notes that the proposed door will occupy an
existing basement-level window opening. The small opening will be enlarged to
accommodate the door, but as the opening does not need to be widened, the
proposal allows for the retention of the original stone lintel, which is visible above
grade. The original window opening was infilled with non-historic materials at
the time the Cornell Heights Historic District was designated and the original
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
window sash for this opening is no longer extant. The proposed new window will
be installed in another existing window opening, and if possible, the window sash
will be salvaged from another opening within the same building.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed fiberglass
reinforced polyester (FRP) door, quarry block, concrete and “flag stones” are
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property
and its environment. In evaluating the appropriateness of the fiberglass reinforced
polyester door, the ILPC considered the door’s location below grade, exposure to
moisture, and low visibility from the public way.
With respect to Standard #10, the two basement-level doors and associated site
work (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 conditions:
• The style of the fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP) door shall be reviewed and
approved by ILPC staff.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: J. Minner
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
D. 310 W. State St., Downtown West Historic District – Consideration of an Economic
Hardship Application
Applicant Fei Qi did not appear before the Commission to present his case for a finding of
economic hardship. The Commission briefly discussed the materials submitted by the applicant
and decided additional information was needed to fully evaluate the economic impact of the
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
Commission’s denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of sections of slate
roof with asphalt shingles. The Commission directed the Secretary of the Commission to draft a
letter to the applicant requesting the required additional information.
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Stein,
seconded by D. Kramer.
~ Application was TABLED. ~
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
None
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
311 College Ave, The Nines – Request for Comments from the Planning and
Development Board
B. McCracken announced that a plan to redevelop 311 College Ave was presented to the
Planning and Development Board at their July meeting. The plan includes the demolition of the
Old No. 9 Fire Station, “The Nines,” and the construction of a 6 story apartment building. As the
former fire station was included in the study Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed
Research prepared by former Common Council member Mary Raddant Tomlan and John
Schroder, then Chair of the Planning and Development Board, the ILPC has been requested by
Planning and Development Board to comment on the project. The Commission discussed the
historic and architectural significance of the building and alternatives to its demolition. The
Secretary of the Commission was directed to draft a letter to the Planning and Development
Board outlining the significance of the building, encouraging the rehabilitation of the building in
situ, or the relocation and rehabilitation of the building if that is infeasible.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Approved by ILPC: September 12, 2017
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:05 p.m. by Chair
Finegan.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Secretary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission