HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2017-11-14 Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes—November 14, 2017
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair Megan McDonald, Member Bryan McCracken, Historic
David Kramer(left 6:43), Katelin Olson, Member Preservation Planner
Vice Chair Susan Stein, Member Anya Harris, Staff
Stephen Gibian, Member
Jennifer Minner, Member
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 111 Orchard Place, East Hill Historic District Property–Retroactive Application to
Replace Wood Shingles with Asphalt Shingles
Property owner Lauren Hill said she moved to the area and purchased the house in 2014. She
said she wanted to replace the shingles on the gambrel roof slopes. After a search, she found a
contractor to assist. The applicant said that she and the contractor wanted to use asphalt shingles
because they would handle water better, saying that the cedar shingles painted to match the sides
of the house appeared"mildewy and green,"because they seemed to be retaining moisture under
the paint. She said that she "has never done this before" (sought approvals for making home
repairs in an historic district) and apologized for not knowing the process.
L. Hill said that prior to starting the project she had spoken with her neighbor, from whom she
received B. McCracken's contact information. She said when she called him, he had explained
that some projects can receive staff level approvals, but others, like hers, need to go through the
ILPC for approval. She said that next she went to the Building Division where she applied for a
permit electronically. Over the course of several visits, she was in contact with Skip Schell and
Bob Ripa. Then, L. Hill said, "A couple days later I received a phone call that said `Your permit
is ready to be picked up."' She concluded by saying that once the project was underway, she
received an email that her project did still need ILPC approval. As most of the work is already
complete, L. Hill is seeking a retroactive approval for replacement of woods shingle with asphalt
shingles.
B. McCracken said that the Building Division had issued L. Hill a permit in mid-October
(without the project first being reviewed and approved by the ILPC), and that he was trying to
determine where the breakdown in the review process had occurred. He noted that he had missed
an email from the applicant early in the process, which contributed in part to the current
situation, but noted that he had explained to her via telephone and email that the project needed
ILPC approval. He also said that he would be following up with B. Ripa to determine why the
permit was issued without the required ILPC approvals.
K. Olson asked if B. McCracken would have approved at the staff level, and he said no.
1
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
S. Gibian said that when they visited the property earlier that day, they were surprised to see that
most of the work was already complete. B. McCracken said that the public notice would have
been worded differently if he had known the application was being made retroactively.
E. Finegan asked if the ILPC has approved this type of shingle in a similar situation previously.
B. McCracken responded that yes, in 2015 the ILPC had approved replacing a roof clad entirely
in wooden shingles with asphalt shingles. E. Finegan said that if the Commission had been
participating there might have been a discussion about the color of shingles selected.
K. Olson noted that the previous case involved a gable roof, not a gambrel roof, and that it was a
lot less noticeable. "This is much more visible, more of a wall, a fagade," she said.
D. Kramer observed that the owner had a valid permit. B. McCracken said that the issue, in this
case, is internal (to the Planning and Building Division).
M.M. McDonald suggested the resolution be modified to reflect that the application was made
retroactively.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olsen, seconded by M.M. McDonald, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D.
Kramer, seconded by K. Olsen.
After additional discussion, the Commission reviewed and modified the language of the
resolution.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by J. Minner.
WHEREAS, 111 Orchard Pl. is located within 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, 2017,was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by of property owner Lauren Hill,
including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a letter addressed to the
property owner from John Tilitz of John Tilitz Builders, dated October 2, 2017,
regarding the proposed project; and (3) four photographs documenting existing
conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
111 Orchard Pl. and the City of Ithaca's East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
2
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(sl, the project involves
replacing the painted wood shingles on the lower portions of the property's gambrel
roof and the roof on the bay window on the north elevation with asphalt,
architectural-style shingles, and the in-kind replacement of localized sections of
wood trim, and
WHEREAS, in keeping with the guidance outlined in the City of Ithaca Historic District and
Landmark Design Guidelines, the in-kind replacement of localized sections of wood
trim was approved by ILPC staff on October 25, 2017 with the condition that the
new trim match to old in material,profile and detailing, and
WHEREAS, a Building Permit for the full scope of the project was inadvertently issued by the
City of Ithaca Building Division on October 17, 2017, and the work was completed
before the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on November 14, 2017,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 14, 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 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 Dutch
Colonial Revival Style residence at 111 Orchard Pl.was designed by the regionally
prominent architecture firm of Pierce and Bickford, and was constructed between
1908 and 1909.
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.
The roof of the property in question is partially covered in wood shingles, a historic
roofing material that was once popular and extensively used but has largely been
supplanted by modern roofing materials like asphalt and fiberglass. As noted in the
Historic Resource Inventory Form, the Pierce and Bickford designs and
specifications for the home called for the lower roof slopes to be clad in wood
shingles,while the upper roof slopes and the rear porch roof were to be clad in green
3
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
Vermont Slate. The existing painted wood roof shingles likely date from the
properties period of construction.
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 #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature,the new feature shall match the old in design, color,texture,
and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial
evidence.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
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 replacement of the
painted wood shingle roof with asphalt, architectural shingles will remove distinctive
materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
4
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as documented in the photographs
provided with the application and described by the applicant, the severity of the
deterioration of the wood shingles requires their replacement. The proposed new
work is not be compatible with the old in design,color,and other visual qualities. The
City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines notes that asphalt or
fiberglass shingles are an appropriate replacement material when it can be shown that
the original roofing material was wood shingle, and the ILPC has in the past
determined that the replacement of deteriorated wood roof shingles with asphalt or
fiberglass shingles is appropriate and compatible with the historic aesthetic quality of
individual properties when the wood shingles are not a highly significant character
defining feature. However, the unique situation created by the subject property's
gambrel roof makes these determinations inappropriate for this particular project.
Due to the steepness of the lower roof slopes and their cladding in the same material
as the second story of the property, a specified feature of the architect's plans for the
residence,the highly visible lower portions of the gambrel roof appear as wall surfaces
and not as part of the roof. The project is essentially an application to replace a historic
siding material with a modern equivalent, a proposal the ILPC has determined in the
past to be inappropriate.Therefore,the ILPC finds the most appropriate replacement
of the deteriorated wood shingles is in-kind.
As a Building Permit for the full scope of the proposed project was issued and the
inappropriate material installed before the ILPC reviewed the Certificate of
Appropriateness application, a violation of Section 228-6(B) of the Municipal Code,
the ILPC finds the applicant is not at fault for the inappropriate alteration and is not
required to reverse it.
With respect to Standard #10, the inappropriate alteration can be removed in the
future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment, as wood shingles are still commercially available.
RESOLVED, that,based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will 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
does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, but
be it further,
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness because
it was completed as part of project for which a legitimate Building Permit was issued.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: J.Minner
In Favor: M.M. McDonald,S. Stein,D. Kramer,E. Finegan,K. Olson,S. Gibian,J.Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
5
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner's representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans,including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
B. 100 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District—Retroactive Request for
Approval for the Installation of a Wood Railing
On behalf of the applicant/property owner B. McCracken explained that during a recent housing
inspection, the building inspector cited the applicants for a 28 inch railing on a second story
porch. The revised NYS building code requires railings to be 42 inches. The applicant did the
work to meet the code requirements, but did not apply for a Building Permit or a Certificate of
Appropriateness. Thus, they are seeking a retroactive approval.
B. McCracken explained that the wooden railing is a simple design,painted white, and there are
no other wooden railings on the property.
After several questions from the Commission, B. McCracken said that the applicants have been
made aware of the approval and permitting requirements for any future work.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D.
Kramer, seconded by M.M. McDonald.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 100 Ridgewood Road 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 30, 2017,was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jeanne Ruff on behalf of property
owner Beta Theta Pi—Alumni Corp.,including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) a sketch illustrating the proposed change, for which work has already been
completed; (3) a photograph of the property taken prior to the completion of the
proposed work; and (4) two photographs showing the completed work,and
6
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
100 Ridgewood Road, 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
retroactive request for approval for the installation of a wood railings on a porch
located on the third story of 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
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 14, 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 Tudor-
Revival-Style residence was constructed between 1909 and 1911 for Cornell
University professor of law,Alfred Hayes,Jr.
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.
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:
7
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
Principle#2 The historic features of a property located within,and contributing
to the significance of,an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and
any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard#2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2,and Standard #9, the installation of wood
railings,which was completed in the fall of 2017, did not remove distinctive materials
and did not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The ILPC notes
that the railing was required by New York State Building Code.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the railings [are/are not]
compatible with the massing, size, scale,and architectural features of the 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.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: M.M. McDonald,S. Stein,D. Kramer,E. Finegan,K. Olson,S. Gibian,J.Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner's representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans,including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
8
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Chris Anagnost, 418 N. Tioga Street, thanked the ILPC (and Council liaison J. Murtagh) for
attempts to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue an historic landmark. He
said that the local Greek community was not aware of the action early enough to be able to
organize. He said that many members of the Chacona family still reside in the Ithaca area, and
that prior to 1975 that building was "mostly in Greek family hands."He said it's unfortunate that
the efforts to have the building landmarked were unsuccessful, and he thanked the ILPC for their
support.
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue, Planning Board Member, speaking as a private citizen,
said that Greek immigrants played an immense role in building the city of Ithaca and developing
its culture, and noted that the Chacona Block has an explicit visual reference to that history in the
form of a Greek cross ornamentation on the fagade.
J. Schroeder then said that he thinks that there are five early 20th Century institutional or mixed-
use buildings in Collegetown of historical significance: the 1894 fire station and the 1905
addition (regarding those as two separate buildings), the Chacona Block, the Larkin Building,
and Sheldon Court. He said that it is essential that the remaining unprotected properties on that
list be designated historic landmarks at the soonest possible time.
There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed by unanimous consent.
III. NEW BUSINESS
• 310 W. State Street, Downtown West Historic District—Carriage Barn Conceptual
Design Discussion
Theresa Deschanes and Dave Halpert appeared in front of the Commission to present their
Carriage Barn conceptual design. T. Deschanes and D. Halpert wanted to see if the ILPC
would be open to the concept before they proceed with a grant application to help them fund
the proposed project. A brick carriage barn had been located on the site previously.
B. McCracken explained that the Halperts would be returning for early design review and to
apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness, but they were appearing tonight to get a written
statement to take to the IURA indicating that constructing a carriage barn on the site would
be acceptable to the ILPC.
T. Deschanes said that they also wanted to ensure that the ILPC would approve of a new barn
of approximately the size they have proposed, saying that it would be necessary for their
project to be viable.
E. Finegan asked if there were any zoning problems with the proposed barn.
B. McCracken said that the project as proposed would comply with the existing zoning.
T. Halpert said that the existing zoning would allow them 100 percent lot coverage except for
a 10 foot rear yard setback,but they didn't want a barn that large because they want to create
9
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
two cooperative residences that will share a patio and garden. She then asked the
Commission members to share their preferences on windows, siding, roof slope, etc.
In response to the two conceptual design plan presented, K. Olson said the Greek-Revival-
Style roof doesn't seem appropriate, as the main house is not a Greek Revival building. She
expressed a preference for their first option.
J. Minner suggested that they look for ways to make the building compatible with the district
as a whole.
K. Olson mentioned another new carriage barn at 201 W. Clinton Street that the ILPC had
approved recently as a possible reference.
S. Gibian raised a question about what qualifies this building as a carriage house, and after
some discussion, J. Minner pointed out that the term is often used generically to refer to an
accessory dwelling unit in an historic district. She said there's precedent for using a carriage
house as an accessory unit, so it's known to be compatible,but it isn't necessary to literally
recreate a carriage house.
K. Olson noted that the Clinton Street example is still being used as a garage, so in that case,
there's a perpetuation of a use, but in this case, it's an auxiliary building with no
garage/carriage purpose, so as long as it's visually compatible, it doesn't have to pretend to
be something it's not.
M. M. McDonald noted that this property is in a flood plain and suggested to the applicants
that they be mindful of that when locating the mechanicals in the basement.
There was also discussion of the proposed solar panels, and a reminder to keep the color
close to that of the shingles on the roof.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
• 411-415 College Avenue, The Chacona Block—Common Council Action on Local
Landmark Designation
B. McCracken said that the building did not receive designation as an historic landmark and
asked the ILPC members if they thought there were any lessons to take away from the
experience, or if there are revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance they think should be made
regarding selection criteria that should be applied, noting that the building's style kept
coming up as a consideration during the process. He asked if maybe the ordinance could be
revised to consider form or function, noting that while the building is only a good, not great,
example of the Renaissance Revival Style, it is an excellent example of its form, a
commercial building with three retail spaces below and apartments above.
D. Kramer said, "We ticked all the boxes on that building, and by all the criteria we had to
judge by, it totally passed. My take away is that we were too late. I think we have to make an
ongoing push to identify [properties worthy of designation] before the owners make plans."
10
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
J. Murtagh said that he didn't think the property owners had a redevelopment plan for the
site, but they did spend a lot of money to lobby Common Council to vote against designation.
K. Olson said that with land going for$15 million an acre in Collegetown, the ILPC is
"behind the eight ball," and that she was appreciative that five members of Common Council
voted to support the designation.
J. Minner said she wishes they had moved forward with the creation of an historic district,
even though it might have been a"tough sell," and could have resulted in losing protection
for the Larkin Building. She said they might consider making some changes to the code
itself, noting the City of Austin's code which references community or social value.
J. Murtagh observed that the language might have been confusing to the general public,
saying: "Nobody thinks of that building as the Chacona Block." He said that most people
reference Collegetown Bagels when identifying it, and that he thinks that if the public had
understood the potential for impacts to CTB at that corner, there would have been more of a
public outcry.
J. Minner asked, "Do we have a legacy business program in the City of Ithaca?" She noted
that that is a different issue, however, than the question of designation. She also said that
much of the case made for designation surrounded the connection to the Greek immigrant
community, but that perhaps there needs to be an effort to raise public awareness in Ithaca of
stucco buildings and modern architecture in general.
K. Olson said that a building having a wood frame should not be a barrier to historic
designation.
M.M. McDonald added that builders are going back to wood(in Europe and soon to be more
common in the US). She said that engineered lumber is now being used to build massive 10-
to 12-story buildings.
M.M. McDonald also said that she is concerned about"demolition by neglect." She
cautioned against policies that would encourage owners to allow a building to fall apart only
to be able to say that it is not in any condition to designate.
J. Murtagh said that the criteria ILPC use to designate a building are very clear, but it's not
necessarily clear what criteria Common Council should be using to evaluate a designation.
He noted that Common Council generally follows the recommendations of the ILPC, but in
this case, the push back from the property owner was unusually intense.
After further discussion, B. McCracken said that as a City staff member, it's not really his
role to lobby Common Council,but rather to provide information, adding"When a proposal
comes from the ILPC, I think we need a point person to do the lobbying that I can't do."He
asked the Commission for their input on who might take the lead on lobbying efforts.
11
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
M.M. McDonald said that having someone from the Commission in such an outreach role
might be helpful to the Council as well,because an ILPC member might be able to provide
insight into the thinking behind the Commission's recommendations.
K. Olson said that Historic Ithaca needs to become more active in its advocacy role.
J. Minner said, "We're not supposed to lobby for our own well-founded decisions."
After further discussion, E. Finegan asked if there was concern among Common Council
about the property owner bringing a lawsuit if the building had been designated.
J. Murtagh said he didn't think that that influenced the way people voted, and that those who
voted in favor really thought that redevelopment would be better for that site. He added that
people seemed genuinely conflicted and the right course of action was not clear.
J. Minner asked if Common Council should have more specific criteria to evaluate
designations, and J. Murtagh said he thought that would be worth discussing further.
M.M. McDonald noted that the value of property in the city has increased so much that these
arguments about [development versus preservation] are going to continue.
B. McCracken said that the issue of"heritage tourism,"was not even raised during the
debate. He noted that alums who want to visit the Collegetown they knew and loved can't do
that if it's gone, saying "If you can't relate to a space, you're not going to return."
K. Olson said that given the continued growth of the City, the ILPC needs to try to look
ahead 5 to 10 years to identify historically significant buildings and designate them before
they come under threat: "You can't wait until there are plans for redevelopment."
M.M. McDonald said the new Comprehensive Plan and revamped zoning are also going to
determine the new hot spots for redevelopment.
After some additional discussion, B. McCracken said he can look into the processes other
municipalities use for historic landmark designation and into what, if any, criteria other
Common Councils use for designation. He also noted that specific historic resources will be
identified as the various neighborhood plans are revamped.
• 311 College Avenue, The Old No. 9 Fire Station—Discussion
B. McCracken said that he has been approached by community members and Council
members inquiring about designating The Old No. 9 Fire Station an historic landmark. He
asked the ILPC if they think now is an appropriate time to pursue designation, and if it seems
likely that Council would vote in favor.
J. Murtagh said he thought it would be a good idea for B. McCracken (and maybe the ILPC
12
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
Chair)to go to a Planning Committee session and have a discussion to see what the appetite
is for designation. He also said he thinks there's a lot of public support for it.
B. McCracken asked if he thinks that that's because people identify with the building as a
business, and not as an historic resource.
J. Murtagh said that he thinks it's unavoidable that people are going to associate it with the
business: "When people talk about preserving historic places, they're thinking about their
experiences and preserving something meaningful to them."
M.M. McDonald noted that it's often older buildings that provide a framework for local
businesses.
K. Olson said, "Historic buildings overwhelmingly support—and incubate— small businesses
in ways that brand new, high-end construction doesn't....
"So I don't think it's a bad thing for people to associate these buildings they love with the
places they love because how can you possibly separate the two?
"We need to do a better job of articulating that [historic preservation] is not `nostalgia.' It is,
in fact, economics."
M.M. McDonald agreed, and said that at a time when we see national chains faltering it is
especially important to maintain spaces for local businesses to establish and grow. She also
said that it is important to communicate to Common Council the importance of older
buildings for economic development and local businesses, noting that it's well known in
historic preservation circles but is perhaps not as well known to the general public. She
suggested raising the issue with Historic Ithaca as well.
J. Murtagh noted that there's a lot of concern in Ithaca right now surrounding all the changes
happening and what those mean for the local economy, and that the loss of uniqueness in the
community is on people's minds. He agreed that making the economic development case for
historic preservation is important, and said that he doesn't think a lot of people see historic
preservation as an economic driver.
After additional discussion, B. McCracken returned to the topic of the Nines, saying that he
didn't think he could do the nomination himself. He asked the ILPC for suggestions.
K. Olson asked how much work needed to be done. B. McCracken said that the research was
mostly complete, but the nomination needed to be drafted. K. Olson volunteered to draft it.
13
Approved by ILPC: 19,December 2017
V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• December Meeting
Scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. due to holidays.
• 2018 Tentative Meeting Schedule
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on a motion by S. Stein, seconded by M.M. McDonald, Chair E.
Finegan adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
14