Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutILPC - MiscellaneousCITY OF ITHACA 1013 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Ma•c: John G. Gutenberger embers of Common Council TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 July 25, 1984 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At its. meeting July 18, 1984, this Commission discussed the current status of the proposed Capital Project for re -paving E. State St. with brick. At the same time, the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Historic Ithaca on July 12, 1984, regarding establishment of a city policy on maintenance and repair of historic paving, was read. The Commission, by unanimous vote, endorse the resolution calling for such a policy, and commend it to your early attention. It is apparent that lack of a policy will result in removal of the brick pavement which still exists on some streets, and that even where it is hidden by asphalt, objections to removal will be raised which might be mitigated by a policy that takes historic and other values into account. With regard to the current issue of State St., the Commission ask that you take note of its action of July 30, 1982, a copy of which is attached. This 1982 resolution, while recommending that brick paving be retained between the Tuning Fork and Mitchell, did not rule out the possibility that ultimately a shorter stretch could be determined to be appropriate, The present Commissiondid not feel it necessary to reconsider or reaffirm the resolution, as the basic situation vis-a-vis the overall State St. project has not altered substantially in the in- terim. However, the physical condition of E. State St. observably continues to deteriorate, perhaps at an accelerating rate. Temporary repairs and patches by the city and utility companies in the last few years have not addressed the basic problems which the State St. project, of which resurfacing is only part, is intended to correct. Though this temporary work negatively affects the street's rideability and other characteristics, and may contribute to aggravation of problems in un - patched areas, it is not the brick which is at fault. Rather, copious evidence exists to support the contention that well-built and -maintained brick is a superior and durable surface. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Letter to: Mayor, Common Council Members Date: July 25, 1984 Re: Brick Re -paving Page: -2- The brick paving on E. State, especially where it borders the East Hill Historic District, is a distinctive feature of the city, and contributes to the character of the area to make it par- ticularly noteworthy as a place. The brick is an essential component of East Hill, and helps make it what it is, though technically it was not included in the Historic District designation. Replacement with asphalt would damage the integrity of what many consider to be essential 'Ithaca'. Please do not hesitate to call on the Commission if you have questions on these matters, or if it would be appropriate for the Commission to be represented in meetings at which they are discussed. Very truly yours, JM/mc Enclosure Jonathan Meigs Secretary cc: seph Rundle, City Clerk Historic Ithaca Capital Improvements Review Committee I. L. P. C. Members Andrea J. Lazarski, Preservation Planner CITY OF ITHACA 10E3 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 2, 1982 Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca Dear Mayor and Members of Council: The accompanying Resolution; -adopted by unanimous vote at a Special Meeting of the Commission held July 30th, is being sent to you for your consideration and appropriate action. TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 The Commission takes this step at this time in the interest of resolving how the repaving of East State Street, scheduled for 1983, is to be done. Since the Board of Public Works has approved repaving with asphalt, partially on the basis that the cost of repaving with brick would be a maintenance item, it appears that only Council has the authority to require that some of E. State's brick paving be retained. The Commission strongly feels that the matter is of sufficient importance that the re- presentative governing body of the City should provide a forum for public discussion, assess input from interested parties, and decide on the merits of the issue in time to allow substitution of a 1983 Capital Project, to repave a portion of the street with brick, for the proposed asphalt paving. The ILPC had initially proposed that the brick paving be kept all the way to Ithaca Road. Having now had time to study both the information pre- pared as basis for the BPW's action, and the research material developed by Commission staff, it seems more reasonable and appropriate from economic and historic viewpoints to ask that only E. State's brick surface be kept. We are convinced that the higher initial cost of brick paving is substantially offset by its superior durability and other practical cha- racteristics, in.addition to its appearance and historic qualities. Landmarks Commission members and staff will make every effort to respond to any questions or requests for information which you may have, and to be available to discuss the matter at any time. Please let us know of any meetings at which the topic will be considered. For the Commission onathan C. Meigs Secretary Encl, cc: Supt. of Public Works City Clerk "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Aff ifmatwe Aehon Program" ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION - Brick Streets WHEREAS, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission strongly believes that existing brick pavements within the city should be retained, where appropriate, for their esthetic and historic values, and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that East State Street between the Commons and Mitchell Street is an important visual feature on a major city entrance route, forming a boundary of the East Hill Historic District and a section of a major access route to the Cornell campus, and WHEREAS, E. State intersects Stewart Avenue, a brick -paved street which traverses the E. Hill Historic District and which, with the different brick paving pattern of State, makes a significant contribution to the special character of the district, and WHEREAS,. the Board of Public Works has scheduled repaving of the brick sections of East State and Mitchell Sts. from the Tuning Fork to Ithaca Rd. with asphalt in 1983, and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of repaving the entire brick portions of E. State and Mitchell with brick has been given as a major factor in=the decision to use asphalt, and WHEREAS, the costs of brick paving could be substantially reduced if a shorter stretch were done, using brick salvaged from the remainder, by a contractor selected by competitive bid from among firms experienced in brick paving, and WHEREAS, the Ithaca community has not had sufficient opportunity to express its interest in the issue, now BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends to Common Council that the repaving of the portion of East State Street betwe RESOLUTION - Brick Streets page 2 the Tuning Fork and Mitchell Street be done with brick, so that the entire stretch between Aurora and Blair Streets has a brick surface, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission respectfully requests that the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council examine the desirability of repaving some or all of E.%State St. between the Tuning Fork and Mitchell St. with Brick, discussing the issue at a meeting during which public comment would be encouraged, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission recommends that Common Council require preparation of a Capital Project proposal for inclusion in the 1983 Capital Budget for the repaving of appropriate portions of East State Street with brick in order to conserve historic features which give Ithaca its distinctive character. RESOLUTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY at a Special Meeting of the ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, July 30, 1982. Voting in favor: R. Di Pasquale, R. Centini, F. Moon, B. Jones, A. Lee; members M. Cutting, D. Lifton absent. C. Meigs 'V OF ITNAk •.s=,e `aF --t fTPIICA, NEW YORK 14Ft!5O I.L.P.C. CITY PANNING & DEVFL' PMENT March 19. 1982 Mayor William Sha? City 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Mayor Shaw C\T? CLO2kJ The Landmarks Commission discussed the subject East State Street at its meeting March 17th, c;n. formation which it has obtained fr•orr.+ a variety (. as wet l+s local public corgment.. As a result, motion was made: ;.H._P.T:^.S , .ir,'_nary studies and research i.;th•-. have dost : ; es and i. C' s projections alisrnative t+t('t:i lel repairing Fast Stat `3t =C i current;,ei n: •va i ua..e:i , and. '11 ;':i ?" cities in the '4;1'l L.,•3.:•..:. C.F.i":'.1. C.: suC(:.C'.`->.;- li7JI.21tU+-:7 z. ..;ii to reuand conserve hridk streets,. ,end in7::eresis of the publ e, `zn(. '"t i r.; l 1 ,' reside J i ;d 1 t.1 ooed )C_•,_._L ��. ti (l )C =?? a i_ 0\\ ng more time i (' r + L tr to•• (``."' e ,he ?roc',7I;d. to _< <1_.....e 's;he data and f.o `c , such rolse and e f h tit c.s. upon i iril i. ]+; wit' !. - ba,-; revealed cozllicr:jnrr Hf^Tmatlor. conC Mayor..Shaw March 19, 1982 -2- WHEREAS, there may be other capital projects of more critical concern which could utilize this portion of the limited FY82 capital funds available, be it RESOLVED, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission recommends that the City make no final decision on the proposed project to repair/repave the brick -surfaced portion of East State Street in the current year, until the various alternatives have been thoroughly outlined and compared. MOTION PASSED, 7-0. In arriving at this recommendation, the Commission noted that the estimated costs of repaving with brick or asphalt do not tell the whole story: if the average lifespan of an asphalt pavement is thirteen years, as suggested by Supt. Kinsella, the total cost of asphalt paving over the forty years which he estimated to be the remaining life span of the brick if repaired, would approach $2.5 million (1982 dollars, at a conservative 12% annual average rate of inflation in overall costs). It was also observed that some sections of the street are in fairly good shape, with some of the worst conditions at the top; if cost or other factors are determined to favor their being replaced by asphalt, some of the bricks removed could be used to rehabilitate the other sections, and the rest stockpiled for use in extended maintenance of the remaining bricked portions of State and any other streets which the city may decide to keep paved with brick. Lack of policy on brick street maintenance repair and replacement has made solution more difficult in this case, but the information which is coming to light, along with the public input which the Commission's resolution suggests giving time to receive, should provide a fairly broad basis on which to form such guidelines for the future. The ILPC will be glad to .assist in that effort, Mayor. Shaw March 19, 1982 -3- The information which the Commission and others have assembled Will be transmitted separately. Very truly yours, Jon Meigs Secretary JM:ndc cc: Board of Public Works Common Council Historic Ithaca MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Common Counc it Board of Public Works FROII: Ithaca Landmarks Preservat Secretary Jonathan Meigs RE: .Proposed Repairing of E, ' ate St. DATE: February 23, 1982 ssion C 111 rLtJ At its February 17th meeting, the Commission discussed the proposed project and unanimously approved the following resolution; RESOLVED that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission asks that a final decision on the proposed project to repave the brick portion of E. State Street be deferred in order to permit full consideration of the comparative life -cycle costs of brick paving versus asphalt, as well as consideration of esthetic and historic factors; and that the ILPC will assist in this process by researching and providing infor- mation on such matters to the Board. of Public Works by March 24, 1982. The Commission takes this action not simply because of the existing pavement's age, but because there is some feeling that brick may be more cost- effective than asphalt in the long run. The appearance and other characteristics of the two materials are also of interest, since State borders the city's East Hill Historic District, and a brick portion of Stewart Avenue passes through it. Please let me know if you have questions in this regard. JM/mc �dal 1JE RESOLUTION of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Co AUG2 11980 b› CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ithaca, H. Y. -S7 Concerning Proposed Rezoning of a Portion of No August 19, 1980 • St. The.Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission strongly opposes any commercial rezoning of N. Tioga Street between Court St. and Cascadilla Creek, The ILPC finds no. valid need for rezoning and cites the following reasons for maintaining the present residential zone: (1) A change to a commercial zone threatens the architectural integrity of the DeWitt Park Historic District by encouraging a more intensive land use, leading to inappropriate remodeling and demolition; mandating new parking • lots; and contributing to the eventual erosion of the district's character. (2) The City of Ithaca has already provided ample areas zoned for commercial use including the Commons, West State Street, Meadow Street, Collegetown; etc. It is in the City's best interest to encourage business use in these already designated and more appropriate areas, (3) .A:change to a commercial zone will diminish the limited housing stock available in Ithaca. The successful revitalization of downtown neighbor- hoods has been accomplished by private individuals as well as by non-profit corporations such as Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. This reinvestment in downtown housing will continue and should be encouraged by the City, not obstructed by shortsighted zoning changes. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Commission by a vote of 4-0, 1 member abstaining, on Motion of Ms. Romanoff, seconded by Ms. Werbizky. CITY OF ITHACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR MEMO TO: Mr. Thys VanCort, Director of the Planning Mr. Jonathan Meigs, Landmarks Preservation Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley f 6/ DATE: May 10, 1979 SUBS CT: Exclude County Jail Building in City Historical District LEPHONE. 272-1713 CODE 607 Department Comm. Attached hereto please find a copy of a resolution received from the Tompkins County Board of Representatives above entitled matter. EJC:rb ATTACH. in regard to the TTED - 14 - 1 • RESOLUTION NO. 121 - EXCLUDE CCUNTY JAIL BUILDING IN CITY HISTORICAL DISTRICT \ Introduced by Mr. Ra •' ; Ray, seconded by Mr. SatEe'rly. _ WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Landmarks Preservation Commission did propose to extend the Historical District in the vicinity of the Courthouse area to include among other buildings and lands the New Courthouse and the County Jail, and WHEREAS, the Board of Representatives does concur with the inclusion of the New Courthouse within the Historical District, but is concerned about the inclusion of the County Jail, and WHEREAS, the New York State Commissioner of Corrections has ordered that the County Jail be surveyed and re-evaluated in relation to newly adopted correction facility requirements, and WHEREAS, this re-evaluation is currently underway and could result in significant changes in the County Jail to meet correction facility requirements which may not conform to the Landmarks Preservation Commission's advocacy posture for historical preservation, and WHEREAS, inclusion of the County Jail within the proposed Historical District could very well result in the inappropriate designation of the building itself as a Historical Landmark, with implications of additional constraints upon the building which maynot be within the best interests of the County, now therefore be it RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Planning and Public Works Committee, That the Board of Representatives does hereby request the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City Planning Board, and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca to reconsider and exclude the County Jail from the proposed District or make appropriate amendments.in the proposal to insure that changes required to meet State Correction Department standards are not constrained by the Historical District designation, and RESOLVED, further, That the County will voluntarily consult with the Landmarks Preservation Commission in relation to any changes which may be contemplated_for the exterior_of the .building_to obtain advice and input on any exterior changes. Copies to: County Attorney County Administrator Commissioner of Planning STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives on the 30th day of April, 1979. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Board at Ithaca, New York, this 2nd day of May, 1979. , Clerk ins Count Board of Representatives ADOPTED Ayes - 14 Noes - 1 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 121 - EXCLUDE COUNTY JAIL BUILDING IN CITY HISTORICAL DISTRICT Introduced by Mr. Ray, seconded by Mr. Satterly. WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Landmarks Preservation Commission did propose to extend the Historical District in the vicinity of the Courthouse area to include among other buildings and lands the New Courthouse. and the County Jail, and WHEREAS, the Board of Representatives does concur with the inclusion of the New Courthouse within the Historical District, but is concerned about the inclusion of the County Jail, and WHEREAS, the New York State Commissioner of Corrections has ordered that the County Jail be surveyed and re-evaluated in relation to newly adopted correction facility requirements, and WHEREAS, this re-evaluation is currently underway and could result in significant changes in the County Jail to meet correction facility requirements which may not conform to the Landmarks Preservation Commission's advocacy posture for historical preservation, and WHEREAS, inclusion of the County Jail within the proposed Historical District could very well result in the inappropriate designation of the building itself as a Historical Landmark, with implications of additional constraints upon the building which may not be within the best interests of the County, now therefore be it RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Planning and Public Works Committee, That the Board of Representatives does hereby request the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City Planning Board, and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca to reconsider and exclude the County Jail from the proposed District or make appropriate amendments.in the proposal to insure that changes required to meet State Correction Department standards are not constrained by the Historical District designation, and RESOLVED, further, That the County will voluntarily consult with the Landmarks Preservation Commission in relation to any changes which may be contemplated for the exterior_of_ the building to obtain advice and input on any exterior changes. Copies to: County Attorney County Administrator Commissioner of Planning STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS SS: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives on the 30th day of April, 1979. iE KAY 8 1979 ' GffY' CLERK'S OFFICE Ith^v. P!. Y. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Board at Ithaca, New York, this 2nd day of May, 1979. , Clerk ins Count Board of Representatives ADOPTED Aye-s—=714-- Noes ye"s—="14Noes - 1 RESOLUTION'NO. 121 - EXCLUDE COUNTY JAIL BUILDING IN CITY HISTORICAL DISTRICT Introduced by Mr. Ray, seconded by Mr. Satterly. WHEREAS, the Ithaca City Landmarks Preservation Commission did propose to extend the Historical District in the vicinity of the Courthouse area to include among other buildings and lands the New Courthouse and the County Jail, and WHEREAS, the Board of Representatives does concur with the inclusion of the New Courthouse within the Historical District, but is concerned about the inclusion of the County Jail, and WHEREAS, the New York State Commissioner of Corrections has ordered that the County Jail be surveyed and re-evaluated in relation to newly adopted correction facility requirements, and WHEREAS, this re-evaluation is currently. underway and.. could result in significant changes in the County Jail to meet correction facility requirements which may not conform to the Landmarks Preservation Commission's advocacy posture for historical preservation, and WHEREAS, inclusion of the County Jail within the proposed Historical District could very well result in the inappropriate designation of the building itself as a Historical Landmark, with implications of additional constraints upon the building which maynot be within the best interests of the County, now therefore be it RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Planning and Public Works Committee, That the Board of Representatives does hereby request the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the City Planning Board, and the Common Council of the City of Ithaca to reconsider and exclude the County Jail from the proposed District or make appropriate amendments.in the proposal to insure that changes required.to - meet State Correction Department standards are not constrained by the Historical District designation, and RESOLVED, further, That the County will voluntarily consult with the Landmarks Preservation Commission in relation to any changes which may be contemplated for .the_exterios of the _building_to- obta.in_ advice and input on any exterior changes. Copies to:- County Attorney County Administrator Commissioner of Planning STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY-OF~TOMPKINS ' SS:-- �AY $ ttt999 ' CITY CLERICS OF9g 9 ". : Ithaca, N v I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives on the 30th day of April, 1979. • IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Board at Ithaca, Nein York, this 2nd day of May, 1979. Clerk Tonins Count Board of Representatives r v -t• N�S Historical Records Preservation Help The National Historical Publications and Records Commission of the General Services Administration allocates grants ranging from $2,000 to $90,000 for the preservation of historically significant public and private records. In the public sector, these records may document significant activities of state and local governments. Eligible for this pro- gram are: State Institutional Projects—Those im- plemented by a,unit of local government, agency, educational institution or other nonprofit organization operating within one state. - - State Cooperative Projects—Those which involve more than one institution or local government within a state. Regional Projects—In which the spon- soring organizations operate in more than one state or in which the records are located in more than one state. National Projects—Such as those carried out by the Society of American Archivists or other organizations with nationwide membership. The grants are for 50 percent of the total cost of projects. Applicants make up the remaining cost through contributions of staff, supplies and equipment or with funds from a nonfederal source. The National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) meets three times a year to award grants to projects from among those forwarded by state advisory boards. The deadlines re- maining this year for submission of proj- ects to the New York State Historical Records Advisory Board for review and submission to the NHPRC are: June 1, 1978 for the commission's November meet- ing; and October 1, 1978 for the commis- sion's February 1979 meeting. For information: Dr. Edward Weldon, State Archivist, or Bruce Dearstyne, Public Records Analyst, State Archives, State Education Department, Albany, NY 12234. Phone (518) 474-1195. Officials Confer... (Continued from page 39) munity leaders in Bath to discuss the Bath - Wayland rail line. DOS has recommended approval by the Appalachian Regional Commission of an application for funds to continue operation of the line. — In a press conference in Corning, Cuomo lauded Steuben for a "renaissance of major proportions" through industrial development efforts. — Toured the NYS Academy of Fire Science which is operated by the Depart- ment of State. dem,v-041.4A, . 7 LESS MOBILE MOBILE HOMES resulting from their growing cost and size are exemplified, above, by mobile home on individual lot and by mobile home park, below, providing more space and amenities than was the case a few years ago. Current trend is for such homes to become an acceptable part of a community's housing stock and to serve as permanent residences for families with children. (see story) Mobile Homes Bigger, Costlier, More Permanent 'Small Home Zones' Alternative to Mobile Parks Addressing some 100 planners and mobile home park owners at Cooperative Extension's Second Annual Mobile Home Conference in Binghamton, DOS planner Shepard Drogin traced current trends in mobile housing and their probable impact on local government. The conference was cosponsored• by the New York Manufac- tured Housing Association and the U.S. Small Business Association, with the sup- port of the state chapter of the American Institute of Planners, Association of Towns and the Association of Counties. Highlights of Mr. Drogin's keynote address: —Safety code requirements and expen- sive modifications to control energy costs—plus their growing size—have forced the average price of mobile homes from the $4,000 of a few years ago to $14,000, with double -wide units costing more than $20,000. The conventional width has grown from 8 to 14 feet and the length from 40 to as much as 70 feet. —With the average prices of conven- tional homes passing the $50,000 mark, 46 families with children are turning to mobile homes as permanent residences. —The rising costs of such units has led many mortgage institutions to require that mobile homes be placed on permanent foundations on sites owned by the owners of the homes. Such housing is beginning to be financed with mortgages, rather than "chattel" loans. —These trends are putting greater em- phasis on mobile homes on single lots and in subdivisions in lieu of mobile home parks. Small home zones now offer an alternative to zoning for mobile home parks.. —Mobile home parks will become larger, in pati, to meet the costs of zoning requirements for paved parking spaces, recreational areas, landscaping and other amenities. Soon it will not be financially feasible to operate a park having fewer than 100 units. —Despite the trend to larger units, senior citizens will still seek traditional mobile homes, particularly those 12 by 60 feet in size, in mobile home parks. OFFICE OF CITY CLERK CITY OF .ITH.ACA 1OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 October 16, 1978 Mr. Stephen J. Raiche, Director Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Division for Historic Preservation N.Y. State Dept. of Parks & Recreation Agency Building 1 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12238 Dear Sir: 'Re: Certification of Landmarks Ordinance for Tax Purposes As requested in your communication of 17 July, additional documentation pertaining to this city's application for certification is enclosed. I believe this meets the requirement for certi- fication of the ordinance. Documentation of districts designated under this ordinance is in preparation. Very truly yours, seph A. Rundle, City Clerk JAR : hh cc: J. Meigs Encl: Ithaca Landmarks Ordinance Rules of Procedure State Enabling Legislation (2 cc) TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL • 108 EAST GREEN STREET • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • P • TO I I rrj LULlL ' ' r DATE `` _ i—.- -i L DATE 4 6---0-:- -P\ tiLavvtdmi (i""v U. frue `7 o xe, edi G -P- Chir/ cBY C l MPicf'1 SIGNED Form N-R73g1 The Drawing Board, Ir(c., B/x 503 Dallas, Texas INSTRUCTIONS TO SENDER: 1. KEEP YELLOW COPY. 2. SEND WHITE ANO PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT. INSTRUCTIONS TD RECEIVER: 1. WRITE REPLY. 2. DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER. CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL"•' 108 £AST GREEN. STREET • ITl-1ACA, NEWYORK-148SO PHONE 272-1713 M E S S A G E 0 REPLY VICLat- 4:u DATE 121,1 0 3 c_______e eireL. C.44_11—__Xe.ixt-K..- _,.-,Ce...- Grit -L. C_-0 -14446Avilh5. ' I: :. .- ?' BY i:' -.a ' . .�,f Form N -R9 n8) The. Drowmg'Board, Inc.,_B x 50) Del or,-Texe ' 1' SIGNED DETACH AND.FILE FOR FOLLOW -DP - AUG 2 5 1977. MEMORANDUM TO: Common Council FROM: Jon Meigs 4--- SUBJ: Film on Historic Preservation DATE: August 24, 1977 The film "A Place In Time," produced by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, will be available for showing here the last two weeks of September. It's reportedly an excellent film, made for TV topromote public consciousness of the purpose and benefits of preservation to widely varied communities and neigh- borhoods. eighborhoods. I urge you to see the film; I'm currently scheduling it for as many showings as possible, the times and places to be publicized when firm. One probable showing will be at the Strand the evening of September 23, with one or two other short preservation films. If you know of groups -who might like to see it, please contact me. It's.a half=hour, color and sound, 16 m.m. film. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMO TO: Mr. Joseph Rundle City Clerk FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley DATE: October 29, 1975 SUBJECT: Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 Attached hereto please find a letter addressed to: myse1fpand.co.uncil from Mr. Jonathan C. Meigs, Secretary of the Ithaca Landmarks Preser- vation Commission which is to be brought to the attention of the Common Council at their next meeting. EJC:rb ATTACH. OFFICE OF • CITY CLERK CITY OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY ITHACA, NEW YORK 141350 December 18, 1975 Ms. Mindy Arbo Deputy Director Preservation League of New York State 184 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12210 Dear Ms. Arbo: Enclosed please find "The City.of Ithaca Landmarks. Preservation Ordinance" as per your request. Sincerely, Joseph A. Rundle City Clerk /p • TELEPHONE:272-1713. • CODE 607 184 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12210 518-462-5658 December 15, 1975 City Clerk City Hall Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Dear Sir: We are currently doing research into historic preservation, historic district, and landmarks ordinances. We would appreciate your sending a copy of Ithaca's landmark ordinance. Thank you. Mindy Arbo Deputy Director tion NewYork ague State 100% recycled paper ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Mayor and Common Council City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, New York Dear Mayor and Members of Council: • July 7, 1975 • The Landmarks Commission, at its regular meeting June 9, 1975, unanimously recommended that the attached revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance be considered by Common Council for inclusion in the ordinance at the earliest possible time. The revision is intended to clarify the application of the regulations on demolition as they pertain to landmarks in non-commercial use, such as churches: and government buildings. It provides tests on which to make a decision as to whether denial of permission to demolish will unreasonably interfere with the owner's rights. Please contact me if there are any questions on this matter. V A cr y yours, 4r4 AIP 1111 atha Meigs '. cretary, thaca Landmarks Preservation Commission JCM:hh Enc. 1 cc: City Attorney Chm., Charter & Ordinance Committee Chm., Planning & Development Committee _47 Mr. `undle: Next Common Council meeting, CITY OF ITHACA - CHARTER & CODE Proposed Amendments - Chapter 32 - Landmarks Preservation Section 32.6: subd. E [concerning review of plans] Substitute the phrase "that one of the following conditions applies:" for "either:" at the end of the main paragraph. Delete the word "or" from the end of sub -paragraph 1. Add to sub -paragraph 2: "; or In the case of a non-commercial use, that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness will seriously interfere with the use of the property." subd. F [concerning demolition] Substitute the following: Demolition of structures erected on landmark sites or within. historic districts and deemed by the Commission to be of a particular architectural or historical significance shall be prohibited unless, upon application and hearing the Commission finds that either: • 1. In the case of commercial property, that prohibition of demolition prevents the owner of the property from earning a reasonable return; or 2. In the case of non-commercial property, all of the following: (i) that preservation of the structure will seriously interfere with the use of the property; (ii)•that the structure is not capable of conversion to a useful purpose without excessive cost; and (iii) that the cost of maintaining the structure without usewould entail serious expenditure all in the light of the purposes and resources of the owner. In the event that upon application and hearing the Commission shall determine that an exception to the prohibition of demolition as set forth above exists, the Commission may, notwithstanding such determi- nation, if it finds that the structure is of unique value, deny permission to demolish. Provided, however that a denial of permission -2 - to demolish shall prohibit demolition for no more than 90 days from the date of said determination, unless at the expiration of 90 days adjustments have been made which negate the findings of either sub -paragraph 1 or 2 above. During this 90 -day period, the Commission will endeavor to work out with the owner an economically feasible plan for the preservation of such structure, provided, moreover, that the City shall reimburse the owner any difference between a fair return and the return he might reasonably have obtained using the structure in its then state. THE CITY PLANNING BOARD ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 AR 2-1713 CITY F ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY NEW YORK ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Mayor Edward Conley and Common Council City of Ithaca .108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York. 14850 Dear Mayor and Council Members: CITY c January 3, 1975 At a special meeting on December 31, 1974, this Commission discussed the yet -unresolved problem of preservation of an important City landmark, the Boardman House, 120 E. Buffalo Street. The specific matter discussed was the inability of potential saviours of the structure to reach agreement with the County on terms of lease, due to the burden of property tax which the County expects them to bear in addition to the considerable burden of restoration. The Commission feels that reduction of the tax burden might well be the key to successful negotiation by the present interested party, or by any other which was primarily interested in a major restoration undertaking. The Commission feels that the City's commitment to landmarks preservation calls for it to take special measures, within its power, to assist in resolving the fate of this shamefully neglected landmark, one way or the other. Accordingly, the Commission passed the following: By Mrs. Sisler, seconded by Mr. Jacobs, and passed 6-0: WHHHEAS the Common Council of the City of Ithaca has enacted an Ordinance governing landmarks preservation in the City,. a stated purpose of which is to promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the protection, enhance- ment and perpetuation of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS Boardman House, 120 E. Buffalo St., forms an important and integral part of the De Witt Park Historic District designated by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, and approved by Common Council in 1971, and WHEREAS Boardman House has been entered on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual building and as part of a Historic District in 1971, and Page 2 Ithaca Landmarks to Mayor and Council WHEREAS Boardman House is owned by Tompkins County, a public body, and has been the subject of special study byarchitectural and historic preservation consultants retained by the County and by the County -appointed Temporary Historic Advisory Committee of Tompkins County, all of which recommended the building's retention and restoration due to its historical importance to the county, and WHEREAS public support for retention and restoration of Boardman House has been evidenced by a petition bearing the signatures of over six thousand City and County residents and interested persons presented to the County by letters and by periodic expressions of editorial support by the Ithaca Journal, and WHEREAS preservation of Boardman House has been an issue of local concern for four years,. and has been the subject of. several serious attempts to develop proposals for its restoration and use, which for various reasons have not been found acceptable by the County, and WHEREAS the potential impact of municipal taxes, in addition to the substantial expense of restoration of the structure required of non-public lessees by the County, would impose an excessive burden on such lessees, to the point of severely restricting the number and viability of proposals for use, and WHEREAS the City does not now receive any tax income on the property, and WHEREAS a restored Boardman House would be a vital and attractive component of the City's resurgent central commercial and public area, • and a benefit and a credit to the community, IT IS H.HEBY RECOMMENDED, by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion that the City of Ithaca exercise its power, in accordance with Section 2-35g of the Code of Ordinances, and with other applicable legislation, to exempt the Boardman House from municipal taxation in the event that the County accepts an arrangement with another organi- zation or individual which intends to restore the structure for use in whole or part as income-producing property; such exemption to continue until such time as it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the imposition of such taxes would not threaten the existence of the renovated structure, or for such period as the City feels just and desirable. This recommendation is made based on the fact that the City will not suffer a reduction in taxable income, since the property is presently tax-exempt. The 1 Page 3 Ithaca -Landmarks to Mayor and Council exemption, if granted, would have the effect of putting off the commencement of receipt of property taxes, hopefully for only a few years. Based on the reported value of $70,000 put on it by the County, the exemption from municipal taxation would amount to something on the order of $1,300 per year. The Commission feels that it would be desirable, with the object in mind of making the exemption a truly attractive factor in saving the structure, to specify a minimum period of five years. The City may, because of finance law limitation or for other reason, wish to put a maximum length on the exemption, but because of the uncertainty as to how long it would take to get this project financially self-sufficient, the Commission feels it would be best to make termination dependent on a showing of ability to bear the tax and to maintain the Boardman House as a landmark. The Commission hopes that the City will act favorably on this recommendation, with appropriate speed, as all parties are understandably anxious that the fate of Boardman House be settled. Sincerely yours; � a ,.....,y(., k \<„,,-.44,...„..„2..,, L /?aymond V. Hemming, Chairman cc: A. Jones, Chm., Planning & Development Committee J. Gutenberger, Chm. Budget & Administration Committee M. Shapiro, Attorney for the City RVH:cg ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 1, 197+ Common Council, City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, New York Att: Mr. Donald Slattery, Chairman Charter & Ordinances Committee Dear Mr. Slattery: At its October meeting, this Commission considered a proposal to amend the Landmarks Ordinance to allow a person other than the City Planning Director to serve as Secretary to the Commission. The Commission felt that this would be desirable as a realistic approach to furnishing the needed assistance while giving the Planning Director latitude to allocate his time and resources as he feels most appropriate. It would also regularize the present situation. On motion by Mr. Jacobs, seconded by Mrs. Sister and passed unanimously, the Commission requests that Sec. 2-31b of the Ithaca City Code be revised as follows: Between "the planning officer" and "shall serve ..." insert "or his designee." Very truly yours, RVH:hh ymond V. Hemming hairman /\e, �'V Y �i✓�Jr DEC 2 0 1976 LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK RULES -OF PROCEDURE Adopted by the Commission, April 28, 1971 Amended 10 April 1972 and 8 November 1976 Sec. 101 GENERAL GOVERNING RULES- The -Landmarks Preservation Commission shall be governed by the provisions of all applicable state statutes, local laws, ordinances and these rules. Sec. 201 OFFICERS AND DUTIES (1) Chairman and Vice -Chairman The Commission shall elect annually from its membership by a majority vote of the members attending a Chairman and Vice -Chairman who may be elected to succeed themselves. The term of office of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman shall be one year. This election shall be held at the first regular meeting of the year. The Chairman, or in his absence or incapacity the Vice -Chairman, shall decide all points of order or procedure and may administer oaths, and compel the attendance of witnesses. (2) Secretary In accordance with Section 1+ of the Landmarks Ordinance, as codified, the Planning Officer or his designee shall act as Secretary. The Secretary shall keep all records, conduct all correspondence of the Commission and supervise the clerical work of the Commission. The Secretary shall keep a minute book of the proceedings of each meeting and hearing which shall include the vote of each member on each designation and approval of Certificate of Appropriateness or if absent or failing to vote; indicating such fact; the names and addresses of all witnesses, a summary of the facts on which the decision is based, and the decision rendered, and other official actions of the Commission. Sec -:,'`301 MEETINGS' (1) Quorum p A quorum'shall consist"of''a'major ty`of the7Commission. (2) Time of-'Meetiig• a. Regular meetings shall'lie-held ' oin = the' second- Monday Tof.each month' at such hour";as':tlie'rChairman may -designate: The first regular rmeeting `in` January shall` constitute the anrivaT organization''meeting-'o£ the :Commision: " b. Special meetings may be called Wthe-Chairman at any -'time provided that at least ;48" hours notice shall'be `given` each•'member 'before -a,special - meeting is"field. ATTspecial'meeting may be` called' by any three'members of 'the' Commission provided reasonable'notice'=•is given' to.:all' members. (3) Cancellation of. -Meetings •. Whenever there-.afe'no'desigriations • or'other''pertiiient business to `-be considered at a regular meeting, the Chairman may dispense with such meeting by so notifying each member at least 48 hours prior to the time set for such meeting. (4) Order of Business The order of business shall be: a. Advertised Public Hearings (Sec. 401) b. Privilege of the Chair i. Administrative matters ii. Public Comment/Question on Other Matters c. Approval. of Minutes d. Old Business •, r' ��' - • .' A . .. , .. Y'• ' . - i. Action on" deferred requests/proposals' Other' old busine`s's-' e. ' New:Business • ie '1New requests/proposais ` ii.' -Other new'•items• • f.. Miscellaneous/Items not on Agenda g. Adjournment Items b through f may be taken out of sequence,. provided no member present objects. In the absence of an official quorum, in the interests of- time and the public convenience, all members present,.concurring, an..informal- session may be conducted to discuss any item(s) of business, including.the- receipt and proper recording -of oral,or.written.statements concerning.,a. proposed designation,, provided that .no. official action or, decision, may- be taken on any matters except Emergency Repairs, as provided in.Sec.501(3) below. (5) Voting.and Disqualification..of:Members, All matters shall. be decided by ,a. majority vote,of those present and.a roll call.vote may be requested by,any.member. A roll call vote,.must be, -held in case of designation of. a_property,- and. in case..of final action per.taining,to demolitions and alterations. No member of the Commission shall ®it in hearing or vote on any-matter,in which.he shallbelbeneficially„interested..*. *Recognizing that there are ways, other than attending hearings, by which a.member • of the Commission may become fully..acquainted.with the pros and cons of. a.design- ation, it is the intention of this Commission to depend on the discretion of the individual mem ber as to whether he has sufficient information to. allow him to render a fair judgement at the final vote. A member may abstain from voting or disqualify himself from participating in the final discussion and voting, for lack of information, or by reason of beneficial interest as a result of family or other personal connections, or financial interest in the property, concerned or adjacent. per Minutes of 28 April .l971 Sec. 401 PUBLIC HEARINGS PERTAINING TO A DESIGNATION (1) Open Meetings All regular or special meetings shall. be open to the public and shall be considered public hearings for purposes of designations and other business" requiring public hearings. (2) Notice of Hearings No designation shall be decided until after due notice has been given and a public hearing has been held thereon. Due notice of a hearing shall be as follows: a. By publication of a notice thereof once in one official paper of the city at least fifteen (15) days before the date of hearing. b. The Commission shall mail notice of the hearing to the owner of the property to be considered or his attorney or agent at least fifteen (15) days be- fore the date of the public hearing. c. The Commission shall also, in the case of a designation of a Historic District, and, insofar as practicable, mail notices of the hearing to all property owners as appears on the latest tax roll of the city, within a two hundred foot (200') radius of the premises affected by the designation. Such notices shall be mailed to the street address of the properties within 200' radius regardless of whether or not the owner resides therein, unless the Commission has definite know- ledge of other addresses of absentee owners. Notice of the hearing shall also be sent to the councilmen of the district within which the proposed Historic District is located. Compliance with this sub -paragraph shall not be a condition precedent to proper legal notice and no hearing or action taken thereon shall be deemed invalid or illegal because of any failure to mail the notices proviced for in this sub -paragraph. (3) Conduct of Public Hearings Any person may appear in person, by agent or attorney at any public hearing. The order of proceedings in the hearing of each case at a public hearing shall be as follows: a. Reading of the public notice of the hearing by the Chairman. b. Reading of pertinent written commends or reports concerning the designation. c. Witnesses in favor of the designation. d. Witnesses in opposition to the designation. e. 'Rebuttals. The Chairman or any member of the Commission may require any witness to swear or affirm that his or her statements of fact are true. (4+) ' Rehearings No request for a reconsideration of'a decision shall be accepted at any time, if it appears that no substantial change in facts, evidence, or conditions of the property has occurred. Sec. 402 PUBLIC HEARINGS PERTAINING TO AN APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OR APPEARANCE, OR DEMOLITION (1) Time of Hearings Within fourteen (i4) days after notification by the Building Inspector of an application for an alteration or demolition permit, unless the applicant waives the right to have a meeting within fourteen (i4) days in a writing sub- scribed by the applicant or his duly authorized agent or attorney, the Commission shall meet to review the said application. (2) Notice The Commission shall cause to be published notice of any hearing pertaining to an application for a material change of use or appearance, or. demolition, at least three days in advance thereof. (3) Conduct of Hearings The order of proceedings in the hearing of each application shall be as follows: (a) Reading of the application for a material change of use or appearance, or demolition, by the Chairman. CO Decision by the Commission that the application complies in all respects with Section 24-6(b) as codified of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. In the event that the equivalent information is already on file with the Commission, the applicant may reduce his documentation accordingly. (c) Witnesses in favor of the application. (d) Witnesses in opposition to the application. (e) Rebuttals. (f) The Commission may on their own motion call upon persons who could qualify as experts in a court of law to testify amicus curiae upon any issue raised within their own professional competence. (g) The Chairman or any member of the. Commission may require any witness to swear or affirm that his statements of fact are true. (4) Rehearings No request for a reconsideration of a decision shall be accepted at any time, if it appears that no substantial change in facts, evidence, or conditions of the property has occurred. Sec. 501 DECISIONS (1) Form of Decisions All decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission shall be by resolution. The basis for the determination of each decision, and a detailed summary of the facts upon which the determination is made, shall be recorded in the decision and shall constitute a part of the record thereof. (2) Filing of Decisions (a) Within seven days after designation of a Landmark or Historic District, the Commission shall file a copy of such designation with the Planning Board, with the City Building Commissioner, and with the Common Council. Any designation approved by the Council shall be final and in effect on and after the date of approval by the Council. (b). With reference to applications for permission to make a material change in use or appearance, a Certificate of Appropriateness shall take the form of a letter signed by the Chairman listing in detail the approved changes. Copies of the Certificate of Appropriateness shall be sent to the Building Commissioner, the applicant, and when appropriate, the record owner of the affected parcel. (3) Emergency Repairs Any two members of the Commission may authorize temporary emergency repairs affecting the exterior of a designated building when necessary in the opinion of the Building Commissioner to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition. Permanent repairs can be approved only by the Commission as a whole. • Sec. 601 APPEALS (1) Time Limit for Appeals An appeal must be made within 60 days after the action of the Commission which is being appealed from. (2) Filing of Appeals The applicant shall file his appeal in duplicate with the Secretary of the Commission; one copy of which shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca. Appeals shall be signed by property. owners or a certified agent. Sec. 701 AMENDMENTS These rules may be amended at any regular meeting by an affirmative vote of not less than four voting members of the Commission, provided that such' amendment has been presented in writing to each member of the Commission at least 4+8 hours preceding the meeting at which the vote is taken.