HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2018-01-09 Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes—January 9, 2018
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair Megan McDonald, Member Bryan McCracken, Historic
Stephen Gibian, Member Susan Stein, Member Preservation Planner
Donna Fleming, Common Council Anya Harris, Staff
Liaison
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
There being no public comments, the ILPC moved on to New Business by unanimous consent.
II. NEW BUSINESS
• 310 W. State St., Downtown West Historic District–Early Design Review
Theresa Halpert Deschanes and David Halpert, applicants, appeared to present their plans for a
secondary dwelling structure (designed to resemble a carriage house) on the back of the lot.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the design had changed since the last meeting.
T. Deschanes responded in the negative,but added that they had decided to go with a 10-12
slope for the roof, and they had decided to use board and batten siding. D. Halpert added that
they added a window to the west wall, but explained that the footprint, the height, the massing
and most of the windows are all the same as the previous design.
S. Gibian asked about the dimensions of the footprint.
Applicants referred to a drawing not previously included in the mailing (copies of new drawing
provided) and responded that the footprint of the new building would measure 27'-6"by 44'.
Chair E. Finnegan asked if the ILPC was voting on anything at this meeting.
B. McCracken informed the Commission that the applicants were appearing tonight to give the
ILPC a chance to provide feedback on size, scale, massing, etc. of the proposed building, or
propose materials, or suggest ways to make compatible with the historic district, or propose
alterations to the design to give the applicants opportunity to make revisions before presenting
their formal proposal.
Chair E. Finegan asked if the last design presented to the ILPC had included a fence.
1
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
T. Deschanes said that they might have mentioned plans for a fence but not included any
drawings or materials details previously. She said that they could change the design of the fence
if needed, but they can't get rid of it, noting that the property is bounded on three sides by
parking lots and busy service provider offices, calling the neighborhood "transitional." As
presented, the fence comes off the north-west corner of the existing house and encloses the
secondary structure and all of the back yard. As proposed, it would have a four-foot-wide gate at
the driveway.
S. Stein asked about on-site parking.
T. Deschanes said there would be room for two cars in the driveway.
S. Gibian asked how many bedrooms the new building would have.
T. Deschanes answered six.
S. Gibian asked if it will be a two-story modular construction.
The applicants responded yes and said that Carina Construction would be the contractor. T.
Deschanes said that they work with several manufacturers, and added that she didn't want to
bring Carina to this meeting because they would be coming to a subsequent meeting and"it
seemed inefficient to have them come twice." She said that they would do the siding on-site, and
that it would not be vinyl.
S. Gibian said that it seems like their plan is to take a two-story, modular, center hall Colonial
and put it in the back yard of a Victorian house.
Applicants said that they looked at numerous carriage houses in the area, including the 1885
carriage house in their own yard, for inspiration.
S. Gibian cited several recent two-story modular construction projects of similar size, and called
them "highly unfortunate examples of development in our city." He also said that it seems to be
larger than other carriage houses in the neighborhood.
The applicants said that they had looked at a lot of carriage houses around the city, and that
though the building they are proposing is bigger than a lot of them, it is not as big as the one
which had stood there previously, adding that it would not be feasible for them to recreate the
octagonal brick structure with a mansard roof that had once stood there. T. Deschanes noted that
the building they are proposing would look very much like the carriage house next door, which
at some point had been connected to the main house (314 W. State, also designed by A.B.
Wood).
2
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
M.M. McDonald asked B. McCracken what suggestions he had given the applicants regarding
the proposed design.
B. McCracken said that he had discussed the conversion of the old Red Cross Building at 201 W.
Clinton, the use of board and batten siding and cross gables. He said they also talked about how
level of detail can help new development to fit into an historic district. He said they also
discussed ways to minimize the visual impact of solar panels, and of ways to minimize the visual
impact of the size of the building.
The applicants discussed the size of the proposed buildings and said that there are others in the
neighborhood that are proportionally bigger (relative to the houses next to them).
B. McCracken suggested that he might be able to use the GIS map system to identify other
carriage barns in the area and do some size comparisons, and see the range of sizes,particularly
in the Henry St. John district.
T. Deschanes said that the carriage barn previously on this site was a large one.
M.M. McDonald said that having comparisons would be helpful, and added that the hayloft
window as proposed seems ornate relative to the design of the house.
T. Deschanes said that they could change the window, but that they had included it because the
window on the brick barn previously on site had had a similar window over the door, and they
wanted to retain that element. She also said that they wanted to echo a detail of the main house
with the trusses under the gables. She noted, however, that decorative details could change if
needed.
Chair E. Finegan asked the Commission members' opinions on the window, adding that he has
lived in a couple of carriage houses that were converted around 1890 and that a lot of unusual
things were done in those conversions.
S. Stein said that it does not bother her, that she doesn't have a strong feeling either way.
B. McCracken said it seems like S. Gibian is raising the broader question of whether modular
construction is appropriate in an historic district. He said that it seems like some of the members
think it is (or can be), and he asked that if so, if there are details or modifications to the plans that
the members would like to see to make the project work.
S. Stein asked if by"modular"they mean build inside somewhere else and then assemble on site.
B. McCracken responded in the affirmative.
3
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
S. Stein asked if it would be wood framed.
B. McCracken responded yes.
T. Deschanes said that the Belle Sherman cottages are similar, though most of those are clad in
vinyl.
S. Gibian said that modular construction tends to lend itself to a box that is totally square.
T. Deschanes said that they wanted a box, even though the builders offered a number of options
more akin to what they had done with the Belle Sherman cottages (because they had just done
those recently and were proud of the results.) She explained that they had surveyed numerous
other carriage barns in the neighborhood, they noticed that a lot of them are "just a box"with a
10 and 12, or a 12 and 12 roof.
M.M. McDonald said she doesn't think the basic shape is the issue [with modular construction],
but rather the materials and detailing that might prevent them from being compatible with an
historic neighborhood. She added that she is not sure to what extent there is flexibility with the
exterior detailing.
B. McCracken asked the applicants to speak to what degree materials,trim, etc. can be
customized.
T. Deschanes said you can select whatever windows you want, and that a variety of trim styles
and sizes are available. She said that they tried to select materials in a style that would make it
look like an old carriage house.
D. Halpert said they chose a gable end similar to what they saw in the old carriage houses they
looked at. He said that one of the things they like about old houses is their level of ornateness but
that most of the carriage barns are simple by comparison.
S. Gibian said that because the proposed building will be a modular construction it will be two
stories; whereas, most historic carriage barns are a story and a half, and he said that the height
difference results in a different proportion to the building.
T. Deschanes said that they could make it a story and a half, but then they would need to make
the footprint bigger to make up for the square footage lost on the second floor. She added that the
design would be the same if they were going to stick build, because, "We want it to look this
way." She explained that in order to make the project financially viable and save the main house,
they need to be able to accommodate a certain number of renters on the site. She continued by
saying that the carriage barn that was there previously was larger than what they are proposing,
4
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
and it was also very tall. She also noted that after acquiring the property they went to NYSEG
and the City to have the power and water service turned on and learned that the utilities had been
off since 2012. She concluded by saying that the former owners were ready to tear it down and
that it is going to require a lot of work to save the building, and that no one else has stepped up to
do so.
Chair. E. Finegan agreed that it will be a lot of work and that it's commendable that the
applicants are taking the project on. He added that while the ILPC doesn't look at the economics,
the Commission knows that people need to find a way to make their projects work.
Chair E. Finegan then asked S. Gibian if he thinks the proposed building—a shell around a
modular interior—is going to have an acceptable look when it's done.
S. Gibian said he is not sure, that it will depend on the roof pitch(that he's not sure if any of the
other barns downtown have such a steep pitch) and the proportions of the windows to the fagade,
and some of the detailing. He said he has trouble with the project, because it's "a second
principal building on the lot trying to look like a carriage house conversion."He then added that
"in terms of details" on almost every carriage house, you typically see exposed rafter tails, and
exposed fly rafters.
T. Deschanes said that she didn't think that they were necessarily supposed to make it look
exactly like a carriage house because it's not a real carriage house, but that they were trying to
make it look compatible with the neighborhood. She said that they could try to make it look
completely modern and that they are not trying to fool anyone into thinking it is an actual
carriage house, but rather evoke that style.
D. Halpert said they can go back to Carina and ask about the exposed rafter tail suggestion, but
that they are not going to try to build an exact replica of a carriage house on the site.
S. Stein said that a lot of people have converted carriage houses into residences, and that she
doesn't have a problem with it.
Chair E. Finegan said that he understands why they are proposing it and that he doesn't have a
problem with it, noting that this second building will clearly date from a different time than the
original house and that the applicants are trying to make it at least visually compatible with
similar buildings in the neighborhood.
M.M. McDonald observed that the ILPC is missing several members at this meeting, and said
that she thinks that it's important that Commission makes well-reasoned decisions because it sets
precedent for what other people may try to do in the neighborhood(which is also why having
information on the sizes and roof pitch of similar structures is important). She also said that for
their final application, the applicants will need to supply as much information as possible on
5
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
materials, details, and on the windows and doors, and suggested that B. McCracken can probably
help them with making selections.
Applicants then shared some Hardie Board samples, and a discussion of using Hardie Board to
replicate board and batten cladding followed. The Commission recommended the smooth
material, instead of the simulated wood grain.
S. Gibian pointed out that board and batten can present challenges because the window trim lies
in the same plane as the battens and also that window placement requires advance planning so
that that the layout comes out correctly, so, for example, the battens don't narrowly miss the trim
on a window or hit partly on and partly off.
B. McCracken reiterated his recommendation that the applicants look at 201 W. Clinton Street,
saying that the detailing of the board and batten there is "spot on."
A discussion of how visible the building will be followed, and the applicants said that the
building will mostly only be seen by someone walking west on State Street, and that by the time
someone is in line with the front door of the main house, the building in the rear won't be visible
at all.
Chair E. Finegan asked about the visibility of the solar panels.
T. Deschanes responded that they will be clearly visible on the south facing slope of the roof,
which faces the street, but she noted that they will be black to match the roof shingles and some
additional discussion regarding solar panels followed.
Next, the applicants and ILPC discussed the proposed fence. Applicants proposed a six-foot tall
stockade style fence to provide privacy and security. Some ILPC members expressed a
preference for a shadowbox (flat top) style over the stockade style. When asked if they might be
willing to use a shorter, more decorative fence along the State Street side, applicants indicated
that a major factor in selecting the taller fence was to provide their tenants with additional
security(a locking gate with a peephole).
B. McCracken reminded the ILPC that a fence has a lifespan of about 10-15 years and is
completely reversible.
After further discussion, B. McCracken referred the applicants to the pictures they had submitted
showing the back of the house and suggested they might take inspiration from the pitch of the
roof and the details under the eaves, to tie the historic building to the new construction. He also
asked if they could produce renderings with and without the running trim detail shown.
6
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
M.M. McDonald noted that several members were absent and that their input should be
considered as well.
After the applicants received some additional clarification from B. McCracken, the discussion of
310 W. State concluded.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• 12/19/2017
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, the minutes from December 19, 2017
were approved unanimously with the following modifications:
S. Gibian requested that the word"stupa"be removed from page 2.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
• Certified Local Government(CLG) Performance Evaluation
B. McCracken said that overall, Ithaca did very well. He said that they received a
recommendation to make sure they are receiving complete applications and obtaining materials
samples from applicants. He said the second recommendation was that they do a survey of some
kind.
• Other business
Chair E. Finegan asked about what protections are in place for buildings downtown, and
mentioned the CSMA. A brief discussion followed, including the possibility for making
inclusion on the National Register a reason for Local Designation(and extending the associated
protections of such).
M.M. McDonald mentioned the possible benefits of educating building owners about
preservation tax credits.
S. Gibian asked about recruiting new members.
B. McCracken said that they will need to vote on chair and vice chair and historic district
monitoring assignments at the February meeting.
B. McCracken said he also received an email from J. Murtagh thanking the ILPC members for
their service and saying he enjoyed working with them.
He also said that K. Olson is continuing to prepare the recommendation for designation of the
Old No. 9, and that he will be visiting the PEDC in the next month to make recommendations on
revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance, and that he will have the annual report for their review at
the next meeting.
7
Approved by ILPC: 13,February 2018
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E.
Finegan adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
8