Loading...
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