HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2018-04-10Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — April 10, 2018
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Megan McDonald, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Donna Fleming, Common Council
Liaison
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, Staff
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 100-500 University Avenue, University Hill Historic District ― Proposal to
Reconstruct the Street, Including the Removal and Replacement of the Asphalt
Wearing Surface, Street Base and Sub-base, Curbing, Storm and Sanitary Sewer,
and Sidewalks, and the Installation of a Guiderail and Pedestrian Safety Railing
and a Floating Bus Stop near the Intersection of Cornell Avenue.
Before the presentation by the applicant, Chair E. Finegan explained that the proposed changes
to parking are outside the purview of the ILPC.
Eric Hathaway, transportation engineer for the City of Ithaca, presented an overview of the
proposed project, which would include resurfacing the street, improvements to the sanitary sewer
system, and other water and drainage improvements. He said they held a public meeting seeking
input from which they determined that including a bike lane would be a desirable improvement.
He said they would accomplish widening the sidewalk and including a bike lane going uphill by
reallocating a portion of the roadway.
D. Kramer said that the drawings provided are very technical and beyond his ability to interpret.
He asked Hathaway to walk through them.
E. Hathaway referred them to the attached photo and identified on the maps where the handrail
and guiderail start at around 119 University Ave. (indicated with a solid line on either side of the
sideawalk). The rails would end around 130 University Ave.
E. Hathaway explained also that the bike lane starts at Cascadilla Park Road and continues along
the length of University Ave. to just before the intersection with Lake Street. Crosswalks lead to
two floating bus stops, one near the intersection of Cornell Ave., and another near the Lake
Street intersection, where the bike lane ends. The bus stops would be placed between the bike
lanes and the roadway, keeping bikes to the right and busses to the left.
K. Olson asked about the rationale for the fencing (handrail) on the outside of the proposed
sidewalk on University Ave.
E. Hathaway said that while there’s no code requirement for the handrail, the drop off in that
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
2
area is quite steep, so they proposed it as a safety measure.
S. Gibian asked how the locations of the updated rails would compare to the green pipe rails
there currently.
E. Hathaway said he wasn’t sure.
S. Gibian said that it sounds like replacement of the curbing would be one of the biggest issues
the ILPC would have to decide and asked him to address that.
E. Hathaway answered that that was an issue he had discussed at length with B. McCracken.
B. McCracken said there are relatively few red sandstone curbs left in the District, and that those
that are there are severely deteriorated, crumbling and cracked. He noted, however, that they
were likely installed during the District’s period of significance, so the ILPC will be asked to
determine if they are an important, character-defining portion of the streetscape, and if so, how
their removal would affect the character of the streetscape, or if because there are so few of
them, they are not a character-defining feature of the streetscape.
D. Kramer said he disagrees with the assessment that there are few of the sandstone curbs left,
saying that he thinks more than half the curbs are sandstone, but he agreed with the assessment
that most of them are deteriorated, and he noted that with so many layers of blacktop, they are
barely visible in some places.
Chair E. Finegan asked if they could be saved for use elsewhere.
B. McCracken said that in speaking with Ray Benjamin from Streets and Facilities, it was his
understanding that they will save and stockpile such curbing for future re-use.
S. Gibian asked if they were going to bid out the project.
E. Hathaway said that yes, due to the size of the project, they would bid it out.
S. Gibian suggested that they include in the specs a requirement to save any curbs that are still in
good shape for future re-use.
E. Hathaway agreed.
D. Kramer said there are several aspects of the project not mentioned in the resolution that are
cause for concern, such as the utility poles. He next asked if there is any thought of moving the
utility poles to the west side of the street.
E. Hathaway said that he and B. McCracken had discussed that, and that they discussed it with
the consultant, as well as tried to discuss the issue with NYSEG. He said that they can draw them
where they’d like on the plans, but that ultimately it’s up to NYSEG to determine where it’s
feasible to put the lines. He said that relocation to the west side of the street was a possibility,
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
3
though putting them underground would be the preferred option. He also said that he wasn’t sure
how burying them would affect the construction timeline.
B. McCracken said that unfortunately, utility companies are given a lot of latitude in terms of
where they place their infrastructure, and communities don’t have a great deal of input. He said
that municipalities and individuals can make requests about placement of lines but cannot dictate
the absolute locations. He said that working with the utility companies will be important in
determining where the lines are placed in this project.
S. Gibian said that he thinks the utilities are a huge part of the project, and he asked E. Hathaway
if the poles had to move to create a functional bike lane.
E. Hathaway said yes.
S. Gibian said that it would be detrimental to all the historic houses along the street to have the
utility lines moved right in front of them.
Chair E. Finegan agreed.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing.
Michael Pieretti, 320 University Avenue, said he and his wife moved to their house about 10
years ago and spent a lot of money rehabbing it, but that they love the house and the
neighborhood. He said that they are 100 percent against moving the power lines to the west side
of the street, and that when they installed the lines years ago they put the lines on the east side of
the street for a good reason – there are no houses there. He asked if there had been any traffic
study looking at how many cyclists are using the street in a day, and said that hardly anybody
does as far as he can tell. He suggested that they should at least do a study to determine current
numbers. He said that he felt the scope of the project is much larger than seems necessary. He
also observed that removing half the parking would diminish demand for the bus stop, as many
people current using the bus stop are parking along the street. He said that he thinks there are
other options for improving the street and creating new bus stops that wouldn’t eliminate
parking. He said that the proposed project is a huge undertaking and that they should consider
the needs of the people who live there before proceeding.
Frédéric Bouché, 212 University Avenue, said he is concerned about the utilities and asked if
the residents would have an opportunity to see drawings showing the locations of the poles in
advance if they are to be moved. He asked also if the residents and homeowners would be given
an opportunity to interact with the utility companies and give feedback. Likewise, he expressed
concern about the possible elimination of parking and said that even if it is outside the purview
of the ILPC, residents and homeowners deserve to know what is going to happen to the parking.
He also observed that if the public parking is eliminated in favor of resident parking permits, the
proposed bus stop becomes irrelevant.
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
4
John Hubbard, 214 University Avenue, asked for clarification about the guardrail location, the
width of the sidewalk, and a few other items. He also expressed support for burying the electrical
wires.
Barbara Hubbard, 214 University Avenue, asked if the widening of the sidewalk on the west
side would go beyond the current edge of the sidewalk (E. Hathaway said no), and she said that
if the utility poles were relocated to that side of the street, they would interfere with an existing
hedge and a fence on their property.
Chair E. Finegan said that that specific placement for the poles has not yet been set (if relocation
happens at all).
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue, said that he thinks the resolution needs to be broadened
to identify other impacts on the historic district, one of them being the utility poles. He said that
he thinks the solution is to have the wires underground, and that the City should actively and
aggressively pursue that option. He also said that he thinks the Commission should see a larger-
scale, more detailed drawing of the guard rail and handrail design, and that both should be
uniform in color (he suggested the dark Forest Green used on Lake Street Bridge). He also said
that while he is in favor of the proposed sidewalk project, the Commission should be aware that
the capstones from the Llenroc retaining wall are currently occupying the location where the
sidewalk would go and said that they would need to be moved to a safe location pending their re-
installation (when the wall is rebuilt).
Mariah Pieretti, 320 University Avenue, said that she thinks moving the utility poles to the
west side of the street would be a detriment to the historic homes there, including her own. She
also said that eliminating the parking in front of their house would affect their daily lives as
homeowners. She said that they have three small children, and that they, like many of their
neighbors, can only use their driveway for part of the year due to its steep grade, so they rely on
the on-street parking in front of their home. She also expressed concern that by removing parking
on one side of the street and adding a bike lane, speeds on the street will increase. She said that
though it’s currently 30 mph, people routinely travel much faster than that, especially going
downhill. She said she doesn’t think the speed limits are particularly well enforced in the area,
and she doesn’t think the road would accommodate speed bumps because of the grade.
There being no further public comments, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a
motion by K. Olson, and seconded by M.M. McDonald.
Chair E. Finegan asked if they were going to take a vote on the resolution tonight.
B. McCracken said yes, they could vote tonight if they felt they had enough information, or they
could postpone voting until a later date if they felt they needed more details, and he and E.
Hathaway would work together to gather more information.
D. Kramer said he felt the resolution as written was too narrow, that only considering replacing
the sandstone curbs with granite is not enough, and he noted that this is the biggest street project
proposed in the last 20 years or so.
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
5
D. Kramer also said that he felt the need to disclose that he owns 502, 504 and 508 University
Ave, and his wife owns 510, and even though they don’t have any particular financial stake in
the project, as a neighbor and landlord whose tenants will be affected by the changes, he feels the
project needs more thought and that the resolution maybe ought to include other aspects beyond
just the curbs.
Chair E. Finegan asked how much purview they have over the placement of the wires.
B. McCracken said that they could request that NYSEG bury the wires and work with the utility
companies and the city attorney to negotiate the burial of the wires, as they did successfully on
Cornell Avenue. He said he agrees that the moving the lines to the west side of the street would
have a huge impact on the historic district.
D. Kramer said that as a property owner he generally is in favor of the project because University
Avenue is degraded and needs work, and this project could benefit people for decades to come.
He added that he thinks they need to consider the parking concerns and that there’s got to be a
way for residents to continue to park there.
K. Olson noted that these properties were not designed for automobile usage, and that’s part of
their character. She also said that she would not want to attempt to go down some of the
driveways in February. She added that though it is a public street and property owners do not
have parking rights per se, it is an issue that will need to be considered (as well as the ILPC can,
within its scope).
D. Kramer noted that a permitting system is in place in other areas of the city.
Chair E. Finegan said that a permit system is in place on his street in order to ensure residents
have a place to park.
D. Kramer asked how a permit system is put in place.
E. Hathaway said that that was an issue raised at the public meeting they held previously and that
they determined they would be able to work with Common Council to designate the west side of
the street as residential permit parking.
S. Gibian said that according to the drawings, it appears that in addition to removing all parking
from the east side or the street, parking on the west side disappears from around 222 to 320
University Avenue, approximately 450 linear feet. He asked the applicant to address this issue.
E. Hathaway said that that is correct, but he’s not sure if that is relevant to the ILPC.
D. Fleming asked for clarification on what the ILPC’s role is in reviewing the project, and what
factors it can take into consideration. She said it seems like it’s primarily a BPW project
Chair E. Finegan said that they can’t consider many of the concerns raised by the public thus far,
primarily related to parking and the relocation of the wires. However, he said, that people are
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
6
here tonight expressing their concerns.
D. Kramer said they all agree that they are not voting on parking.
K. Olson said that this will be the only public hearing on the project.
E. Hathaway added that they had held a public hearing previously at the public meeting.
D. Fleming asked if there are any aspects of the project over which the ILPC has direct purview.
B. McCracken said yes, the ILPC has purview over some aspects, including alterations to
landscapes, the installation of hardscapes and the replacement of hardscape materials,
specifically replacing the asphalt and the curbs.
D. Kramer mentioned that the railing selection would also be under their purview.
S. Gibian said that it seems like the relocation of the poles to in front of the houses in the historic
district would be something under their consideration as well. Other Commission members
agreed.
B. McCracken said that relocating the poles would have an impact on the historic buildings but
the extent to which they have control over what the utility company does is the issue.
K. Olson said the utility company would probably prefer to leave their poles right where they
are, and by approving the plan as proposed, they would be asking them, effectively, to move
their poles, and she said she’s not comfortable doing that.
M. M. McDonald agreed and observed that if they approve the plan, the poles would have to
move and they would have no control over where the lines would go. She said that their actions
could result in the lines going right in front of the houses.
After some further discussion, D. Kramer suggested they table the resolution.
K. Olson suggested they investigate further what NYSEG would be willing to do with respect to
the utilities.
B. McCracken said that the process of getting the lines buried on Cornell Avenue was a lengthy
one, and that because they held a public hearing on the project, they are required to hold a vote
within 90 days, or mutually agree (Commission and applicant) to extend the deadline. He said
also that he and E. Hathaway could work together over the next few weeks to reach out to the
utility company and try to get a sense of what they would be willing to do with respect to the
lines. He then asked Hathaway what impact tabling the project would have on his timeline.
E. Hathaway said the project is not currently funded, and they are currently trying to put together
cost estimates to determine what year it could be done. He then asked that the ILPC be very clear
on what additional information they will need from him upon his return.
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
7
K. Olson said she would like to see more details on the proposed guard and hand rails, materials
information, what they truly look like, and if they could be made to look alike and match up to
railings in other areas.
M.M. McDonald said she’d also like to see information on materials selected for the bus stops as
well.
S. Gibian asked if there were shelters planned for the floating bus stops.
E. Hathaway said no, shelters were not planned and that the bus stops would be formed out of
concrete.
B. McCracken reiterated the requests for more information on the railings, the bus stops, and
what the utilities would be willing to do with the wires. Commission members agreed.
E. Hathaway said he feels sympathetic towards the members of the public who came to express
their concerns about the project, and he wants to make it clear that the City doesn’t have a
preference for relocating the poles in front of their houses, that the location of the poles is not in
the City’s purview. He added that they don’t want to impact people negatively, but that they have
been looking at the needs on the street, and that people at the public meeting expressed
overwhelmingly that if they had a bike lane there, more people would cycle along the road
because currently, people don’t feel comfortable travelling by bicycle on an extremely narrow
road with busses.
M. M. McDonald expressed gratitude for the project’s consideration of the needs of cyclists,
saying that she used to be a bike commuter until a fellow cyclist was seriously injured and her
family convinced her to stop. She also noted that University Avenue is one of the busiest bus
routes in the city.
E. Hathaway concurred and said that though it’s a significant grade, it’s one of the most
achievable ways to travel from downtown to campus. He also said that they knew that the road in
general needed a lot of work, and that they were looking at ways to make it better than it is
considering they would be doing the work anyway. He observed that though the request for
traffic counts on bicycles now is reasonable, it would be bound to increase with the addition of a
bike lane.
K. Olson asked if there were other options for the design if NYSEG refused to bury the wires.
E. Hathaway said that he didn’t think they could be moved any farther to the east because of the
hill and the rock wall, and that presently, they did not have any other designs, but he said he
understood the neighbors’ concerns and that he would be asking the same questions if he lived
there. He added that he and B. McCracken would reach out to NYSEG again and try to get a
more definitive answer from them.
B. McCreacken said that there was one other comment raised that he wanted to address: the issue
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
8
of the capstones for the wall being stored on the west side of the street. He said that they have
been photographed and inventoried, and that he has discussed it with the sidewalk coordinator
and if sidewalks go in on that side of the street, the capstones need to be moved back to Llenroc
and stored safely until they can rebuild the wall.
E. Hathaway said he would continue talking with members of Common Council to determine
how to go about instituting a residential parking permit system on the street should the project
move forward as proposed.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue, said that he had done some research a few years
previously and it seemed that municipalities did, in fact, have the authority to require utilities
bury the lines under police power. He said that especially in places like Collegetown or
Downtown where it affects fire safety, municipalities can require burial. He said that his research
indicates that they could also make such a requirement for simple aesthetic concerns, requiring
burial of lines in all historic districts, for example.
Schroeder also said that he wanted to clarify his position on 311 College Ave., saying that it was
misrepresented in the Times, and that he would much prefer to see the front, 1905-07 portion of
the building preserved and allow a new building to be built in the rear where the 1894-95
building is, rather than see the whole building lost. He said he supports a compromise on the
issue, contrary to what was initially reported (before correction).
Schroeder also said that at the previous month’s Planning and Economic Development
Committee meeting, the only two people who spoke in favor of historic designation of the old
No. 9 fire station were a representative of Historic Ithaca and himself. He urged ILPC members
to attend (or encourage others to attend) future meetings where the issue is being considered.
Mary Tomlan, City Historian, spoke in favor of designation of the former No. 9 fire station,
and said she thinks it is one of the most significant decisions to have come in front of the ILPC.
She said that as an architectural historian and former ILPC member, she believes in the
significance of both components of the building, but as a former Common Council member and
as a citizen, the preservation of the front portion alone is a worthy goal. To preserve the front
confirms the significance of the original structure regarding the arrival of Collegetown as a
significant neighborhood. One consideration to weigh is the visibility of the rear portion from the
street. She said she was struck recently, as she walked past from the downhill side, that the rear
portion is essentially not visible, and that from the uphill (northern) approach, you’d have to
really crane your neck or even go onto the property to see it. Tomlan also said that some years
ago after publishing an article about the move of the older portion of the building, she was
surprised that quite a few people contacted her to say they never even knew that there was an
older wooden frame portion of the building in the rear. She also said that if there were a newer,
modern building in the front, she doesn’t think they would go out of their way to designate the
rear. Tomlan concluded by saying she looked forward to hearing their deliberations and that she
hopes they will recommend designation of at least the early 20th century portion of the building.
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
9
Brody Smith, legal representative of M. Kielmann, owner of 311 College Ave., shared a letter to
the PEDC, dated March 14, 2018, and an email from an architect, as well as a PowerPoint
presentation shared with the PEDC at their March 14 meeting. B. Smith said that its identity as a
firehouse does not make it particularly unique or different. He said that it was not the first, but
rather, the last from that era to be built. He said that two other firehouses from that era, one at
136 W. State Street and the other at 1012 N. Tioga Street, are actually more recognizable today
as firehouses than 311 College Ave, and suggested that they are likely more worthy of
preservation. Smith also argued that the No. 9 firehouse was “obsolete almost as soon as it was
built.” He said that it’s identified as a bar and restaurant and doesn’t even look like a firehouse,
pointing out that the firehouse doors are no longer present.
Chair E. Finegan paused him for a moment to remind him that they are not looking at the front
tonight, but are rather, considering whether or not to retain the back portion of the building in the
recommendation for designation.
B. Smith said he understands the procedural postures have been unusual and that the designation
has been sent back to the ILPC in an attempt to reach some sort of compromise. He also said he
appreciates the comments, but their position is that they don’t think either portion of the building
should be designated. He referenced an email from Jagat Sharma (submitted) in which Sharma
says that it would be impossible to do an overbuild in the back, and said that that is why he is
asking them to reconsider their recommendation on landmarking the front. He said that the
position of the building on the lot would make it impossible to construct anything behind it. He
also questioned the strength of the connection to Sage, and said that though he lived in
Collegetown for three years, he was unaware of the building’s history as a firehouse. He said the
building has been changed significantly over the years so much as to be no longer recognizable
as a firehouse. He concluded by saying that he doesn’t think it is a particularly good example of
the work of Gibb & Waltz either.
D. Kramer expressed concerns about receiving materials without time to review them, and asked
if they should recess or postpone a decision until the next meeting.
K. Olson said she thought they should postpone a vote until the next meeting, that to move ahead
without time to consider would be unfair to them (the owners). She also suggested that they take
some time to research J. Sharma’s stated position and see if there are examples in Ithaca or
elsewhere (NYS, as an example) where someone has been able to do an overbuild on a similar
site.
M.M. McDonald said she does not think they can consider the opinions of other architects
regarding an overbuild when making their decision, but she said that that might be something the
Planning and Development Board could consider.
K. Olson said that they sometimes consider whether or not something can easily be done when
making recommendations. But, she said this would be setting an amazing precedent in the City,
by divvying up a parcel and allowing redevelopment of a property known to be historic –
whether or not the owners or anyone else recognizes it as such. She also said she is not
comfortable making that kind of decision based on the opinion of just one architect. She
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
10
observed that they require contractors to determine whether or not a single window can be
salvaged, and this is a question of whether to allow removal of an entire building.
B. McCracken asked how many Commission members have actually seen the rear of the
building. Several members said they had not.
B. McCracken asked M. Kielmann if he would be willing to give them a tour.
M. Kielmann said yes, he would, and that he has been showing members of Common Council
the building as well. He also expressed frustration about the process being drawn out.
Additional discussion ensued. Questions were raised about whether the materials submitted
would factor into their decisions, and whether they should move ahead.
K. Olson expressed caution, as this decision would set a precedent that they are okay with
shaving off a portion of a building and this is the last opportunity for fact finding. She said they
have to craft the language very carefully so that they don’t back themselves into a corner of
having to approve façade-ectomies, which is what often happens in other communities.
After further discussion, Commission members agreed to do a site visit before taking a vote on
modifying the designation recommendation.
There being no further public comments, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Comments on a
motion by M.M. McDonald, and seconded by S. Stein.
III. OLD BUSINESS
311 College Avenue, Former No. 9 Fire Station – Referral of Proposed Local Landmark
Designation Back to the Commission for Modification from the Planning & Economic
Development Committee.
Discussion held during public comment period.
DeWitt Park, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Replace Sections of Curb and
Concrete Sidewalk, and Install Stamped-Concrete Paving in the Tree Lawn along N.
Cayuga and E. Buffalo Streets.
B. McCracken reported that there is no updated proposal yet, and the applicants are working to
incorporate the suggestions made by the Commission members made during the site visit. He
said that the Commission is required to take a vote within 90 days of the public hearing (held in
February), so there would be an updated proposal at the next meeting (or other action would be
taken).
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The March 13, 2018 minutes were approved unanimously with the following modifications:
Correct spelling of J.D. Farro to J.D. Ferro,
Clarify that sister house to 310 W. State is on South Albany Street, and
Approved by ILPC: 8, May 2018
11
Delete the reference to standing seam roofing from the resolution on page 4.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E.
Finegan adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission