Loading...
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