HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2018-05-08Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — May 8, 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 5:38 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DeWitt Park, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Install Stamped-Concrete
Paving in the Tree Lawn along N. Cayuga and E. Buffalo Streets.
Mark Verbanic, construction engineer for the City of Ithaca, updated the Commission on
changes to the proposal made since his previous appearance at the ILPC and the Commission’s
subsequent site visit to the park. They plan to replace the current sidewalk with plain grey
concrete, as is currently there. A notable change to the proposal is the inclusion of planting areas
around any parking pay station, electrical transformer box, fire hydrant, or street sign in the
project area. M. Verbanic presented the Commission with drawings showing two alternatives for
how to treat the tree lawn areas they are proposing be paved. (The project area, which originally
had included both Cauyga and Buffalo Streets, has been reduced to just Buffalo Street this year,
with improvements to Cayuga to be undertaken at a future date, likely next year.)
After some questions by several Commission members, M. Verbanic confirmed that what is
done to Cayuga Street would be similar or the same to the treatment they decide upon for
Buffalo Street.
K. Olson asked why the size of the planting beds was not yet determined.
M. Verbanic explained that it was because he had located each of the items interrupting the tree
lawn (signs, parking pay station, etc.) and had estimated 5 feet on either side of each, plus 10 feet
on either side of the hydrant.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M.M. McDonald,
Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing.
Chair E. Finegan asked about the two drawings presented and asked if the intent was to have
them select one.
M. Verbanic said yes.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
2
S. Gibian mentioned feeling more regret about paving this area.
S. Stein said she thought the issue of paving was already determined.
B. McCracken said that the city looked at various options, but paving was the preference of the
City and is the proposal they’ve brought forward. He noted, however, that the ILPC would have
the purview to determine if it’s not appropriate or if it’s a compatible alteration within the park
area.
M.M. McDonald asked if there’s a reason for having three types of pavement.
M. Verbanic said that they were trying to match the existing sidewalk where it already exists and
then with the other stamped patterns (2- by 5-foot and 1- by 1-foot) match what exists elsewhere
in the Park and in the District.
K. Olson said she feels like the Buffalo street side is more urbanized, and she can get behind the
paving proposal there, but she said she’s not sure if it will be appropriate for Cayuga Street,
noting that it feels different. She also observed that she doesn’t think they will be able to justify
approving different treatments for the two streets, so whatever they approve for Buffalo will
almost certainly be replicated on Cayuga. She concluded that the indeterminate size and plans for
the planters is another concern.
M.M. McDonald said she wants to ensure that the sidewalk still reads as a sidewalk, and that
she’s not sure that having three different kinds of paving side by side is the answer.
S. Stein also expressed concern for the expanse of concrete, and said she would have liked to
have seen something like pavers that would have let grass grow up in between.
S. Gibian said that he measured the distances between the sidewalk and the back of the curb, and
that on Buffalo it is 6 feet 8 inches and on Cayuga, 7 feet 4 inches.
D. Kramer said he is as conflicted as anybody on this proposal, saying it’s his neighborhood, and
he walks by the park every day. But, he observed that the tree lawn there is “funky,” and he said
he doesn’t think sod is going to fix it. He said that at first he was opposed to the proposal on
principle, but that now he doesn’t think the paving is going to materially impact the vista because
the eye will be drawn past it. He said he’s not as opposed to the proposal as he first thought he
would be, and that he thinks the red brick stamped concrete is a reasonable material to use in this
location.
M.M. McDonald asked if possible to do just the red stamped brick between the sidewalk and
curb.
M. Verbanic said yes, they can easily do that, and that he was just trying to replicate what had
been done closer to the Commons.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
3
S. Gibian suggested making a continuous, distinct (2-foot wide) area along the curb for
disembarking from cars, and he asked if they could make the green spaces bigger, maybe equal
to two of the 6- by 6-foot sidewalk squares (6- by 12-foot) instead of just 5 feet square. Other
Commission members agreed.
D. Kramer asked if they could bring the Ithaca Beautification Brigade onboard to do the
plantings.
M. Verbanic said that he thought that was the City Forester’s plan, that the first year she would
do the plantings and watering but the next year turn it over to the Beautification Brigade.
B. McCracken asked how this is different from past proposals to replace historic materials with
stamped concrete. He asked if they are comfortable with the precedent of allowing stamped
concrete replicating brick in the historic district.
K. Olson said she thinks it’s okay because it’s not removing historic materials, nor is it
attempting to replicate something that was once there. She said she would vote in opposition to
stamped concrete as a replacement for historic material. She also noted that this could be
removed and the “trampled” lawn, reinstated in the future.
Chair E. Finegan asked what, specifically, they want to see.
S. Gibian said he would like a 2-foot continuous strip along the curb to allow people to get in and
out of their vehicles and some larger planting spaces, with maybe one more planting area
between the hydrant and the pay station.
B. McCracken said it would be easy to create five evenly spaced planting beds within the project
area.
The Commission members discussed the treatment of the other concrete between the sidewalk
and the 2-foot strip of red stamped concrete that runs along the curb. They agreed that they want
to see red stamped concrete from the edge of the existing sidewalk, with a 2-foot wide strip along
the street, and (5) 5- by 12-foot planting beds, evenly spaced along the street. A condition was
added that raised planters be used to define the planting beds also.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, DeWitt Park is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated January 30, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Mark Verbanic on behalf of the
City of Ithaca, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a site plan
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
4
illustrating the proposed changes; and (3) two photographs documenting existing
conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC conducted a special site visit to DeWitt Park on March 3, 2018 to review
existing conditions and examine paving alternatives within the DeWitt Park Historic
District, and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a revised drawing titled Proposed Layout No. 1: DeWitt
Park Tree Lawn and dated April 6, 2018,
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacing sections of deteriorated concrete
sidewalk, and red Medina sandstone and concrete curbing and installing
stamped concrete paving in the tree lawn along E. Buffalo St., and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further
environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the in-kind replacement of the concrete sidewalks, and the repair and in-kind
replacement of deteriorated Medina sandstone curbs was approved by ILPC
staff on April 6, 2018, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearings for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness and the proposed revisions were conducted at the
regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on February 13, 2018 and May 8, 2018, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park
Historic District is 1820-1930.
As indicated in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination
Form, DeWitt Park was laid out by, and later named for, New York State’s first
Survey General, Simeon DeWitt, in the early-19th century as the community’s
“public square. To ensure DeWitt Park became the center of the burgeoning
village, DeWitt donated lots around it for a school, a church, and other civic uses.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
5
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District
and possessing a high level of architectural integrity, DeWitt Park is a contributing
element of the DeWitt Park Historic District.
The project under consideration attempts to correct the poor landscape condition in
the tree lawn around DeWitt Park, which is the result of its intensive use by the local
farmers market. The volume and types of activities that occur within this area have
severely damaged the vegetative elements and have compacted the soils, making
replanting difficult.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value,
the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with
the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or
district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making
this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in
Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C,
and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this
case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing
to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and
any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the
individual property and the character of the district as a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of
concrete paving in the tree lawn along E. Buffalo St. will not remove distinctive
materials but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The ILPC
notes that the wide tree lawn around DeWitt Park is a unique characteristic of this
section of the Historic District and directly relates to the historic layout of
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
6
neighborhood, and, in particular, DeWitt Park by New York State’s First Surveyor
General, Simeon DeWitt. DeWitt’s design centered on an open green space or park
that would be surrounded by municipal, religious and civic building. The “public
square” would provide physical and visual relief from the urban environment DeWitt
envisioned for the developing village. While the proposed paving will regrettably
diminish the verdant quality and design intent of this urban park, the proposed
alteration allows for and is necessitated by its continued civic use. The open green
space within DeWitt Park will continue to provide physical and visual relief from the
surrounding urban environment.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed tree lawn paving is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property
and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the stamped-concrete paving in the tree lawn along E.
Buffalo St. can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the DeWitt
Park and the DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets the criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following condition(s):
All the paving in the tree lawn area shall be red-tinted concrete (to match as
closely as possible the color of the Medina sandstone curbs) with a stamped
brick pattern.
Five (5) 12’x5’ planters shall be incorporated into the tree lawn paving to
preserve some landscape elements in the tree lawn. The planters shall be evenly
spaced within the tree lawn along E. Buffalo St. and shall have a clearly defined
and formal edge to prevent damage to the vegetation within the planting area.
Appropriate edging could include, but is not limited to, stone curbs or metal tree
pit guards. The edging shall be reviewed and approved by the ILPC.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: M.M. McDonald
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
7
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
B. 111 The Knoll, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace a Wood
Window.
K. Krueger presented a proposal to replace an existing double hung window on the third floor of
111 The Knoll with a fiberglass fixed window with simulated divided lights and meeting rail.
The applicant wants to replace a tub in the third-floor bathroom with a shower fixture, and due to
gabled ceilings, the only place in the room suitable for a shower is in front of the window under
the peak of the roof. Thus, they are requesting to replace the existing window with one that can
withstand the wet conditions inside a shower.
K. Krueger said that the exterior of the window would be painted to match the rest of the house,
and that because it will be up on the third floor, impacts on the look of the building should be
minimal.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing.
There being no public comments, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a motion by
M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein.
D. Kramer asked about privacy.
K. Krueger said it will be obscure glass.
S. Gibian asked about reinstalling the storm window on the outside.
K. Krueger said they didn’t currently have a proposal for that, but that she was in favor of it so
that the appearance is consistent with the rest of the house.
B. McCracken asked if they were using a simulated muntin or simulated meeting rail.
K. Krueger said both, and referred the Commission members to the diagram provided in the
application.
B. McCracken asked if it was a full frame replacement or an insert.
K. Krueger answered sash insert.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
8
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M.M. McDonald.
WHEREAS, 111 The Knoll is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated
under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as listed on
the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated April 25, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Noah Demarest on behalf of
property owner Karl Johnson, Chesterton House, Inc., including the following: (1)
two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
Changes(s); (2) three architectural drawings dated April 26, 2018 and titled
“Elevations” (A201), “Third Floor Demolition Plan” (AD103), and “Third Floor
Plan” (A103), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
111 The Knoll, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
replacement of a six-over-one, wood, double-hung window in the third-story of the
east elevation with a fixed, fiberglass sash with simulated divided lights and meeting
rail designed to replicate the light configuration of the existing sash, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on May 8, 2018, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights
Historic District is 1898-1937.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the
Craftsman-Style residence at 111 The Knoll was designed by Clarence Martin and
constructed by the locally significant construction company, Driscoll Brothers, Inc.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
9
Clarence Martin was a Cornell-University-trained architect who practiced in
Philadelphia between 1889 and 1894. In 1894, Martin began his career as a professor
of architecture at Cornell University and was the dean of the College of Architecture
from 1909 to 1919.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District
and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
As stated in the narrative of Reasons for Proposed Changes, the proposed window
replacement accommodates the installation of a shower on the third floor of the
residence.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural
value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is
consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the
landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code.
In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set
forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in
Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and
Standards:
Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and
contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little
as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the
historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as
a whole.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the
window will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces
that characterize the property.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
10
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed window
replacement is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of
the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
The removed window sashes shall be clearly labeled with their original location
and date of removal. To facilitate the potential reinstallation of the sashes, they
shall be stored in secure and dry location on the property.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: M.M. McDonald
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
C. Cornell Arts Quad, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District – Proposal to Enlarge
Select Sidewalks with Asphalt Paving.
Applicants Tammy Johnston, project manager, Gary Wilhelm, senior project manager, and
David Cutter, landscape architect, all from Cornell University, presented their proposal to
enlarge concrete sidewalks and asphalt walkways within the Arts Quad.
Applicants explained that the proposal is being brought forward because the University erects
tents in the Arts Quad several times a year, and fire code requires a paved path wide enough to
accommodate fire trucks. The perimeter walkways inside the Arts Quad are currently 8 to 12 feet
wide concrete, and the diagonal walkways are asphalt of 7 to 9 feet in width. The proposal is to
add a strip of asphalt to both the concrete and asphalt walks to bring them all up to 12 feet in
width.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
11
There being no public comments, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a motion by
M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson.
D. Kramer said that it makes sense to him to widen the existing asphalt paths with asphalt, but he
said that it doesn’t seem like it would look good to do so alongside concrete walkways.
Applicants explained that they are proposing the asphalt for two reasons: financial, and also
because it doesn’t seem like a 2-foot strip of concrete would hold up to firetrucks as well.
S. Stein said she wasn’t sure why this is necessary, given that the trucks could just drive on the
unpaved ground as they do now.
Applicants explained that pavement is required by code, and that they need to comply with the
requirement by November 30, 2018.
K. Olson said that she doesn’t think that the potential for concrete cracking is a good enough
reason to justify using asphalt next to the concrete.
Applicant said that they don’t have funds for concrete.
K. Olson said that financial concerns are outside the purview of the ILPC.
Chair E. Finegan said he understands the concerns being expressed because while it makes sense
to put asphalt next to asphalt, but next to concrete, asphalt would be visually disturbing. He also
said that while he understands the proposal is being brought forward in order to meet the code, it
is the ILPC’s job to examine the proposal and determine if it is appropriate within the historic
district.
G. Wilhelm then reviewed evaluation criteria to apply within the historic district. He said that
asphalt is already in use on all the interior pathways of the Arts Quad. Applicants then showed an
image showing a 16-inch wide strip of stone dust running along the interior (Quad-side) of the
existing sidewalk in front of Goldwin Smith Hall. G. Wilhelm explained that the stone dust
(which is being used in areas where the salt is killing the grass) has been in place for several
years now, and suggested that my running asphalt along the interior of the concrete walks, it
would easily merge together with the asphalt walkways already in place that cut diagonally
across the Quad. Applicants also said that ease of repair is another consideration.
S. Gibian asked if the surface prep (digging down, putting down sub-base, etc.) would be the
same for either asphalt or concrete.
Applicants said yes.
After further discussion about how the asphalt and concrete might intersect, D. Kramer
suggested that they might approve the asphalt portion of the proposal, and not approve the
asphalt by concrete portions to see if they can come up with a better plan. He went on to suggest
that a denial from the ILPC might encourage Cornell to make a better proposal.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
12
Applicants asked for additional clarification on how this proposal does or doesn’t meet criteria
for projects in the historic district.
B. McCracken said that in cases like this, they usually refer to standard number 9, which relates
to new additions within historic districts. He said that he would argue that the current paths in the
Arts Quad are not an historic feature, and that when considering alterations to non-contributing
elements in an historic district, they consider whether the changes will be visually compatible (or
not) with the existing features. He then asked how the Commission members feel about putting
in asphalt alongside the concrete.
Chair E. Finegan said that that seems to be the only sticking point, and that everyone seems
comfortable with putting asphalt down where it currently exists.
K. Olson said she thinks asphalt next to concrete is visually incompatible.
D. Fleming asked if B. McCracken was saying the sidewalks are not contributing resources.
B. McCracken said that they are not the historic paths, that they are not identified as a character-
defining feature of the Quad, that they probably date from outside the period of significance, and
that they are not a protected resource.
K. Olson said that for non-contributing elements in an historic district, new changes have to be
equal to or better than what is there, and visually compatible with what already exists.
Chair E. Finegan asked what the Commission members want to do.
After some additional discussion whether to partially approve, approve with conditions, table, or
disapprove the resolution, the Chair took a straw poll and determined the proposal would not be
approved.
D. Kramer asked the applicants if they had a preference with regards to either tabling or voting
on the resolution.
Applicants said that voting would be more useful in terms of sending a message to the
University, that tabling was suggested to give the Commission time to think about it but that if
they’ve already decided, tabling would not be desirable.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, the Cornell Arts Quad is located within the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1990, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated April 19, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Tammy J. Johnson on behalf of
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
13
property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) a site plan showing existing conditions; (3) eight photographs showing existing
conditions; and (4) a site plan showing the proposed alterations, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Arts Quad Historic District
Summary Significance Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
widening existing concrete and asphalt sidewalks around the parameter of the
quadrangle and one running diagonally through the center to a minimum width of
12’ with an asphalt paving material; asphalt paving will be installed adjacent to
existing concrete paths and asphalt paths will be replaced entirely and widened, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate
impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on May 8, 2018, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Arts Quad is
identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Arts Quad Historic District Summary
Significance Statement as 1868-1919.
Envisioned by the University’s first president, Andrew Dickson White, the Cornell
Arts Quad, and the stone buildings that surrounded it, was the center of the rapidly
expanding Cornell University during the late-19th and early-20th centuries. The
quadrangle plan was rooted in traditional university campus models and represented
the founders’ desire to establish an academically and aesthetically respected Ivy
League institution.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Arts Quad Historic
District and possessing a high level of integrity, the quadrangle is a contributing
element of the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District.
The proposed improvements to the selected paths within the Cornell Arts Quad reflect
the University’s need to provide Fire-Code-compliant fire apparatus access to all
buildings around the quadrangle by November 2018, in accordance with the granted
Variance #2015-0101. The layout of the walkways on the Arts Quad changed regularly
throughout the historic district’s period of significance. The placement and
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
14
configuration of the current concrete and asphalt walkways reflect present circulation
and use patterns and likely do not date from the period of significance. For these
reasons, they are considered non-contributing elements in the historic district.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value,
the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with
the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or
district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making
this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in
Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C,
and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this
case specifically the following principles and Standards:
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
As a non-contributing structure, the walkways within the Cornell Arts Quad., by
definition, do not possess historic materials or features subject to protection under the
Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is, therefore, limited
to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures
in the district and on the Cornell Arts Quad Historic District as a whole, with the
guiding principle being that the proposed work must not further reduce the
compatibility of the non-contributing structure with its historic environment.
With respect to Standard #9, the proposed asphalt material is not compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment. The ILP notes that the installation of asphalt paving adjacent to the
existing asphalt walkways is compatible; however, the extension of concrete
walkways with asphalts is visually incompatible with historic aesthetic quality of the
Historic District. The juxtaposition of the light concrete and dark asphalt will create
a visually incongruous pavement pattern that will attract attention to itself rather
than recede into the quadrangle’s landscape. The alteration, therefore, will further
reduce the compatibility of this non-contributing element with its historic
environment and is, therefore, not appropriate.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell
Arts Quad Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
15
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
D. 311 College Avenue, Former No. 9 Fire Station – Proposed Modification of
Individual Local Landmark Designation Recommendation
B. McCracken said that the ILPC and some members of the public made a site visit to 311
College Avenue on April 24. The ILPC took a straw poll at that time, which indicated a majority
felt that the rear of the building lacked architectural integrity and no longer had the features that
reflect its historic past. He said that tonight they would be voting on a resolution indicating
whether the rear portion of the building should or should not be considered a contributing
resource as part of the designation.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. Mc Donald, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing.
Susan Holland, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca at 212 Center Street, said Historic
Ithaca strongly supports the revised resolution and encourages the Commission members to vote
yes so that the resolution can move forward to be considered by the Planning and Economic
Development of Common Council. She thanked the ILPC for their work in supporting historic
resources in the City.
B. McCracken also read additional written comments (included for the record as an
addendum to the minutes).
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by M.M. McDonald, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing.
D. Kramer expressed said he intends to vote for the resolution but that he is much sadder than he
thought he would be because the building is more intact than he thought it would be.
M.M. McDonald said that the rear of the property is not visible nor is it accessible from the
public right of way, and she thanked the owners for providing an opportunity to tour the
building, adding that the reason some of them had not seen the rear of the building before is
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
16
because they did not want to trespass. She echoed D. Kramer’s sentiment that she has struggled
with her decision to support the resolution, because it’s very unusual to have a building where a
portion is not visible from any public right of way.
S. Gibian said that there are some features of the building, exterior and interior, that are fine
features: the exterior siding and skirt, the exposed rafter tails, and the unusual, three-dimensional
roof shingles. He said, however, that except for the roof shingles, other examples of similar
features exist elsewhere on East Hill. He also mentioned the pressed tin interiors as being
special, but noted that interiors are not in their purview.
K. Olson said she’s voting against the resolution because it’s setting a precedent for divvying up
a property, for saying what’s valuable and what’s not, for what’s historic and what’s not, within
a single parcel. She said that opens up some tricky territory, and that as an historic preservation
planner, she wants to preserve her right to be concerned about those issues. She said that she also
understands the other Commissioners’ concerns and that their decisions are being made within a
broader political context.
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue – Modified Recommendation
to Designate as an Individual Local Landmark
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 13, 2018, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission recommended to Common Council the designation of the Former
No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue as an individual local landmark after the
conclusion of a properly noticed Public Hearing, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC voted to affirm their recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire
Station at their regular meeting on March 13, 2018, providing supplemental
information to support their recommendation to designate the property, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC’s recommendation was reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee (PEDC) of Common Council at their regular March 14,
2018 meeting, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration, the PEDC referred the proposed designation back to
the ILPC for modification, citing concerns about the architectural integrity of the
original 1894-95 fire station and its ability to reflect its historic significance, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regularly scheduled meeting on
April 10, 2018 and conducted a properly noticed special site visit on April 24,
2018 to evaluate the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the fire
station, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering modifying the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
17
Avenue was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 8, 2018,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following finding of fact concerning the architectural
integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue:
As noted in the Historic Resource Inventory Form, the original wood-frame
portion of the building was constructed in 1894-95 near the corner of Dryden Rd
and College Avenue (then Heustis Street) and was the first fire station in the area
of East Hill that would become known as Collegetown. This fire station was
moved to 311 College Avenue in 1905 and the brick- and stucco-clad addition
that fronts the street was constructed in 1907-08.
The relocation resulted in the loss of this historic resource’s setting.
A 1905 photograph attached to the Historic Resource Inventory Form for the
Former No. 9 Fire Station shows the character defining features of this early
neighborhood fire station: the Roman Doric pilasters and engine bay opening on
the primary façade, and the bell-shaped, integral rooftop bell tower. These
elements are characteristic of the Shingle Style and clearly reflect the design
aesthetic of the locally prominent architecture firm that designed the building,
Vivian & Gibb.
These primary character defining features, including the rooftop, bell-shaped
tower and the primary façade’s architectural details, were removed after its
relocation in 1905.
To evaluate the impact of these alterations on the architectural integrity of
the Former No. 9 Fire Station, the ILPC considered the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the
following Standards:
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have
acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and
preserved.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
18
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall
be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
The removal of the fire station’s Roman Doric pilasters, fire engine bay, and the
rooftop tower violated the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 9, and 10, and
while these alterations may have gained significance in their own right, they
clearly prevent the public from identifying the resource as a neighborhood fire
station. Furthermore, the 1907-08 addition cannot be removed without further
impairing the integrity of the original fire station and would also result in the loss
of this identified resource that has gained significance in its own right, a violation
of Standard 4.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission determines that the original 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9
Fire Station does not possess sufficient architectural integrity to represent the
building’s historic significance, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC identifies the original 1894-95 wood-frame portion of the building
as a non-contributing resource and the 1907-08 addition as the contributing
resource on the parcel, and be it further resolved
RESOLVED, that the ILPC amends their recommendation to Common Council to designate the
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue to reflect this distinction, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the classification of these resources will be documented in the New York
State Historic Structure Inventory Form for the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, D. Kramer, S. Stein, E. Finegan, S. Gibian
Against: K. Olson
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Michael Pieretti, 320 University Avenue, spoke about the proposal for University Avenue. He
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
19
said that they would be meeting with the BPW within the week, and that he has been in contact
with Superintendent Mike Thorne about the project, including details about sidewalks and loss of
parking spaces. He said that loss of parking is of particular concern, and that his estimates
indicate going from 136 spaces to 44, a 66 percent reduction. He identified the potential
relocation of the electric lines to the residential side of the street as another area of particular
concern. He proposed an alternate location for locating a bus stop at the Baldwin stair, and
presented drawings to the Commission showing alternate options to what had been previously
proposed.
Mariah Pieretti, 320 University Avenue, spoke about the University Avenue proposal. She
expressed concerns about the parking, particularly because there is no side street parking in the
area. Further, she said that in speaking to a representative from Cornell, she learned that residents
would not be allowed to park in the University lot at the top of the street. She also asked for an
update on NYSEG’s position in June.
B. McCracken read aloud written comments from Ian Shapiro, owner of 402 University
Avenue (included for the record as an addendum to the minutes).
There being no further comments from the public, Chair E. Finegan closed the public comment
period.
K. Olson suggested doing a site visit to University Avenue in advance of the June meeting.
III. NEW BUSINESS
204 Williams St., East Hill Historic District – Early Design Guidance
Jason Demarest presented a proposal for a new building at 204 Williams Street, with two
roofline options provided. He explained the various area variances they would be seeking to
build on the non-conforming lot.
S. Gibian observed that it looks larger than all the neighboring buildings (basement plus three
stories versus basement plus two).
J. Demarest referred to 209 Williams, saying you could see a walkout basement, two floors and
then a full floor under the gambrel roof.
S. Gibian said that the low hip roof adds nearly a full story.
J. Demarest also referred to 210 Williams, saying you could see basement windows, two stories
and then some level of occupied attic.
S. Gibian said an occupied attic is different than a full story.
M.M. McDonald said that another feature that makes the proposed building read so much larger
is the porch design, which looks like what you might find on the rear.
Approved by ILPC: 12, June 2018
20
K. Olson agreed, saying she thought it was the rear.
J. Demarest spoke a little about the aerial access requirement and their desire to get the electric
lines buried, which he said would probably be cost prohibitive. He explained that the gambrel
roof would probably help them meet the aerial access requirements even if the lines aren’t
buried.
K. Olson said that all the neighboring buildings are examples of architecture in motion, with
projections and differentiation of materials. She encouraged Demarest to incorporate such
features in his designs.
B. McCracken said the building seems very tall, 15-feet taller than the one downhill from it and
even taller than the one uphill from it.
Additional discussion followed about ways to lower the roof height (sinking the building into the
ground 2 feet and removing a foot of height from two of the floors).
Commission members and staff made a number of suggestions for how to make the building
design more compatible with the neighborhood, keeping the overall height down, articulation,
scale, keeping the porch to a single story, etc.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The April 10, 2018 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Rooftop additions presentation: B. McCracken previewed the rooftop additions to historic
buildings slideshow he had prepared for the upcoming meeting of the Planning and
Economic Development Committee.
Correspondence: New York State Historic Preservation Office regarding the Tibbetts-
Rumsey House at 310 W. State St. – Commission members provided copies.
ILPC Rules of Procedure– Commission members provided copies as a refresher.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by K. Olson, Chair
E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
No. 9 Fire Station
Marty Moses [mosesmarty@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 8:12 AM
To:Bryan McCracken; Joseph Murtagh
NOW IS THE TIME........protect the history of Ithaca and please do NOT destroy the No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue.
We have more than enough high rise buildings in Collegetown and it is beginning to feel like
driving through a cave! While it is important to have growth and change, it is equally important
to maintain historical landmarks.
I visit, dine and drive through Collegetown frequently and there has been enough destruction of
great old sites where many memories were made.
Want to build something......how about another parking garage!
Thanks for listening.
Marty
--
Ms. Marty Moses
1746 Slaterville Rd.
Ithaca,NY 14850
(607-273-0731)
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 5/29/2018, 4:23 PM
RE: No. 9 Fire Station Landmark Designation
Joseph Murtagh
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:35 AM
To:Kati Smith [katismithj@gmail.com]
Cc:Bryan McCracken
Hi Kati,
I appreciate your input. The Nines designation will likely be on the agenda for the next Planning and Economic
Development committee meeting on Wednesday May 9th at 6pm in Council chambers. I'm copying our historic
preservation planner, Bryan McCracken, so that he may enter your comment into the record.
Yours,
Seph
Seph Murtagh, Common Council
City of Ithaca, Second Ward
585-703-2582
From: Kati Smith [katismithj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 4:26 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh
Subject: No. 9 Fire Station Landmark Designation
Hi, Seph!
I'd like to "vocalize" my support of the nomination to individually landmark the
former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Ave prior to the PEDC meeting next Wednesday.
Its historic significance rests in:
its (nearly intact) turn-of-the-20th-century architectural style
its notable role in the development of Collegetown
its close association with three locally prominent architects
its ability over the years to better connect Cornell University and the mixed-use neighborhood on East
Hill
my memory of being the site where I heard the hands-down worst rendition of Tiny Dancer in my life
at an open mic night once (just kidding) (I mean it was historically bad but this is not a reason to keep
it around)
Historic buildings are already largely outnumbered by new in the Collegetown Core. Adapting to change is
an important trait in city living and planning, but so is recognizing and fighting for the parts that have only
ever bolstered the community.
Thank you for your time and see you next week,
RE: No. 9 Fire Station Landmark Designation https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 2 5/29/2018, 4:22 PM
Kati
--
Kati Smith
(607)684-4819
katismith.com
RE: No. 9 Fire Station Landmark Designation https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
2 of 2 5/29/2018, 4:22 PM
Support Landmark Designation of No. 9 Fire Station
Clinton Brown [clintonbrown@cbca.email]
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 3:05 PM
To:Bryan McCracken; Joseph Murtagh
Dear Mr. McCracken and Alderperson Murtagh,
I support the efforts of my friends and colleagues at Historic Ithaca in favor of the nomination to
individually landmark via the revised designation the former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Ave.
at the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and Planning and Economic Development
Committee meetings on Wednesday, May 9th.
The former No. 9 Fire Station is one of only three original fire stations left in the City of Ithaca, and
one of a handful of buildings extant that were built for civic functions in Ithaca since the 1900s. The
brick structure visible from the street today was built in 1907-1908 and was designed by Gibb &
Waltz.
Its firefighters would have safeguarded generations of my family who attended Cornell in the past.
As a restaurant, another generation would have been here. Looking forward, it is one of many of
the landmarks that define the City of Ithaca as a place worth visiting.
I support the nomination to individually landmark the former No. 9 Fire Station.
Best Wishes, Clinton Brown, FAIA, President
CBCA, The Market Arcade in the Theater Historic District
617 Main Street, Suite M303, Buffalo, NY 14203 USA
716-852-2020, www.clintonbrowncompany.com
Renewing Historic Buildings and Heritage Places (sm)
Copyright entire content 2018 CBCA
Support Landmark Designation of No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 5/29/2018, 4:20 PM
Save the No. 9 Fire Station
Judy Kolva [jakolva@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 5:32 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
I support the nomination to individually landmark the former No. 9 Fire
Station (311 College Ave.). This building is reminiscent of Ithaca’s long
history, and brings a sense of nostalgia to College Ave. So many houses and
buildings have been replaced with nondescript cement structures meant only
to make money for landlords, not to build a sense of community.
The former No. 9 Fire Station is one of only three original fire stations left in
the City of Ithaca, and one of a handful of buildings extant that were built for
civic functions in Ithaca since the 1900s.
Thank you for registering my request.
Judy Kolva
Save the No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 5/29/2018, 4:23 PM
The No. 9 Fire Station
Nancy Ramage [ramage@ithaca.edu]
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 7:16 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
Dear Mr Mccracken and members of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission,
I am writing to urge you to designate both the original Vivian and Gibb fire station, as
well as the later fire station at 311 College Ave, as historic landmarks, and to save
them for posterity. The earlier fire station, despite its poor condition and its
current use as a storage shed, is an important historic building, and it could be at
least restored to a safer condition, thus preserving a building of the Shingled Style of
the late 19th century. And the later building, at 311, is of immense importance for the
history of East Hill and Collegetown, and it lends a great deal of visual value to the
upper end of College Avenue today. As a 46-year resident of this neighbourhood, I have
seen too many historic buildings demolished. Please help to preserve the visual and
historic nature of these buildings by designating them both as historic landmarks.
Kind regards,
Nancy Ramage
964 East State St
Ithaca, NY 14850
The No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 5/29/2018, 4:23 PM