HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2018-06-12Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — June 12, 2018
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Absent:
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 5:31 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 411 Thurston Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Extend an
Existing Fire Escape on the South Elevation.
B. McCracken reviewed the proposal. He said the applicant will be making some interior
improvements that will allow them to remove two existing fire escapes and extend the fire
escape on the south elevation to the second and third story with a fire stair to grade. He said he
was able to approve the removal of the two fire escapes and the associated restoration of the
balustrades at the staff level (as a restoration), but that the Commission needs to approve the
extension of the existing fire escape on the south elevation.
S. Gibian said two fire escapes being removed are more visible than the one being extended, and
observed that the one being extended is on a portion of the building that appears to be a modern
addition, possibly built outside the period of significance of the historic district.
Public Hearing
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no public comments, on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E.
Finegan closed the Public Hearing.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 411 Thurston Avenue is located in 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 May 23 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Scott Pederson of Wishful
Necessities, LLC on behalf of property owner Delta Chapter of Alpha
Phi, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
2
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an email to Bryan McCracken,
Historic Preservation Planner from the applicant and dated May 22, 2018; (3) four
photographs documenting existing conditions; (4) a letter to Mike Niechwiadowicz,
City of Ithaca Building Division, from Thomas Hoard, Senior Code Analyst at
HOLT Architects and dated August 11, 2017; (5) one sheet of engineering drawings
by Elwyn & Palmer, dated April 4, 2018; and (6) three floor plans, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 411 Thurston Avenue, 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
construction of a metal fire stair from an existing fire escape to grade on the south
elevation; the removal of two other fire escapes located on the west and north
elevations; and the restoration of two sections of the rooftop balustrade, and
WHEREAS, the removal of the north and west elevations’ fire escapes and the restoration of two
sections of the rooftop balustrade were approved by the Secretary of the
Commission as authorized by the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design
Guidelines, 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 June 12, 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
Georgian-Revival Style residence at 411 Thurston Avenue was constructed between
1905 and 1907.
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.
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
3
The construction of a fire stair from the existing fire escape is required by recent
updates to the New York State Building and Fire Codes.
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 construction of a
fire stair from the south elevation’s existing fire escape will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The
ILPC also notes that the proposal allows for the removal of two other more visible
fire escapes on other elevations and the restoration of two sections of rooftop
balustrade, returning some of the property’s historic features to known historic
conditions.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed fire stair is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property
and its environment. The ILPC notes that the existing fire escape is an existing
incompatible, but necessary, alteration to the building. The addition of the fire stair
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
4
to this structure will not significantly change the aesthetic quality of the fire escape
nor make the structure less compatible with its historic environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the fire stair 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 the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 411
Thurston Avenue and 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.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
B. 123 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Modify the Approved Plans for
the Two-Story Duplex
Architect Jagat Sharma appeared with owner Nick Lambrou to review the ways the project had
diverged from approved drawings. Sharma detailed a number of ways the contractor deviated
from the approved plans: not wrapping the porch posts with additional wood trim; support posts
under porch decking not aligned with columns above, necessitating a change from lattice to solid
plywood with molding to cover misalignment; and installing vinyl windows instead of wood
windows. In addition, Lambrou, decided to use half-inch metal rods in place of the 2- by 2-inch
wooden balusters that were approved, and is asking for the ILPC to accept the change for
durability purposes.
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
5
Chair E. Finegan said he had taken a look at the property in advance of the meeting and noticed
that the porch just doesn’t look finished, that it has plywood ceilings and obvious gaps. He asked
how they arrived at vinyl windows.
N. Lambrou said that they told the contractor numerous times that they needed wooden windows
and referred them back to the drawings, but the contractor went his own way.
D. Kramer said that while the contractor was improvising with some things, so was the owner,
Lambrou, with the railing.
N. Lambrou said that he thought that from the sidewalk it would be similar enough that he took a
chance.
S. Gibian observed that the top and bottom rails are also not as drawn in the approved plans. He
said there are a number of details that differ from the approved and that he thinks the
Commission will need to start reviewing every single detail closely.
K. Olson agreed, and noted the curve of the brackets does not seem to be up to spec. She also
said she is very concerned about the vinyl windows, saying she doesn’t think the Commission
has ever voted to approve vinyl windows on any project involving a designated or contributing
building.
D. Kramer said that more than that, they have asked people to remove vinyl windows when
they’ve put them in.
K. Olson agreed, citing a case where they had a building owner remove 17 windows. She noted
that it changes a building and establishes a precedent. She said that it’s clearly labeled in the
plans that the windows were supposed to be wood, so the contractor should be liable for the
costs.
B. McCracken asked what the Commission needs to move forward, asking if they want to table
the resolution for the evening, list the corrections that need to be made, or something else?
The ILPC agreed to table the resolution for the evening.
D. Kramer said he thinks they need to do a site visit.
K. Olson said that if possible, she would like the architect to be there as well.
S. Gibian said that preliminarily, he thinks the 4- by 4-inch porch posts need to be wrapped,
observing that the way the railings are installed, the brackets holding them could be simply
unscrewed to remove.
After some additional discussion, applicants and the Commission members agreed to a site visit.
B. McCracken agreed to work with all parties to schedule it.
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
6
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
B. McCracken read a letter from Michael and Mariah Pieretti into the record (attached as an
addendum to the end of the minutes.)
Bill Brauninger, of 916 Stewart Avenue, spoke about the City-owned stone wall in disrepair
next to his home. He said 75-pound chunks of the wall are falling into the street. He said it was
built in 1937 by the WPA, and it’s quite a beautiful wall, but it is deteriorating, which is a safety
concern. He said it’s a retaining wall for the hillside above (site of the old trolley building), and
said it’s not just an aesthetic issue, but a question of safety. He requested that the ILPC reach out
to the City to recommend/request repairs be made.
There being no further comments from the public, Chair E. Finegan closed the public comment
period.
III. OLD BUSINESS
426 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace a Standing Seam
Metal Roof with Asphalt, Architectural-Style Shingles.
David Spaulding of JD Ferro Roofing appeared in front of the ILPC.
B. McCracken summarized evidence submitted by the applicant since his last appearance. He
said photos of the nailing pattern seen in the attic indicate the original roof was probably wood
shingles and that the standing seam metal roof was installed at some later time.
Chair E. Finegan said he has a house nearby that was built in the 1850s with a metal roof that
was put on in the late 1800s, and the original roof on that house was made of wood.
D. Spaulding said the mid-section shows no evidence of the nailing pattern, and he thinks the
standing seam roof went on at the same time the middle section was built. He said the random
nailing pattern is evident on the front part of the building only.
S. Gibian asked if the nails are square or round.
Applicant answered he believes they are square.
S. Gibian said the slope on that section of the roof looks to be too low to use wood shingles, but
maybe that was all they had back then.
K. Olson said that it was not until after the Civil War that rolled sheet metal was available.
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
7
S. Gibian asked what year the house dates to.
K. Olson said 1866, and said that if it were older, they could be sure it was originally wood
shingled.
After some additional discussion, D. Kramer observed that the standing seam metal roof has
been in place for 120-130 years, long enough to acquire its own significance, and that they are
talking about replacing a former hypothetical material (wood) with a different material (asphalt).
He said he thinks the Commission members should think it through.
B. McCracken cited another case where they approved replacing a standing seam metal roof with
asphalt shingles, noting that in that case, the Sanborn map clearly indicated it had been wood
shingled in the past.
K. Olson said shingles seem wrong for this building, noting that the Italianate style became
popular at the same time this new material (rolled sheet metal) became available.
After some additional discussion, K. Olson said that from the Sanborn maps, they know that it
was a metal roof as early as 1893, and she thinks D. Kramer’s point about it achieving
significance is notable.
After yet more discussion, Chair E. Finegan took a straw poll with Stein, Kramer, Olson leaning
towards metal, and Gibian and Finegan open to changing to asphalt.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 426 E. Buffalo St. is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated January 23, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by applicant JD Ferro Roofing, LLC
on behalf of property owners Mark Haag, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) two sheets of photographs documenting existing conditions; and (3) a roof plan
illustrating proposed work area, and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted additional information related to the proposed project on
June 5, 2018, including a letter to the property from the applicant dated June 5, 2018
and sheet of photographs dated April 2, 2018, and
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
8
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 426 E. Buffalo St., and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
replacement of some sections of standing seam metal roof with asphalt,
architectural-style shingles, the replacement of other sections of standing seam metal
roof with a rubberized roof material, and the in-kind replacement of asphalt shingles,
and
WHEREAS, the replacement of the standing seam metal panels on the nearly flat sections of roof
on the north addition and the in-kind replacement of asphalt shingles were approved
by the Secretary of the Commission as authorized by the City of Ithaca Historic District
and Landmark Design Guidelines, 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 March 13, 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 East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is
1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the
Italianate Style residence at 426 E. Buffalo St. was constructed between 1866 and
1873.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East
Hill Historic District.
As indicated above, the project under consideration involves replacing sections of
standing seam metal roof with asphalt, architectural-style shingles and rubberized
roof materials. As documented in Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Maps from the late-
nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, the property had a metal or slate roof
cladding as early as 1893.
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
9
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 #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have
acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and
preserved.
Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture,
and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial
evidence.
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 Standard #2 and Standard #4, the standing seam metal roof, added
during the district’s period of significance, is a distinctive material that characterizes
this property and has gained significance in its own right. In the evaluation of the
potential significance of the metal roof, the ILPC considered the visibility of the
improvement from the public right-of-way, the compatibility of the improvement with
the character of the property and district, and the history of the improvement. A
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map for the City of Ithaca indicates that the roof on 426 E.
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
10
Buffalo St. was clad in metal in 1893. The east roof slope is highly visible when the
property is approached from the east on E. Buffalo St., and the traditional roof
material adds to the historic character of the property and neighborhood. As a visible,
and likely an early, feature of the property, the standing seam metal roof is a character
defining feature of the property and the historic district.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the
standing seam metal roof with asphalt, architectural-style shingles will remove
distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the submitted photographs,
the severity of the deterioration of the metal roof panels requires their replacement.
However, the proposed new work will not match the old in design, color, texture,
material and other visual qualities. Apart from the obvious difference in material, the
highly textured asphalt shingles do not replicated the visually smooth texture of the
metal panels and the roof’s regularized striped pattern created by the evenly spaced,
projecting panel seams.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed asphalt,
architectural style shingles and rubberized roof membrane are not 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 have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 426 E.
Buffalo St. and the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it
further,
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: D. Kramer
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, K. Olson,
Against: S. Gibian, E. Finegan
Abstain: 0
Absent: M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 1
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
11
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
311 College Avenue, Former No. 9 Fire Station – Common Council Action on Local
Landmark Designation
B. McCracken reported Common Council voted not to designate.
D. Fleming explained her thinking in voting against the designation: that the historic and
architectural merits of the building didn’t outweigh other concerns, namely the owners’ rights to
do with the building as they please, within the limits of the law.
K. Olson raised the issue of the professional expertise of the appointed members of the ILPC and
Planning Board, saying that both groups recommended designation (and the Planning Board isn’t
known for being particularly pro-preservation). She said that this is the second time recently that
Common Council has denied a recommendation for designation, and if this continues to happen
it runs the risk of causing demoralization within the ranks of the professionals appointed to (and
voluntarily serving on) the ILPC and Planning Board.
S. Gibian said that he was torn with respect to this designation. He noted that there’s a difference
between a property in a district and an individual landmark, and that it’s hard to designate the
latter if the owner’s against it.
Dewitt Park Tree Lawns
B. McCracken said the City has decided to move forward with the plans for the tree lawns as
approved by the ILPC (stamped concrete with large, evenly-spaced planting beds interspersed).
S. Gibian presented some drawings he had prepared.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The May 8, 2018 minutes were approved unanimously with no modifications at 7:21 p.m.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Correspondence: New York State Historic Preservation Office regarding the Tibbetts-
Rumsey House at 310 W. State St.
Property has been listed on the National Register and is now eligible for State and Federal
property tax credits, which owners plan to use to help them rehab the property.
Correspondence: New York State Historic Preservation Office regarding FFY18 Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) Sub-Grant/Certified Local Government (CLG) Award
B. McCracken reported they received the CLG sub-grant for survey of properties on Aurora and
Linn Streets.
2018 ILPC Retreat
B. McCracken reported that Chair E. Finegan suggested holding an ILPC retreat and offered to
Approved by ILPC: 10, July 2018
12
host at his lake house. B. McCracken suggested that one agenda item could be creating a
comprehensive list of all properties in the City worthy of designation. He also invited
suggestions from the Commission members for other topics to be discussed at the retreat.
K. Olson suggested they look at Mid-Century Modern buildings, how to survey them, how to
handle them, etc. Also, how to consider buildings that were non-contributing when a district was
created but have since achieved significance.
University Avenue Project
B. McCracken reported that the ordinance requires that they extend the project review period for
the University Avenue project proposal.
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by Chair E. Finegan, the ILPC unanimously approved
extending the project review period for the University Avenue streetscape improvements
proposal.
K. Olson asked for a site visit.
Reappointment
D. Kramer asked about reappointments.
B. McCracken said that with everything going on recently, he has not had an opportunity to
submit reappointments to the Mayor yet, but that Commissioners serve until they resign or are
replaced, so everyone is still in good standing, and there are no issues with reappointments. He
also reported that there are two potential candidates for the open seat.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. by
unanimous consent.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
Graham Kerslick, Fourth Ward Telephone: 607-351-8865
gkerslick@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6432
June 12, 2018
Dear Members of the ILPC,
I’m unable to attend this evening’s meeting of the commission so I’m writing to make comments on item
IB on the agenda:
Project: 2 family dwelling Location: 123 Eddy St; Applicant: Jagat Sharma
Property owners and residents in the surrounding historic district appreciate the work of the ILPC and
the cooperation of the developer to produce a building that is “compatible with the massing, size, scale
and architectural features of the property and its environment”.
Regarding the deficient as-built conditions (listed on page 38 of the pdf version of the agenda package)
I hope members of the commission will urge the developer to take all reasonable measures to
remediate the contractor’s non-compliance with the contract documents. While efforts have been made,
and are appreciated, the building stills shows its modular origin.
Windows and window trim are critical elements in building appearance. With respect to item D. Window
Trim on the deficiency listing, and assuming the vinyl windows are to remain in place, I would ask that
the ILPC request that wood trim be installed on all windows, not just “on the street side only”. The south
and east elevations of the building are clearly visible from Orchard Place. Residents of this street have
been supportive of this development and I believe can expect that such measures will be taken to
improve the appearance and compatibility of the new building in this historic area.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,