HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2018-09-11Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Absent:
Megan McDonald, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Avi Smith, Member
Donna Fleming, Common Council
Liaison
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 101 Edgecliff Place, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Retroactive Request for
Approval for the Replacement of Wood Windows with Vinyl Units
Applicant Elizabeth Selvarajah appeared in front of the Commission to explain how she and her
husband came to replace their windows with vinyl replacements without first receiving a
Certificate of Appropriateness. She said that they had been interested in replacement windows
and were looking at options in Lowes when they were approached by a contractor who offered to
help them. She said that she told him that their house was in an historic district. She said that the
contractor went to City Hall to apply for a permit but that they were never notified that the
permit was denied. The work has already been performed.
Chair E. Finegan asked how to handle a case like this.
D. Kramer said she could sue her contractor.
B. McCracken said that the way the ordinance is written, it is the homeowner’s responsibility to
make sure all the required permits are obtained, but it doesn’t make it right that the contractor
can do unpermitted work without repercussions. He said that this happened before he was hired
and that he has not been able to find records in the files of either an application or of a
notification of denial. He said that the Commission should review this application as they would
any other, and if they have any specific recommendations, or other factors in the decision, those
should be noted in the resolution.
D. Kramer asked how much their decision should be guided by the fact that the building is non-
contributing.
K. Olson said she think that matters, that it creates a more nuanced circumstance. She said that
she thinks they have to consider the application as though the work had not yet been completed,
deciding whether they would approve it or not, and determine what mitigations, if any, will be
needed.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
2
S. Gibian asked how many windows were installed.
Applicant said they did the project in stages, starting in 1999, and that the City only became
aware of the replacement windows due to a home inspection undertaken at her request.
After brief discussion, B. McCracken said that the only application that he could find that was
similar to this case was the Ellston Place proposal, during which the homeowner replaced all the
windows with vinyl replacements as part of a total exterior rehabilitation. He said their
contractor had received approval to replace some siding with Hardie board siding, but that
contractor did work outside the scope of what was approved. He said that the Commission in that
case went ahead and approved the windows because they felt that the building had lost integrity
and that it was at that point, a non-contributing resource.
K. Olson said that the location of that building (at or near the end of a private street) also
mattered.
B. McCracken concurred, saying that the house was at the end of a private street, which is
similar to this case as well.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
S. Gibian reiterated his question about the number of windows replaced, asking if the second
story windows (12) were replaced in 1999 and the first story in 2014.
Applicant clarified that 10 windows were replaced on the first floor.
S. Gibian said that they have approved vinyl windows and composite windows in several
projects recently. He also said that sometimes the planar relationship is a problem with
replacement windows set into a narrow wall, such that sometimes the screens are even proud of
the surface of the trim, but noted that in this case, that is not a problem because the stone veneer
on the first floor of this building results in windows that are inset by five or six inches, and the
windows are also set back an additional inch or two from that. He said that due to the trim and
stone veneer, there’s less of an issue with the planar relationship of the windows in this house
than there would be otherwise. He also noted that the building is non-contributing and the
windows are not particularly visible from the public way. He said that they are approving all
sorts of products these days that aren’t wood – aluminum clad, fiberglass, composite – and that
he thinks the profile of the components (sill, jams, how deeply they’re set, how the screens are
attached, rails and stiles, etc.) is more important these days than the materials themselves.
K. Olson said that she thinks durability and quality of the product matters also, as well as how
well it replicates what was there previously.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
3
S. Gibian said that he didn’t think the aluminum wrapping around the windows (sill, casings,
etc.) was particularly well done.
After additional discussion Chair E. Finegan asked how the members want to proceed.
D. Kramer said that they never would have approved the replacement of the original windows
with these. He said that the applicants have identified the circumstance of not being informed
their application was denied, S. Gibian has identified the mitigating circumstance of the windows
not being very visible from the public right of way, and there is the mitigating circumstance of it
not being a contributing structure. He said that despite these, all other things being equal, he
wouldn’t vote to approve them now. He asked what the other commission members think.
Chair E. Finegan asked if members thought replacing some of the windows on the front would
be appropriate.
S. Gibian said that the front of the house actually faces down the hill away from the road and
asked “Which is the front of the house?” He also said that the first part of a hearing to determine
if the original windows should be replaced would be to determine if they were salvageable.
B. McCracken reminded the Commission members that this house is a non-contributing structure
and that in other situations where owners of a non-contributing building have proposed to replace
windows, the Commission has not evaluated the condition of the existing windows, just the
compatibility of the replacements proposed.
K. Olson said that she worries about the precedent on this one, because it seems like once a
season a case like this comes up. She said that even as a non-contributing resource, if the
proposal for the wholesale replacement of the windows had come up before the work had been
done, she would have voted no. She said that she thinks it’s important for all homeowners to
obtain proper permissions before doing work because this puts the Commission members in a
difficult position. She suggested that the Commission ask the applicant to amend any window
visible from a public right of way to a product they would have approved to be used as a
replacement. She cited other projects on other non-contributing buildings where they required
the applicant select replacements that looked compatible with the architecture. She said that if
the Commission feels comfortable that the replacement windows that were selected meet those
standards they can move forward, but if not they need to be replaced with something that does –
because that’s the same standard to which they have held other property owners in historic
districts. She said she is not comfortable holding one property owner to one standard and a
different property owner to another standard.
D. Kramer said they have been very strict in other cases.
Some additional discussion followed and Commission members requested applicants remove
aluminum wrapping, amend four upper windows visible from public right of way (Stewart
Avenue façade) with 6-over-1 simulated divided lights, replacing just the sash if possible, or the
entire window if needed.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
4
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 101 Edgecliff Place 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, the owners of 101 Edgecliff Place replaced wood windows with vinyl replacement
windows without first obtaining a Building Permit and a Certificate of
Appropriateness, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated August 21, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Elizabeth
Salvarajah, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description
of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a quote from T&J
Associated Contractors for the replacement of 13 windows, dated August 10, 1999;
and (3) four photographs, two documenting the condition of the original windows
and two showing the installed replacement units, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 101 Edgecliff Place, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) and communicated by
the applicant at the regular ILPC meeting on September 11, 2018, the project
involves a request for the retroactive approval of the replacement of twenty-two
windows with vinyl insert units, with changes in the light configuration of the second
story windows, and wrapping of exterior trim with an aluminum material (for which
work has already been completed), and
WHEREAS, as stated in the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines (pg.
58), “vinyl replacement windows are not allowed on designated historic buildings in
Ithaca,” as they significantly detract from the historic character of the property and
historic neighborhood, 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 September 11, 2018, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
5
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, 101
Edgecliff Place was constructed in 1941 and is considered a non-contributing
resource 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, 101 Edgecliff Place, by definition, does 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 Heights 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 vinyl replacement windows are not compatible with
the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its
environment.
The replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows has removed architecturally
and historically compatible materials from the subject property, diminishing the
compatibility of the non-contributing resource with its historic environment.
Although the property seems to have been constructed outside of the historic
district’s period of significance, its original wood windows had all of the visual and
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
6
physical characteristics of their historic counterparts, including profiles, frame to sash
to glazing ratios, operability, materiality, construction and detailing. The installed
vinyl replacement windows alter the highly compatible planar relationship between
the window sashes, window trim and wall surfaces, and reduces the size of exposed
exterior window sills and the window glazing. In addition to the change in material,
the replacement windows themselves do not replicate the characteristic molding
profiles or the glazed-to-solid proportions found in the original sashes.
However, in their review of the project and its adverse impact on the compatibility
of the non-contributing resource with its historic environment, the ILPC also
considered several mitigating physical conditions and situational circumstances. As a
non-contributing resource, the wood windows were not protected by the Landmarks
Ordinance. The residence is located on a private street, Edgecliff Place, and only
one of its elevations is visible from a publically right-of-way, Stewart Avenue. It is
also located below street level, further diminishing its visibility from the public right-
of-way. The property owners began to replace the windows in 1999 and the
alteration remained unnoticed until recently. The installed windows on the first floor
retain some of the characteristic planar relationships exhibited by the original sashes
due to the deeply inset window frame, a result of the residence’s first-story stone
veneer, and the installation of the units behind the exterior stops, further replicating
the characteristic planar relationships of the original windows. To further mitigate
the visual impacts of the vinyl units, the Commission considered several additional
modifications, including removing the aluminum material covering the trim and
replicating the 6-over-1 light configuration of the second-story windows.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the vinyl replacement windows have had
a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of
the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, but this adverse
visual impact has been be diminished by the physical mitigations outlined above, and
be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the installed
vinyl windows, once modified as described above, meet criteria for approval under
Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the
following conditions:
The aluminum material wrapping the exterior trim on the northeast (Stewart
Avenue fronting) elevation shall be removed.
The original 6-over-one light configuration of the second-story windows on the
northeast (Stewart Avenue-fronting) elevation shall be replicated through the
installation of simulated divided lights to the existing vinyl upper sashes,
replacement of the upper sashes with ones with a six simulated divided lights, or
replacement of the vinyl insert units with ones with a 6-over-1 light configuration
and simulated divided lights. ILPC staff shall review the proposed modification
and any proposed products.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
7
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: K. Olson, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
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 Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Modify Exterior Detailing
of the Two-Story Duplex
Architect Jagat Sharma appeared to present project modifications to the ILPC. He said they
received a write up of conditions determined as a result of the site visit in July, and said they
have agreed to all of the conditions set forth by the ILPC.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 123 Eddy Street 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 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for the construction of a two-story duplex was approved after
the required public hearing at the regular April 11, 2017, Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) meeting, and
WHEREAS, as noted as a condition of the Certificate of Appropriateness, all proposed changes
to the approved project must be reviewed by the ILPC, and
WHEREAS, the detailing of the newly constructed duplex was not installed as designed and
approved by the ILPC, and
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
8
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated June 4, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jagat Sharma on behalf of property
owner Nick Lambrau, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled
Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a narrative titled
123 Eddy St: Deficient As-Built Conditions: Remedial Measures and Request for
Variance: 6.1.2018; (3) three sheets of architectural drawings respectively dated
March 31, 2017 and September 29, 2017; (4) a list titled 123 Eddy St: Deficient As-
Built Conditions; and (5) two architectural drawings titled “Window Trim” (A1) and
“Porch Elevations” (A2), both dated May 24, 2018, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
correcting deviations from the ILPC-approved plans for the architectural detailing of
the new two-story duplex at 123 Eddy St., including the gable end brackets, porch
columns, porch lattice work, window and door trim, windows, and porch railings,
and
WHEREAS, a Special Site Visit was conducted on August 14, 2018, by the ILPC to review the
completed duplex and evaluate the proposed modifications to the ILPC-approved
design for the building, 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 September 11, 2018, now therefore be it
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed this submission for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
The East Hill Historic District is comprised of 264 contributing elements, and
contains some of the finest examples of 19th and early-20th century architecture in the
City of Ithaca. The district’s architecture reflects the City’s growth from a small
industrial community to an influential and prominent educational center, a result of
the founding of Cornell University and the New York State College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences.
The East Hill Historic District retains a high level of integrity.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
9
The lot at 123 Eddy St was subdivided from 125 Eddy St and the duplex was
constructed there in the spring of 2018. It is a non-contributing resource in the East
Hill 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 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making
this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in
Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C,
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, 123 Eddy St., by definition, does 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 East
Hill 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 modifications from the ILPC-approved
design, as described in the submitted application materials, discussed at the Special
Site Visit, and summarized in an August 16, 2018 email to the applicant and property
owner from Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner, for 123 Eddy Street
are 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 East Hill
Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal
meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it
further
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
10
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the proposed project alterations.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, E. Finegan, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
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.
C. 409 North Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Replace a Two-
Story Rear Porch
Richard Sissell appeared on behalf of the Mandala Group, owner of the building at 409 N.
Cayuga Street. He presented their proposal to remove and rebuild the deteriorated rear porch.
They are proposing to omit screening on the new porch. They are also proposing to omit the
stuccoed bulkhead on the porch between the first and second floors. The final change proposed is
to relocate one of the lights (if required by code) to provide light to the far right entry door which
currently has no lighting.
Chair E. Finegan said in looking at the porch recently the columns appeared to be pretty sound.
He asked if they are to be discarded.
Sissell said yes, and they will be replaced with a synthetic material that looks like wood and is
paintable and rated for up to 5,000 pounds.
S. Gibian asked for clarification on the railing height, saying that the specs say 36 inches and the
drawings say 42 inches, and that the code for multiple family dwellings like this is 42 inches. He
also pointed out a few discrepancies in the drawings, porch floor needing a slope to shed water,
and the lattice needing a frame around the outside. He also said lattice was called out as
traditional square in the resolution, but the existing lattice on the front porch is diagonal.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
11
Commission members next discussed whether there was a precedent for using synthetic materials
and the possibility of saving and reusing the existing columns. After discussing various options,
the Commission members requested the applicant change the posts from synthetic material to
wood, either turned or wrapped square.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer.
WHEREAS, 409 North Cayuga Street 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 August 20, 2018, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Richard Schissel on behalf of
property owner Mandella Group, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) a memorandum from Crown Construction dated August 14, 2018, concerning
the subject property; (3) a five-page project “Specification Sheet” prepared by Crown
Construction and dated August 14, 2018; (4) four sheets of photographs
documenting existing conditions; (5) six sheets of architectural drawing by Emily M.
Petrina, RA at FIREHOUSEarchitectureLAB, PLLC, dated May 25, 2018 and titled
“Cover Sheet” (G-000), “Existing Elevations” (EX-201), “Demolition Plan” (AD-
101), “Demolition Elevations” (AD-201), “Proposed Plan” (A-101), and “Proposed
Elevations” (A-201) , and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 409 North Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District
Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves demolishing and rebuilding a wood-frame,
two-story porch on the rear (east) elevation, 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
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC
meeting on September 11, 2018, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
12
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 New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 409 North
Cayuga Street was constructed in between 1873 and 1882.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District
and possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing
element of the DeWitt Park Historic District.
The rear (east) porch was constructed between 1910 and 1919 and appears to have
been a part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the property. Sanborn Fire
Insurance Company maps from those years indicate that the front and rear of the
building were extensively remodeled during this period. The one-story, wrap-around
porch fronting the west (primary) façade and south elevation was removed, or
modified, and replaced with a full-width porch on the west façade only; the one story
rear extension was raised to two stories; a two story porch, presumably the one
under consideration, was added behind the rear extension; and the entire house was
clad in stucco. The rear porch is not visible from the public way.
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.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
13
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 Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #4, and Standard #9, the
replacement of the rear porch will remove distinctive materials but will not 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 the rear porch requires its replacement. The proposed
new work will not match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities
because of the proposed changes to the stucco freize, railing height and other physical
characteristics; however, the proposed replacement porch replicates many of these
character defining features, including size, scale and mass, turned columns, railing
design, and roof profile. All porch elements will be wood, matching the historic porch
materials. The ILPC also noted the limited visibility of the subject porch from the
public way and for that reason, replication of the historic porch features rather than
restoration or reconstruction of them is acceptable.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed porch is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the 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 409 North Cayuga
Street 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):
The lattice skirting on the porch shall be wood and its members shall be
sufficiently sized to adequately replicate the profiles and shadows lines of historic
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
14
wood lattice. The lattice shall be set within framed panels, with the panels
corresponding to the locations of the turned columns above;
Porch decking shall be a narrow-profile, tongue-and-groove material to replicate
the existing;
Porch ceilings shall be a wood, beaded-board material. If the rafters on the
second floor remain exposed, the exposed roof decking shall be a solid wood,
tongue-and-groove material to replicate the appearance of the existing;
Porch posts in salvageable condition shall be reclaimed and made available for
reuse in other locations.
Railing components shall be built of solid wood materials.
Porch posts shall be wood, and either square with 1x wrapping or turned and
round.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, E. Finegan, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein
Vacancies: 0
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.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Chair E. Finegan opened the public comment period.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the public
comment period.
III. OLD BUSINESS
K. Olson asked B. McCracken to follow up on a question regarding windows in a
property at 210 Stewart Avenue. B. McCracken agreed.
Commission members discussed progress on the rehabilitation of 310 W. State Street.
Approved by ILPC: 11, December 2018
15
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Correspondence from the Waterfront Working Group: Recommendation to Consider the
Designation of the Former Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western Railroad Station at 701
West Seneca Street as an Individual Local Landmark.
Waterfront Working Group is recommending designation. ILPC will move forward with
evaluating the resource and if appropriate, go forward with the designation.
B. McCracken said he is working on setting up a meeting with the owner, Tompkins
Trust Company.
The working group also identified several other candidates for designation.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, the August 14, 2018 minutes were approved
unanimously with the following modifications:
Change start time from 5:00 to 5:30, and change end time from 6:31 to 7:01 p.m.
Correct spelling of K. Olson’s name in numerous places.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Retreat: September 20th, 2018 at 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission