HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2018-12-11Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — December 11, 2018
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Megan McDonald, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Avi Smith, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 119 West Green Street, Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Replace
Standing-Seam Metal Roofing with Asphalt Shingle Roofing [REVISED
APPLICATION].
This is a revised application for a project first proposed at the regular monthly meeting on
October 9, 2018. The ILPC at that time tabled the resolution and subsequently scheduled a
special meeting and site visit for October 29, 2018, at which they denied the application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Property owner Stan Buren appeared in front of the Commission to provide information
discovered about the house at 119 W. Green Street since the time of the special meeting. S.
Buren said that contractor Duane Austin had uncovered nails in a pattern indicating that the roof
had been clad in wooden shingles previously. He said they took part of the dropped ceiling
down, and cut a hole in the plaster ceiling in order to access the underside of the roof. He
presented them with photographs.
S. Buren also said that D. Austin had contacted several manufacturers of metal roofing who
advised him that due to settling over the years, the roof has a significant enough bow in it that
they advised against utilizing a metal roof. He shared a letter to that effect as well.
Chair E. Finegan, in reference to the letter, said that ¼-inch over 20 feet doesn’t seem like a lot
of give.
K. Olson said she thinks it probably has more to do with the warranty than anything else, and her
roof had more flex than that. She said it would be hard to find any Greek Revival house that’s
not going to have some degree of a bow to the roof.
D. Kramer said it’s his understanding that if an applicant can show evidence of a building having
had wood shingles in the past, then they are okay with approving architectural shingles.
Chair E. Finegan said that he thought they had run into that recently with a house on Buffalo
Street that had had wood shingles at one time, but in this case, it seems like they are not only
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
2
making the case that there were once wood shingles there, but that the deflection is too great for
a new metal roof.
B. McCracken said that though he did not include it in the staff report, the sway in the roof is a
factor to consider. He asked if you consider the sway in the roof a character-defining feature, and
noted that yes, in order to put a modern metal roof on the building, you would need to correct the
sway. Then he asked if you should alter one character-defining feature to preserve another.
S. Gibian said that the photo demonstrating the sway (using a presumably straight 2-by-4) shows
the sway on the west side, and he said that it looks like the east side of the building has an even
more pronounced sway to it. He also said that it looks like a characteristic nailing pattern for
wood shingles is shown in the photo provided. He said he was hoping they’d bring in a sample
nail, so the Commission members could see if they are square or round.
B. McCracken reviewed similar projects they have reviewed recently: the lower Buffalo Street
roof with asphalt shingles on one side and a metal roof on the other, the replacement of which
was approved after the Commission determined it wasn’t highly visible; and the upper Buffalo
Street property for which replacement of the metal roof with a membrane and/or architectural
shingles was approved in the rear, but for which the Commission required the front-facing metal
roof be replaced with metal both because it was highly visible and had acquired significance, and
also because the house is Italianate in style, for which a metal roof is typical.
McCracken added the Sanborn maps indicated that for the lower Buffalo Street property, for at
least a portion of the period of significance for the district, the building had a metal roof on one
part and wood shingles on another.
He said that here, you have a Greek Revival house with a roof that is visible, but with this style,
if you have a metal roof it is typically something that was added to the home over time, not
original, so in this case there are both similarities to and differences from other recent cases.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, 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 M.M. McDonald, seconded by K.Olson.
Chair E. Finegan asked the Commission members if anyone had any comments or concerns
about shifting from the metal to an architectural style asphalt shingle, which is supposed to
resemble wood.
D. Kramer said that he thinks the case has been made for a wood shingle roof being original, and
that it seems like the metal roof would not be an easy install at this point.
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
3
M.M. McDonald said that she thinks that there seems to be a precedent for allowing architectural
shingles if it had been wood shingles previously, but she said she does not want to venture into
evaluating the sway to the roof, etc., because she said she could see a situation arising with
someone wanting to replace what had been a metal roof originally with something else. She said
it seems they have the information they need in terms of the roof having had wood shingles
without venturing into a consideration of things that could set a potentially problematic
precedent.
S. Stein and K. Olson agreed.
K. Olson asked what product is being proposed for the roof.
B. McCracken said he thinks it is the CertainTeed Landmark series in Weathered Wood.
S. Gibian asked if it would match the lower portion of the roof (already shingled).
Applicant said yes.
S. Gibian said he thinks the CertainTeed Landmark are one of the closest matches to real wood
shingles.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M.M. McDonald.
WHEREAS, 119 West Green Street is located within the Henry St. John Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2013, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, a revised Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, dated November 28, 2018, was submitted for review
to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Duane Austin on
behalf of property owners Stanley and Deborah Burun, including the following: (1)
two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
Changes(s); (2) two photographs documenting existing conditions at the property;
and (3) two photographs documenting conditions at an adjacent property, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within
the Henry St. John Historic District for 119 West Green Street, and the City of
Ithaca’s Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the
removal of standing-seam-metal roofing from the east and west slopes of the
property’s principal, gable-roofed block, for which some work has already been
completed, and the installation of an asphalt, architectural-style, shingle roofing to
the same roof areas, and
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
4
WHEREAS, the ILPC denied an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
proposed roof replacement on October 29, 2018, finding the roof material in
question is a character defining feature of the property and historic district, and
noting a lack of evidence suggesting the roof historically had a roof cladding material
other than metal, and
WHEREAS, the revised application materials include photographs of the underside of the roof
deck showing the characteristic coursed nailing pattern indicative of wood-shingle
roofing, 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 December 11, 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 Henry St. John Historic District Summary
Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Henry St. John
Historic District is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties
included within the Henry St. John Historic District, the modest Greek-Revival-Style
residence at 119 West Green Street was constructed ca. 1848.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Henry St. John Historic District
and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Henry St. John Historic District.
The project under consideration is the replacement of the property’s standing-seam-
metal roofing, which was installed at some point prior to 1888 and during the period
of significance for the Henry St. John 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
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
5
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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be
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 charac terize 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 #4 and Standard #5, the metal roofing has
gained significance in its own right and is a distinctive feature that characterizes the
property. 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 historic property and
district, and the history of the improvement. The 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
for the City of Ithaca indicates the property’s roof was clad in metal at the time the
property was assessed and the east and west roof slopes are highly visible from West
Green Street. As a visible, and likely early, feature of the property, the standing-
seam-metal roof is a character defining feature of the property and contributes to the
historic aesthetic quality of the historic district.
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
6
However, the ILPC also examined the historic record as documented in the
submitted photographs and the guidance provided in the City of Ithaca Historic District
and Landmark Design Guidelines. The submitted photographs suggest the roof was
once clad in a coursed material that was nailed in place, likely wood shingles. As
stated in the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, “the ILPC
has determined that in certain cases the use of fiberglass or asphalt shingles may be
appropriate, for example, when it can be shown that the original roofing material was
wood shingle.” In keeping with the Guidelines, the ILPC found the asphalt shingles
to be an appropriate replacement material for the standing seam metal roof as the
shingles will approximate the appearance of an earlier historic condition.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the
metal roofing with asphalt shingle roofing will remove distinctive materials and will
alter features and spaces that characterize the property, but as noted above, this
alteration is approvable based on the guidance provided in the The City of Ithaca
Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as attested by the contractor and
documented in the photographs submitted at the public hearing, the severity of the
deterioration of the metal roof requires its replacement. The proposed new work will
not match the old in design, color, texture, material and other visual qualities.
However, as noted in the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines,
asphalt, architectural style shingles approximate the highly textured appearance of
wood shingles. As this property presumably once had a wood shingle roof, the
proposed asphalt shingles would approximate the historic appearance of this
designated residence.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed asphalt shingles
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 Henry
St. John 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: D. Kramer
Seconded by: M.M. McDonald
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, A. Smith, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
7
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.
B. McCracken invited the sole member of the audience to introduce herself.
She introduced herself as Sierra Berger, a prospective preservation student at Ithaca College, and
said she would be writing a paper on the night’s proceedings.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian, the September 11, 2018 minutes were
approved by: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald, K. Olson, and A. Smith with
the following modifications:
On page 3 correct the typo, “classing,” to “wrapping.”
On page 10 at the top, remove reference to conditions of the resolution for 123 Eddy
Street.
Also on page 10, in S. Gibian’s comments insert the word “floor,” as in “porch floor
needing a slope to shed water.”
On page 14, add address number “210” in front of “Stewart Avenue.”
S. Stein abstained because she had not been in attendance at the September 11, 2018 meeting.
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian, the October 9, 2018 minutes were approved
by: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald, with the following modifications:
On page 2, where applicant D. Austin is discussing what he calls “ag panels,” change
“open fasteners” to “exposed fasteners.”
Three paragraphs down, change “shake” to “wood shingle.”
K. Olson, A. Smith, and S. Stein abstained because they had not been in attendance at the
October 9, 2018 meeting.
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
8
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian, the November 13, 2018 minutes were
approved by: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald, K. Olson, A. Smith, and S.
Stein with the following modifications:
On page 3 add the word “trim” to S. Gibian’s comment, “… squareness of the wood
matches the squareness of the house trim.”
Correct portions of the resolution on page 5 to show final adopted version.
Insert clarifying language on page 8 as shown in italics below: “M. Tomlan said she was
not sure either, and that there was a fraternity house designed by a Prairie School
architect, but – other than the DL&W railroad station – there seem to be very few, if any,
good examples of the style here.”
On page 11 in the section discussing the history of the building’s uses, clarify the portion
about the transition from rail to bus station.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
B. McCracken said that he would have a list of all the Staff Level Approvals completed in the
last year at the next meeting.
B. McCracken also provided the ILPC with a list of all meeting dates scheduled for 2019. He
asked the members to let him know if they had any conflicts, so they can reschedule if necessary.
He said the Planning and Economic Development Committee of Common Council would be
voting on a recommendation for the Local Landmark Designation of the former DL&W railroad
station the following day at 6 p.m., and he urged to members to attend the meeting and speak if
possible.
S. Stein asked if he had any sense of how they were leaning.
B. McCracken said they had taken a tour of the inside with many members of Council earlier in
the day and his sense is that they are favorable towards the idea.
S. Gibian asked if he thought it was large enough to be converted into a restaurant.
B. McCracken said he thinks so. He said in preparing a presentation for the PEDC, he’s been
looking into adaptive re-use and found one in Boontown, NJ, also designed by Nies, that has
been converted into a restaurant.
M.M. McDonald said that the area could look a lot different once GreenStar is in its new
location.
B. McCracken agreed and said that the former railroad station parcel actually extends all the way
to the water, so you could put a sizeable infill project there and still retain the existing building.
K. Olson asked if it is in a census qualifying tract for the use of historic tax credits.
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
9
B. McCracken said yes. After a few additional comments about the beauty of the interiors, he
explained that if it passes at PEDC, the designation would move to the full Common Council for
consideration in January.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST (continued)
There being a member of the public who appeared wishing to speak, Chair E. Finegan reopened
the public comment period on a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein.
Bob Terry, owner of the Driscoll Block and a William Henry Miller house on Stewart Avenue
(as well as a few other historic buildings) spoke in support of the local landmark designation of
the former DL&W railroad station. He asked about the process.
B. McCracken explained that the ILPC had recommended designation and that the PEDC would
consider the designation recommendation the following night. He said Common Council will
make the final decision.
B. Terry said he had received an email from Historic Ithaca saying that tonight was the night to
come out to comment.
B. McCracken said that tomorrow night is actually the night.
B. Terry said that he would be unable to attend tomorrow.
B. McCracken said he would let Common Council know that B. Terry had appeared to speak in
favor of the designation.
As an aside, D. Kramer said that he and B. Terry co-own a garage together (straddles the
property line).
There being no additional members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the
public comment period.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)
M.M. McDonald asked B. McCracken if he had had an opportunity to ask the City attorney
about the necessity of reading the resolutions aloud.
B. McCracken said he had not but that he would.
Approved by ILPC: 8, January 2019
10
VI. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair E. Finegan adjourned the
meeting at 6:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission