HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-03-12Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — March 12, 2019
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Absent:
Avi Smith, Member
Donna Fleming, Common
Council Liaison
Megan McDonald, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 208 Dearborn Pl., Cornell Heights Historic District – Retroactive Request for
Approval for the Removal of historic windows and Proposal to Replace Non-Historic
Windows.
Patrick E. Graham appeared on behalf of Cornell’s Student and Campus Life Department to
present a proposal to replace the windows at 208 Dearborn Place. He said they discovered
recently that the windows had been replaced at some point without receiving either a building
permit or ILPC approval. He said he reached out to Bryan McCracken for assistance, and
McCracken provided him with some photos of what the windows looked like at the time the
historic district was created. He said that the University wants to replace the windows with
something that will more closely resemble what was there and that they have reached out to
Marvin windows and asked them to duplicate the look of the original windows.
B. McCracken said that 208 Dearborn Place is rented to students, and as a result, the building
receives annual housing inspections. He said that the inspector noted the windows during the
previous year’s inspection, and while they are not sure exactly when the windows were installed,
it looks like they have been there for about 20 years. He said the housing inspector is new and
has been noting a lot of changes in the district that have been overlooked previously.
S. Gibian asked if there were any other photos of the original windows available.
B. McCracken said no, the poor quality photo from the assessment website was all he has found
and had sent to the Commission.
S. Gibian said that the original windows were cottage style with uneven sash, but when they
were changed to vinyl, they used equal sash. He asked if there was any documentation showing
how extensively the cottage sash were used. He said it looks like the proposal is to use unequal
sash throughout the first floor.
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
2
B. McCracken said they only have pictures of the primary elevation.
S. Gibian said there’s also a gliding window next to the front door and the proposal is to replace
it with a gliding window, but it seems unlikely that that is what it was originally. He said it
seems more likely that it was an awning, as was the one above it.
Chair E. Finegan asked if there had been any consideration given to the door, given that it is
dramatically different from the original.
B. McCracken said that he noted that in the staff report, and that though it wasn’t called out in
the housing inspection, that doesn’t mean it’s not a violation. He said the Commission could
consider asking Cornell to replace the door as well as further mitigation for the loss of the
historic fabric.
K. Olson said that she would support cottage style on all façades without clear evidence to the
contrary.
S. Gibian asked if the proposal was for cottage style throughout the first floor and equal sash on
the second floor. He said one final issue he sees is that the four side-by-side windows in the
dormers (on the front and back) appear to be casements, but he doesn’t see any casements listed
in the proposal.
P. Graham said that B. McCracken had provided a list indicating what he thought the windows
were on each floor, and they gave that list to Marvin windows to prepare their quote.
B. McCracken said from the photo, they appear to be awnings, so that’s what he listed.
S. Gibian said he thought they were casements, but now he sees they look like awnings. He said
that what seems to be missing is a detailed plan showing how the windows will be installed and
how they will work with existing trim, etc.
P. Graham said that the windows they are planning to use will just slip right in and not do
anything to the trim, inside or outside.
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, 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 M.M. McDonald.
S. Gibian expressed concern that even after changing out the windows, it’s not going to look all
that different. He said the current vinyl windows are set back quite far from the exterior casings,
and he thinks the new Marvins might be a good deal thicker and will protrude further. The planar
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
3
relationship could change, and the screens might even be in the same plane as the exterior casing.
He also noted that the current windows are single-hung with a half screen, and the proposal is for
a full screen, which conceals the window even further. He said as well that because they are
replacement units, the glass will be 2 inches narrower than the original windows. He said all they
are really changing is aluminum for vinyl.
B. McCracken asked about the difference between Marvin inserts with a jamb liner versus an
insert unit.
S. Gibian said he had forgotten about the jamb liner option, but it would allow for the glass to be
wider, more like the original.
K. Olson said that because the original windows were lost so long ago and the vinyl windows are
probably getting close to failure, they don’t have many options except to require a better quality
material and a window that’s more similar in style to the original.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M.M. McDonald.
WHEREAS, 208 Dearborn Pl is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as
designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1989, and as
listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1989, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated February 25, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Patrick E. Graham on behalf of
property owner, Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s);
(2) a City of Ithaca – Building Permit Application, dated 02/18/19; (3)
correspondence between Mark Chase at Marvin Windows of New York and the
applicant regarding the proposed replacement product; (4) two correspondences
between Robert Fell-deWalt, Senior Building Inspector and the applicant regarding
the Building Permit Application for the proposed project; (5) correspondence
between Julie Daum, Housing Inspector, and Lisa Anderson, Director of Facilities,
Student and Campus Life, Cornell University, regarding the proposed project; (6) the
NYS Structure-Inventory Form and c. 1998 photograph of the subject property
showing the condition of the property at the time of local designation; (7) seven (7)
photographs documenting existing conditions; (8) a “Project Scope and
Specifications Letter” from Mark Chase from Marvin Windows and Doors of New
York, dated January 16, 2019; (10) a 17 page window replacement schedule; and (11)
a document titled “Past Historically Approved/Completed Projects for Marvin
Window Replacement, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form
for 208 Dearborn Pl., and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District
Summary Statement, and
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
4
WHEREAS, at the subject residence, approximately 59 original wood windows were replaced with
vinyl replacement windows and the original three-lite, panel door was replaced with a
diamond-light, slab-style door without first obtaining a Building Permit and a
Certificate of Appropriateness between c.1998 and c. 2001, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) and inferred by the
nature of the scope of work, the project involves the retroactive request for approval
for the removal of original wood windows and the replacement of vinyl sash and
frame insert units with aluminum-clad, wood sash and frame replacement units; the
new units will replicate the historic sash configurations and operability types of the
original sashes, 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 12, 2019, 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
Colonial-Revival-Style residence at 208 Dearborn Pl was constructed between 1916
and 1917.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District
and possessing a fair level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights 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
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
5
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 #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, and Standard #9, the removal of the
historic wood windows and the installation of vinyl replacement windows removed
distinctive materials and has altered features and spaces that characterize the
property. The ILPC notes that the removal of the original wood sashes not only
removed historic materials but the change in the configuration of the sashes in the
first-floor and the operability type of the dormer windows altered the historic design
intent of the residence, as well. The cottage sash (1/3 upper and 2/3 lower sash)
configuration of the original first-story windows and the awning operation of the
original dormer windows are typical of residences constructed during the late-
nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and examples can be found in this and other
historic districts.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Standard #2 and Standard #9, the proposed
replacement of the vinyl replacement windows with aluminum-clad wood windows
will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that
characterize the property, as the distinctive historic materials have already been
irreversibly lost.
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
6
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as the historic sashes and door were
removed several decades ago and are not available for examination, ILPC members
and/or contractors with experience working on historic wood windows and doors are
unable to independently assess their condition and the necessity of replacement. The
ILPC cannot determine the level of deterioration of the original windows.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the replacement of the original wood
windows, regardless of the replacement unit type or material, has destroyed historic
materials that characterized the property.
Also with respect to Standard #6, the proposed aluminum-clad windows more closely
match the original wood windows in design, color, texture, materials, and other visual
qualities. The installed vinyl insert windows altered the historic planar relationship
between the window sashes and wall surface and reduce the size of the exposed
exterior window sills. 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 wood sashes. The proposed aluminum-clad
windows, unlike the vinyl units, possess aesthetic characteristics that closely replicate
the historic visual quality of the original sashes, including molding profiles and glazing
beds, and planar relationships.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed aluminum-clad
windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of
the property in that the size of the original window openings was not altered and
most original exterior trim was retained.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the removal of the historic wood
windows has had a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or
architectural significance of the 208 Dearborn Pl 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 removal of
the historic wood windows does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6
of the Municipal Code and is a violation of Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and
be it further
RESOLVED, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the irreversible removal of
the original wood windows would have been denied by the Commission if it had
been reviewed before the work was completed, and
RESOLVED, that as mitigation for this violation, the applicant proposes replacing all the vinyl
insert units with aluminum-clad wood units that more closely match the
configuration, appearance and operability of the historic wood sashes, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the replacement of the vinyl windows
with aluminum-clad windows will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
7
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 2018 Dearborn Pl 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 proposed
replacement of vinyl windows with aluminum-clad windows 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 for the
replacement of vinyl replacement windows with aluminum-clad replacement
windows with the following conditions:
New double-hung sashes shall be installed within the existing double-hung
window frames, allowing the new windows to more closely match the glazing-to-
sash proportion of the historic windows. A product such as the Marvin Tilt Pac
Double Hung Sash Replacement System, which consists of a jamb liner and new
sashes, is also considered appropriate. Insert window units consisting of a pre-
hung sashes in a window frame shall not be installed in the double hung window
opening; insert-style replacement windows are allowed in the awning-style
window openings;
Staff shall review and approve the appropriateness of the replacement sashes and
insert units;
As further mitigation for the loss of historic fabric, the existing primary entrance
door shall be replaced to match the door depicted in the photograph on New
York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 208 Dearborn Pl. Staff shall
review the appropriateness of the proposed replacement door prior to
installation;
The sliding-type window east of the primary entrance door shall be replaced with
an awning-type window to match the window in the same position on the second
story and replicate the operability type of the original sash.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Stein
Seconded by: M.M. McDonald
In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: A. Smith
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.
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
8
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Chair E. Finegan opened the public comment period.
Emoretta Yang of 204 W. Yates Street spoke about the Ithaca Gun smoke stack. She said she
learned about the issue on the Fall Creek Listserv. She said she has lived in the Ithaca area since
the early ‘70s. She said that while she understands her neighbors who are against guns, she
thinks that the significance of an architectural feature such as this changes over time. She said
that if there are no safety problems with it, she supports preserving it. She said that Ithaca Gun
was an important part of our manufacturing history, and Ithaca Guns are one of the things Ithaca
is widely known for.
B. McCracken then said that he received an email from Susie Kramer shortly before the meeting,
which he read into the record. It is attached as an addendum to these minutes.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the
public comment period.
III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
214 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District – Early Design Guidance
Architect John Barradas and owners Greg and Matoula Halkiopoulos appeared to present an
overview of the proposed project that would convert an old carriage barn to a three-bedroom
rental unit.
Barradas explained that they would need to rebuild one wall because it is leaning out by around 2
degrees. He said that façades would otherwise remain unchanged except for the addition of doors
and windows. He said mechanicals and plumbing would be located in the center of the building.
A brief question and answer period followed. Commission members expressed concern that it is
possible that very little of the original fabric would remain after the completion of the project.
D. Kramer expressed concern that the owners of this property promised to create a garden in the
rear yard, which they never did. He asked what assurance they have that the project would be
completed as approved.
K. Olson noted that the jerkinhead roof is rarely seen on buildings in Ithaca and asked
specifically that it be retained.
Ithaca Gun Company Smoke Stack – Discussion
B. McCracken said that while the smoke stack has not been designated a local landmark, it has
been identified by many people in the community as an historic resource. He said a
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
9
redevelopment proposal for the factory site is currently going through the process for Site Plan
approvals from the Planning Board. Though the smoke stack itself is not on the parcel where the
new building will be located, the entire site is undergoing remediation for contamination. He said
they are having a discussion to determine what the Commission thinks about the historic and/or
aesthetic value of the smoke stack, and perhaps draft a recommendation to the Planning Board.
He said that the development agreement with the City contains a clause that would allow the City
to acquire the smoke stack, but whether or not the City acquires it, the contamination on the site
has to be remediated before redevelopment goes forward.
Frost Travis, project sponsor, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. He said
that the Remedial Action Alternatives Report, prepared by O’Brien & Gere, has been submitted
and is under review by the DEC, and when they are done with their review, it will be released for
public comment. He said that there are contaminants adjacent to the base of the smoke stack, and
he’s not sure the remediation can be conducted and still have the stack stabilized. He said early
on (in 2007) he had expressed a desire to preserve the smoke stack, but since then, they’ve had
several people climb it, one of whom intended to jump and had to be talked down by first
responders. He said that the rungs (outside and inside) could be cut off, as suggested by one
member of the Planning Board, but he noted that a skilled and/or determined climber could scale
it even without rungs (plenty of finger- and toe-holds).
F. Travis said that as for whether it can be stabilized while allowing for the removal of
contaminated soils is an unknown, and will remain unknown until the contractor engaged by
O’Brien & Gere can make a determination. He said that if it must come down, they would be
willing to save bricks from it as commemorative items for people who are interested. Further, he
said there would be interpretative signage detailing the history of the site as an important
manufacturing facility placed along the public walkway, as required in the development
agreement.
Chair E. Finegan asked who would be studying the situation to determine if it can be stabilized
while the contamination is removed.
F. Travis said he would consult with O’Brien & Gere and determine if that will be included in
the scope of the remediation contractor’s work (with DEC approval). He said he doesn’t think
DEC has a preference one way or another on the retention of the smoke stack, but they will
require the contamination be remediated. He also said he has no plans to develop the portion
containing the smoke stack.
S. Gibian asked about ownership of the site and parking lot next to it.
F. Travis said that some of the parking lot next door is owned by Cornell and licensed to the Gun
Hill development. He said there are two parcels on the site that are bifurcated by the public
walkway. The proposed area for the new apartments is uphill and the portion containing the
smoke stack looks like a flag lot separated from the other parcel by the public walk.
S. Gibian said that he looked at it and was impressed by how lightly built it is. He said that they
should be able to dig pretty close if they don’t have to excavate right underneath it.
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
10
B. McCracken asked if he knows how deep the foundation is.
F. Travis said he does not.
K. Olson said it’s not just a question of whether it can be saved, but a consideration of how much
money anyone wants to put into it. She said she is in favor of drafting a letter laying out the
rationale for preserving it based on the comments they have received on the topic. She said
Ithaca was an important manufacturing center, and this is one of the few standing visual
reminders of that history.
B. McCracken said that he believes it is an historic resource and there should be an effort to save
it if possible. However, if it is going to be significantly compromised by remediation, he said he
thinks the ILPC needs to consider what next steps would be, but they won’t know that until the
report is released.
S. Gibian asked if the development would be within the fall zone of the smoke stack.
F. Travis said he is not sure, but it’s 120’ tall, so he thinks it could possibly clip a corner of the
building depending on how it fell.
M.M. McDonald asked about where the City is in terms of process.
B. McCracken said that the project is still in front of the Planning Board, and they are
anticipating comments from the ILPC regarding the smoke stack. He said as for Common
Council and the redevelopment agreement, he said he is less clear.
F. Travis said they have a draft of a revised agreement, and they have to submit it to Common
Council for approval. He said there is an option in there for the City to acquire the smoke stack if
they want.
M.M. McDonald said that she thinks it’s an iconic landmark and there’s a lot of support in the
community for preserving it.
K. Olson said she thinks that because it’s not on the actual site to be redeveloped, but rather next
to it, the smoke stack is in a more nebulous place, and the choice to preserve it or not will
probably come down to economics.
D. Kramer said that more than just economics, it will come down to will. He said it’s going to be
up to Frost to decide and he thinks they should try to persuade him.
F. Travis said he would prefer the City to own it. He doesn’t want to assume the liability for an
attractive nuisance. He said he agrees that it is iconic and readily acknowledges that it is an
important part of Ithaca’s history.
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
11
S. Gibian said that he was impressed at what good shape it is in, and said that the repointing/
maintenance would be an issue.
S. Gibian asked if anyone wanted to address the comments they’d received saying that it should
not be preserved because of its connections to the gun industry.
S. Stein said that she is generally against guns of all kinds, but she thinks it should be preserved.
Her mother worked there, and she knows many people whose relatives worked there.
M.M. McDonald said she thinks people would feel differently if it were a memorial to gun
ownership, but it’s not: It’s a former factory site.
K. Olson said there are a lot of structures in the country with a tainted history, the White House
for example.
S. Gibian also said that some of the emails suggested that the chimney itself was contaminated,
but others suggested giving out bricks as commemorative pieces. He asked which it is, noting
that you’re not going to be giving out tainted bricks.
F. Travis said he believes that O’Brien and Gere had tested the smoke stack bricks years ago and
did not find any hazardous materials. He said the stack dates to 1949. The factory itself dated to
(he believes) 1888, and the factory bricks were found to contain barium (a radioactive isotope)
but that it bonds with other materials in the bricks and is rendered inert. He said that is all off-site
at this point, but that may have been what people were referencing.
S. Gibian said that he’d seen pictures of the site from the ‘40s before the smoke stack was built,
and he thinks it was part of a power plant put in when the sluice was taken offline.
F. Travis said yes, prior to the smoke stack, it was a hydro-powered factory.
ILPC members agreed that B. McCracken should draft a letter and reviewed a few points to
include. They thanked F. Travis for his time.
North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) Project - Discussion
B. McCracken explained that the Planning Board had invited comments from the ILPC because a
portion of the project borders the Cornell Heights Historic District. He reviewed materials
provided by the project sponsor, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, Landscape Architects.
After a brief discussion, they decided to send a memo to the Planning Board stating that the
ILPC believes there will be no significant negative impacts on the Historic District, but that they
believe the design could be articulated more to better reflect the design of that part of campus.
Approved by ILPC: 14, May 2019
12
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, the January 8, 2019 minutes were approved
unanimously with the following additions:
Page 3
“A. Smith revisited the idea of keeping the existing railings on the stair.
“B. McCracken agreed to follow up with the Building Division to make sure they
are not allowed to grandfather in.”
V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
B. McCracken reminded Commission members of upcoming important dates:
2019 Preservation Awards – Nomination Deadline: Friday, March 29 at 5:00 P.M.
Community Conversation: Future Landmarks in the City of Ithaca--What Should
be Saved? - Thursday, March 21, 2019, 6:45 p.m.-7:45 p.m. at Tompkins County
Public Library, BorgWarner East Room.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson, Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 7:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Ithaca Gun Smokestack
Ithaca Gun Smokestack
Susan Kramer [suzy196@msn.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 12/ 2019 5:04 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
Cc:Susan Kramer [suzy196@msn.com]
Dear Bryan,
https:llmail.cityofithaca.orglowa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=Rg...
10f2
I feel strongly that the Ithaca Gun smokestack ought to be preserved,not only as the last vestige of a
significant part of Ithaca's commercial heritage,but as something that represents this past in an
aesthetically appealing and arresting way. This well-constructed structure,with the name carefully
spelled out, is prominently and pleasingly sited.
Many people I've talked to recently about its now suddenly threatened state are astounded to learn this
iconic feature of our local landscape is not already landmarked.Some who were paying attention during
the time the factory was condemned many years ago say they recall a promise that the stack would
defintiely be preserved.
Indeed,preserving the stack does seem to have been the stated intention of the developer until very
recently. This sudden change of plans, and the reasons given, are reminiscent of the way this same
developer stated part of the Old Library's foundation would be reused,addressing concerns about lost
embedded energy and sustainability;the idea was then abruptly abandoned,the claim made that it was
"infeasible," and that the structure,during their ownership,had become structurally unsound. The ILPC
thus approved quite a different "Dewitt House"than we now will have in "Library Place."
Travis Hyde's proposed development for the factory site has also been renamed,no longer referred to as
Gun Hill, but given the more bucolic name of "Falls Park"--erasing lexically any potential negative
associations going forward.Prospective tenants googling the project will no longer be led to numerous
media stories about the contamination saga,just as they will no longer google "Dewitt House" and learn
about the fraught history and controversy surrounding that site.
Erasing such a prominent reminder of the site's history--which does include a history of environmental
pollution--might well make marketing these apartments easier,especially to a luxury-minded clientele.
But assuming the site will finally be properly and completely cleaned up, this should not be a concern.
Many prospective residents would welcome such a monument in their midst.
Ithaca Gun remains a nationally and internationally recognized company, whose influence has continued
well into our own times,"responsible for much of the early industry of Tompkins County," we
learn on wikipedia,especially during both World Wars.Annie Oakley used an Ithaca gun in her
competition and exhibition shooting, and President Eisenhower was a fan.
In short, this local brand of rifle was like a Martin guitar--world famous not just for its
performance,but also for its craftsmanship--many guns were beautifully decorated--as well as
for its storied history.
Please do everything possible,therefore,to ensure that the stack is preserved for present and
future generations to appreciate.
3/12/2019,5:36 PM
Ithaca Gun Smokestack
Sincerely,
Suzy Kramer
https:llmail.cityofithaca.orglowa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=Rg...
20f2
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9,an AT&T 5G Evolution smartphone
3/12/2019,5:36 PM