Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-06-11Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — June 11, 2019 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice Chair Stephen Gibian, Member Megan McDonald, Member Absent: Katelin Olson, Member Avi Smith, Member Susan Stein, 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 5:33 p.m. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M.M. McDonald, the May 14, 2019 minutes were approved unanimously with the following modifications:  Change references to “balustrade” to read “baluster” as appropriate. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 110-12 Heights Court, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Remove Concrete Landscape Stairs Near the West Property Line. Greg Tracy and Ben Busch of Kimball Real Estate appeared in front of the commission to present their proposal to remove a concrete stair and plant grass. B. Busch explained that this request is related to a bigger project they recently completed: the reinforcement and repair of a retaining wall. He said that they are proposing to remove the stairs and plant grass in that location. S. Gibian said that the application indicated that the stairs were damaged during the process of repairing the retaining wall, but it looks to him like they were damaged prior to that project. Applicants said yes, it was deteriorated previously, but that they were further damaged in the course of making the repairs. S. Gibian asked how residents would access the door on the end of the building if these stairs are remoced. B. Busch said there is another access from the parking lot behind the building. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 2 Avi Smith arrived at 5:40 p.m. 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 M.M. McDonald, seconded by D. Kramer. S. Gibian said his only concern is that there’s no clear access to the side entrance. M.M. McDonald said anyone who doesn’t feel like going around to the back might just walk up the slope. B. Busch said that in his experience, tenants rarely, if ever, use those stairs. D. Kramer said he’s fine with it, and said that the applicants can return later if they decide stairs really are needed at this location. Applicants agreed. S. Gibian asked how they repaired the retaining wall. Applicants said they hired Woodford Brothers, and the company has a system they designed whereby they drill through the wall and attach the wall to a whaler that allows them to pull the wall back in place. They are well known locally for doing structural concrete repairs. They said it took them 30 days to do the work RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 110-12 Heights Court 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 May 16, 2019], was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Heights Court Apartments, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three photographs documenting existing conditions, and Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 3 WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 110-12 Heights Court, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves removing a set of concrete landscape stairs near the west property line, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 11, 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 building at 110-12 Heights Court was constructed as the main barn for the Edward G. Wyckoff estate in 1898 and was moved to its current location and converted into apartments in 1912. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. 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: Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 4 Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the removal of the landscape stair will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, A. Smith, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson 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: 9, July 2019 5 B. 112 Edgecliff Place, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install a Wood Railing Along a Landscape Stair. Kelly Sauve appeared in front of the ILPC on behalf of homeowner Georg Hoffstaetter to present a proposal to install a railing along a stone landscape stair. She said there’s an existing railing around the hot tub platform in the back yard, and they are proposing to use the same materials for this railing. D. Kramer asked how they are going to bend the wood to achieve the proposed curved rail. Sauve said that’s a good question. She said Taitem engineers developed the design for the railing around the platform. B. McCracken said they might do it in sections. S. Stein said it wouldn’t be visible from anywhere. Sauve agreed. She said it’s possible some of the neighbors on that side of the house might see it, but it would not be visible from the road. S. Gibian said that it seems like it would be easier to fabricate a continuous compound curve out of metal than wood. He also said that oak and poplar (as proposed) will not last long outside without rotting (especially poplar). D. Kramer said that presumably there would be treated 4-by-4s to anchor it. 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 M.M. McDonald, seconded by D. Kramer. D. Kramer said he doesn’t think it can be built as depicted in the drawings, but he doesn’t have a problem with the proposal. He thinks it’s pretty. M.M. McDonald said that they may find they need to make changes as they move forward. D. Kramer said he would be fine with having any changes reviewed at the staff level. Applicant asked how that would work. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 6 B. McCracken explained that she would just need to let him know so he could review changes. It would not have to go back to the ILPC. RESOLUTION: Moved by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 112 Edgecliff 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 May 14, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Georg Hoffstaetter, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a photograph of existing site features; (3) a rendering of the proposed alteration; and (4) three sheets of materials information, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 112 Heights Court, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the installation of a wood guardrail along an existing set of fieldstone landscape stairs, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 11, 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, 112 Heights Court was constructed in 1927. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 7 Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a guardrail along a landscape stair will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed guardrail is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 8 With respect to Standard #10, the guardrail can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:  Minor modifications to the proposed project required during construction, including changes to materials, post design and railing configuration, shall be considered by ILPC staff. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: M.M. McDonald Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, A. Smith, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson 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. 115 The Knoll, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Install a Wood Monument Sign at the Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Barton Place and The Knoll and Banner Signs on Four Lampposts. Rob Morache for Stream Collaborative appeared in front of the ILPC to present a proposal for signage around 115 The Knoll. S. Gibian said that when he went out to look at the site he noticed there’s a concrete sign very close to the location they have selected for their monument sign and he suggested that for the Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 9 purposes of wayfinding, the relationship to the two signs should mimic the relative positions of the two properties themselves. The Commission next discussed the proposed banners. Public Hearing On a motion by M.M.McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing. John Schroeder of 618 Stewart Avenue, said he’s concerned with putting anything on the public way to promote this organization, which is an explicitly Christian community. He said it is denominational, and Chesterton was an exemplar of a Christian thinker. He said he’s concerned with having signs promoting an exclusively Christian organization on City property. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public Hearing on a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by D. Kramer. Chair E. Finegan asked the applicant if the banners are on City property. R. Morache said the banners are not on City property, but the monument sign would be (pending DPW approval). D. Fleming asked if any attempt had been made to ask the City to improve the signage at Barton and The Knoll. R. Morache said that it’s the standard City signage, and is visible, but people looking for the Chesterton House frequently miss the turn because they are looking for a sign (like what many of the frats have), and because The Knoll gives the impression of a private drive (and is in need of repaving). S. Stein said her GPS system took her right to the property. She also said she’d be inclined to see fewer banners. M.M. McDonald said that she thinks they need to be explicit in the resolution and explain why this situation is unique (on a dead-end City Street, etc.), so as to avoid setting the precedent whereby everybody starts putting banners on their driveways. S. Gibian asked how this proposal fits into the City sign ordinance. R. Morache said that the monument sign is within the allowed square footage, but if they count the banners, they will need to apply for a variance. He said they’ve been in talks with Skip Schell in the Building Division and Zoning Administrator Gino Leonardi to determine if the banners fall under the sign ordinance. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 10 After additional discussion, the ILPC members and applicant agreed to reduce the number of banners to two and retain the ones closer to the house. D. Kramer asked if this sets a precedent. After further discussion, they decided to add language to the resolution to explain why this situation is unique. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 115 The Knoll are 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 May 30, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by STREAM Collaborative on behalf of property owners Chesterton House, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) six sheets of drawings illustrating the proposed alterations, dated May 30, 2019, titled Signage: Chesterton House – 115 The Knoll, and labelled A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 115 The Knoll, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the installation of a wood-constructed monument sign at the southwest corner of the intersection of Barden Place and The Knoll, and four banner signs mounted to four existing lampposts, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on June 11, 2019, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 11 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 Building Structure Inventory Form, the Arts and Crafts Style residence at 115 The Knoll was designed by the locally prominent architecture firm of Gibb and Waltz and constructed between 1908 and 1909. Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Cornell Heights Historic District. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 12 With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the proposed monument sign will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The ILPC notes the use of monument or landscape signs similar to the proposed throughout the Cornell Heights Historic District as a means of identifying the residences of fraternities, sororities, and other organizations and their role in aiding in wayfinding. The Commission also noted the reported difficulties locating and identifying The Knoll and the subject residence and the need for the sign to resolve these issues. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the proposed banners will not remove distinctive materials but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Banner signs mounted to lampposts have no historic precedent within the neighborhood and their quantity introduces a level of visual advertising and real estate branding that is uncharacteristic of the Cornell Heights Historic District or any residential neighborhood in the city. The ILPC finds the proposed signs incompatible with the historic residential quality of the historic district; however, the Commission noted unique conditions of this particular property that make a limited number of the proposed banners acceptable. The publically accessible street, The Knoll, ends approximately 100 yards in front of the subject residence and a private street/parking area extends from this point, providing access to the property as well as two other residences. Given this condition, more traditional forms of house numbering would not be visible from the public way and a monument sign at the public way termination would not provide sufficient wayfinding information. The Commission also considered the private ownership of the lampposts and the extremely secluded and hidden quality of The Knoll. Based these unique conditions, the Commission finds the installation of two banner signs on the lampposts closest to the residence will not significantly detract from the historic visual quality of the neighborhood and would aid in necessary wayfinding on The Knoll. Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed monument and banner signs are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the proposed monument sign and banners can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 13 RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions:  Two of the four proposed banner signs are permitted to be installed on the two lampposts closest to the residence at 115 The Knoll. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, A. Smith, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: K. Olson 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. III. 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. IV. OLD BUSINESS  214 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District – Site Visit Summary B. McCracken said that at the May 23 site visit, they inspected the barn, and despite being poorly maintained, the barn appears to be in decent shape, and all of the structural members seem to be sound, and deteriorated parts of the building had been replaced. He said, however, that the foundation is in really bad shape, and is not, in fact, suitable for a residential building. He said that the ILPC determined that the building is in essentially sound condition, and without a report from an engineer stating otherwise, they think the building could be saved. He said they also discussed with the owner and architect ways of making the project more feasible, one of which was to lift the building up two feet and move it five feet to the east. He said that moving it would pull it back from the property line, allowing them to have windows on Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 14 the west elevation, and raising it two feet would mean cars coming down the steep slope would no longer be at the same level as the floor, as well as make adding a new foundation more feasible and more affordable. B. McCracken said that the Commission members in attendance felt these were fair compromises as long as the proposal results in the retention of the historic fabric. V. NEW BUSINESS  Stewart Avenue Brick Paving, East Hill Historic District – Discussion Due to members of the public appearing with an interest in speaking on this item, Chair E. Finegan re-opened the Public Comment period. John Schroeder of 618 Stewart Avenue, said the integrity of historic districts comes from not just the primary structures or outbuildings, but from the landscape and streetscape. He said that when a unique streetscape that fits the period of the historic district is removed, it damages the district. He said the East Hill Historic District was severely damaged when the bricks were removed from East State Street in the ‘80s. He said the street now is too wide, the cars travel too fast, and pedestrians feel like their lives are at risk walking there. Brick streets calm traffic. He said there’s a visual impact, but brick streets have other qualities that affect people who live there and walk there. Those qualities change for the worse when you go from brick to asphalt. He said that over their lifetime, kiln fired bricks installed over a properly prepared base are also cheaper than asphalt. He concluded by saying that taking color away also damages the historic fabric. Mary Tomlan of 200 Delaware Avenue, City Historian, said that she recently had read through 1935-36 issues of the The Ithaca Journal and learned that through a public works project, Stewart Avenue was repaved with brick over a new concrete base at that time. She said it had been brick previously, but she is not sure for how long. She said she’s not sure if the pavement seen today dates to the ‘30s, but if so, that represents much greater longevity than you would see with asphalt. She said she’s not sure exactly how long Stewart Avenue has been paved with brick, but probably at least since the time of the street railway. She said they removed the streetcar rails in 1935-36, and that, along with the public works funding, probably prompted them to re-pave the street at that time. She said it was brick from State Street up to the Cascadilla Creek Bridge, and after that it was asphalt. She said that she hopes to provide the Commission members with more historic information, but in terms of historic fabric and longevity, there is ample reason to support keeping Stewart Avenue brick. David Beer of 303 Valley Road said he owns property in the East Hill Historic District. He said that it’s his understanding that when State Street was paved in asphalt in the ‘80s, it was done with the understanding and agreement that the brick along Stewart Avenue was to be maintained. He said the City for the past 25 years has done little if any maintenance to it, so it’s little wonder that it’s in the poor condition it is in. He said that the brick on Stewart is very important to the district, and that as the rest of East Hill (not so much in the district but) farther up the hill in Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 15 Collegetown is being degraded with the removal of many older houses, it’s important that the ILPC stand firm in negotiations with the decision makers in City government and insist that money be spent to maintain this historic brick on Stewart Avenue. That the brick was in rough shape is not an excuse for ignoring previously agreed-to obligations. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Public Comment was closed. Additional discussion followed. B. McCracken explained a little of the history of the efforts to preserve brick pavement along Stewart Avenue, and explained that over time the City’s level of care and maintenance has dissipated, especially as people within the organization with the skills to repair the brick streets have retired or moved on to other positions. This led to portions of Stewart being paved in asphalt, and then in May, the entire 100 block and the center of the 200 block were paved in asphalt. M.M. McDonald asked about how the decision was made. B. McCracken said it’s his understanding that Supt. Public Works Mike Thorne determined that the street was a threat to public welfare, and that under the Landmarks Ordinance, once he makes that determination, he is empowered to take action to resolve the situation. D. Fleming said that they have also been doing sewer repairs recently and last year they had to dig up the intersection of State and Stewart, which required they do something there, and they took the pavement farther to the north than would be strictly required by the utility repair. B. McCracken said the City is actively seeking funding to repair the street, but it’s not clear if they will secure funding. He said that if they are not planning to replace the brick in kind, they would be required by the Landmarks Ordinance to make an application to the ILPC for approval. If the City wants to pave the street in asphalt and the ILPC denies their proposal, they could appeal to Common Council. He said the work that was done is a temporary measure and the bricks are still underneath it, although it would be more difficult to reuse them now. He said whether or not the bricks would be salvageable depends on whether a binder course was used. If there was no binder course, the asphalt could be removed. M.M. McDonald said that B. McCracken might want to let Mike Thorne know of that so bricks aren’t destroyed in the future. She also said that saving the brick aligns with the goals outlined in the Green New Deal in terms of embodied energy and durability, and that asphalt is not a clean material emissions-wise. B. McCracken agreed and said that production of brick is less energy intensive, bricks last longer, and brick surfaces also generate less heat than asphalt does. There are companies that travel the country and repair brick streets because it is possible to repair them, and they don’t need to be replaced every 15 years like asphalt does. Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 16 J. Schroeder said that paving over the street isn’t even going to fix the problem. The problem isn’t the brick. They need to dig down and put in a new sub-base and base to really solve the problem. McCracken agreed, and said that the street was designed to accommodate the Model T, but now has TCAT busses driving over it. The street needs to be designed for the vehicles that are on it, and it would probably be in better condition if that were the case. Chair E. Finegan asked what the Commission can do at this point. B. McCracken said they can draft a memo or pass a resolution to and send it along to the BPW, urging them to follow the policy that was adopted in the ‘80s and request that any further work on the street is brought before the Commission for review. S. Stein said she thinks it’s important to mention the environmental considerations. B. McCracken said he could try to draft a resolution or memo for the next meeting for the ILPC to review (which would also give K. Olson a chance to have input). S Gibian asked if Stewart Avenue is the last brick street in the City. B. McCracken said yes, but there is a Medina cobblestone street in Collegetown – Ferris Place. M.M. McDonald asked if a resolution might be a better option because it would allow for public comment and be included in the minutes. Commission members agreed. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  Sexual Harassment Training B. McCracken said he and A. Smith were still coordinating a time for the ILPC to meet at the Argos Warehouse for the group training.  Summer Retreat B. McCracken asked about topics they might be interested in for training (either something he could provide or find someone else to provide a workshop). M.M. McDonald mentioned the Green New Deal. D. Kramer suggested ways to retrofit existing/ historic buildings to be more energy efficient/ green. B. McCracken said he has been in talks with Sustainability Coordinator Nick Goldsmith about how the Green Building Policy might be applied to historic properties, and whether they should Approved by ILPC: 9, July 2019 17 be exempt. He said that it’s his opinion that they should not be exempt because there’s a lot of ways to get points within the proposed system that don’t require significant alterations to the building, installation of heat pumps, for example. He said many historic properties would already get points for walkability and density, as well. B. McCracken said a lot of what they are talking about relates to embodied energy, and that he’s discussing with Goldsmith the possibility adding a point for reuse of existing buildings (historic or not) because by reusing significant portions of existing structures, it saves energy and keeps materials out of the landfill. B. McCracken said he would circulate several possible dates to see what would work. He suggested members do some research and think about what a desired outcome would be. VII. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by M.M. McDonald Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission