HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-07-09Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — July 9, 2019
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Absent:
Megan McDonald, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Avi Smith, Member
Donna Fleming, Common Council
Liaison
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 40 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Clay-
Tile Dormer Cheek Cladding with Wood Shingles.
Dean Shea of Sunny Brook Builders appeared in front of the Commission to present their
proposal to replace clay tile dormer cladding with wood shingles. He said that the dormers in the
rear of the building had been re-clad with clapboard siding at some point, and they assumed,
from looking at the front dormers from the ground that they were clad in cedar shakes, so that is
what they had proposed replacing the cladding with. He said, however, that once they were able
to get up to the roof and take a closer look, they determined that they were, in fact, clad with clay
tile. He said that the roof tiles are green, but the dormer cheeks had been painted white at some
point and that the back of the roof was re-done with architectural shingles as well. He said they
are proposing to replace the tile cladding with cedar shake shingles and remove and repair or
replace the deteriorated wooden trim on the dormers and then repaint.
D. Kramer said it’s not clear why they are proposing to remove the tiles, as they don’t seem to be
failing.
D. Shea said no, they’re not failing, but they’re going to have to put a lot of safety measures in
place to get their workers up there to do the rot repairs, so the idea is to do everything now so no
one has to go up there again for at least 10 years.
Chair E. Finegan asked if they could repair/replace the wooden trim without removing the tiles.
D. Shea said yes.
Chair E. Finegan suggested they do that instead, as it seems like the tiles would last longer than
cedar shakes would.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
2
D. Shea said the only way to get access to the roof to sidewall flashing is to remove the tiles, and
if they do remove them, they will salvage them for future repairs.
K. Olson said she sees the value in what the applicant is trying to do (avoid getting up on the
roof again), but she said she is concerned with the idea of replacing historic materials when they
are not failing. She said she doesn’t want to set a precedent for removing historic materials that
are still in usable condition. She said that she doesn’t see an adverse impact from the other work
that is proposed, even if it involves a materiality change, because it won’t result in a large impact
to the building as a whole.
D. Shea said that they may find that the roof needs repairs and if so, they will call a roofer in to
ensure that any loose tiles are reattached. He said that his concern is primarily with the flashing,
as they won’t know what, if any, damage they will find until they get up there. He said that if
they get up there and determine that there is rot behind the tiles, they could return to the ILPC
and ask for approvals for a wider scope of work at that time.
Chair E. Finegan said that it’s true that they won’t know what they will find until they get up
there to do the work.
K. Olson said that maybe they could schedule a meeting on-site if that happens.
D. Shea said that would be helpful given their timeline for the project.
S. Gibian said that there’s probably step flashing under the tiles, so it might be difficult to
integrate new.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 40 Ridgewood Road 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 June 25, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Dean Shea of Sunnybrook Builders
on behalf of property owner Alpha Xi Delta Cornell, LLC, including the following:
(1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
3
for Changes(s); (2) a June 24, 2019, letter to Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation
Planner, from the applicant concerning the proposed project; (3) a June 24, 2019,
letter to Julie Leonard, Agent, Alpha Xi Delta, from the applicant concerning the
scope of work of the proposed project; and (4) three black and white photographs
documenting existing conditions, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
40 Ridgewood Road, 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 in-
kind replacement of isolated areas of wood trim on the railings of the south porch,
in-kind repair/replacement of wood trim on the enclosed north porch, and repairs to
two dormers on the east roof slope, including the replacement of deteriorated
window sills with a composite wood material and the replacement of the painted-
clay-tile dormer cheek cladding with wood shingles, and
WHEREAS, the in-kind repairs to the north and south porches were approved by the Secretary of
the Commission on June 26, 2019, and
WHEREAS, the applicant amended the project at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting,
eliminating the proposal to remove the dormer cheek cladding, 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 July 9, 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 40 Ridgewood Road was constructed between
1924 and 1929.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District
and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
4
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 #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 replacement of the
window sills and other trim with alternative materials will remove distinctive
materials but will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. In
evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed alternative material, a composite
wood, the ILPC considered the location of the proposed project, future impacts on
surrounding historic materials, and the workability and finishability of the proposed
material. The ILPC observed that the project site is nearly 25’ of the ground and
cannot be easily or closely examined from the public way or from the lawn in front
of the building. Located on the roof slope and in contact with the roofing materials,
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
5
wood materials used in this location are prone to rot and deterioration from water
infiltration; the proposed material is inherently resistant to this type of decay. The
proposed material requires less frequent maintenance than wood, minimizing the
need to traverse the historic clay tile roofing and reducing any potential damage to
this historic material caused by that activity. Finally, the proposed material can be
milled to match the exiting sill and trim profiles and painted to match the finish of
the existing material.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as reported by the applicant, the severity
of the deterioration of the window sills require their replacement. The proposed new
work will match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities.
Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed wood composite
wood sills and other trim 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 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: D. Kramer
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, A. Smith, E. Finegan, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
6
B. 115 W. Green Street, Henry St. John Historic District – Proposal to Construct an
Accessible Ramp to a Basement-Level Entrance on the North Façade, Install a Metal-
Framed Fabric Awning above this Entrance; Install Two, Three-Over-Three Wood
Windows in the South Elevation, Install Three Air Source Heat Pump Condensers
and Associated Line Hides on the East Elevation, and Replace the Chain Link Fence
along the East Property Line with a Black Metal Fence.
Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative, architect Emily Petrina, and Laura Larson (the would-
be tenant for the space and owner of the proposed bookstore) appeared in front of the ILPC to
present a proposal to construct an accessible ramp to a basement-level entrance on the north
façade and make other material alterations to the property.
N. Demarest said they want to install a ramp and replace the entry door to make it accessible.
They also want to replace a chain link fence with a metal fence and reestablish planting beds.
E. Petrina said that she is doing much of the interior design and they are proposing air source
heat pumps (located in the rear). She also said that they want to replace two windows in the rear
that had been covered over at some point in the past. The replacement windows would be as
close to the existing as possible, painted wood 3-over-3s. They also want to replace the entry
door with one that more closely resembles the front door of the law offices upstairs. She said that
the existing basement door doesn’t seem to be original and that it is poor condition due to years
of water damage from poor drainage.
S. Gibian asked about the size of the door.
E. Petrina said that their plan is to remove some of the existing wooden jamb and reinstall the
existing wood panels to widen the 32-inch existing opening to 36 inches to make it ADA-
compliant. She said it should not be necessary to remove any of the stone.
K. Olson asked if they were planning on making any changes to the metal railings on the steps
out front.
N. Demarest said no, and added that they have not made a final decision on the design of the
handrails on the ramp they are proposing either but they intend to make it compatible with the
railings on the front stairs.
S. Gibian asked if they are required to put railings on both sides of the ramp.
N. Demarest said yes.
D. Fleming asked what the current use of the basement is.
Applicants said it’s currently used for storage, but historically, it was used by the residents as a
living space in the summer (as it is cooler in the basement than it is on upper floors).
S. Gibian asked if the ramp is 5 feet wide.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
7
N. Demarest said yes.
S. Gibian asked if there is a drain at the bottom.
N. Demarest said there is not currently (surprisingly), but there will be drains installed on the
proposed ramp.
K. Olson asked about what kind of stone they are proposing.
N. Demarest said it would be a bluestone, probably a Pennsylvania bluestone. He said they
would try to match the color, texture, and shape of the stone on the upper portion of the building.
He also said they want to do a dry-laid stone fence with a large cut capstone.
A. Smith asked if they intend to re-use the old door hardware on the new door.
E. Petrina said she does not know. She said they won’t need a doorbell on the new door, and they
would like to have an electronic keypad lock for workers to enter. She asked the client, Laura
Larson if she wants to retain any of the hardware.
L. Larson said if you see it in person, it’s probably not the thing you most want to preserve. She
said she wants the door itself to match the Crossmore Law Offices door upstairs as much as
possible, but there are pragmatic concerns like safety and security that have to be factored in as
well.
N. Demarest said accessibility is also a concern, and the handle itself must be levered.
Commission members suggested maybe re-using it on an interior door elsewhere.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer.
A. Smith said it looks like the proposed replacement door isn’t a raised panel door like the one
pictured.
E. Petrina said it’s an option, and the manufacturer can produce pretty much anything they can
give them a drawing for.
D. Kramer said the whole project fills him with reluctance. He said this is one of the best, maybe
the best building in town, and this project is really going to change the look and feel of it.
D. Fleming asked if he can think of an alternative.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
8
D. Kramer suggested putting the bookstore elsewhere.
D. Fleming said that sooner or later, if anyone wants to use it as a public space, the same thing
has to be done.
S. Gibian said another option might be a wheelchair lift.
D. Fleming said that would be less attractive.
D. Kramer said he is concerned with loss of historic fabric, and the building is stately, and what
is proposed will detract from that.
A. Smith said the proposed railings seem very plain. They might be nicer if done more in the
style of the old ones.
K. Olson said that it would be helpful to have a rendering that is straight on because it is hard to
read the building. She said she is of two minds because she was initially opposed to any
alteration to the exterior of the building. She said, however, that her primary concern is that
proposed projects don’t have an adverse effect on the building itself, and what’s proposed here
seem like relatively minor changes that won’t have a substantial impact on the integrity of the
building. It will, however, result in a substantial visual change to the character of the building.
L. Larson said she wishes Ed Crossmore had been able to attend the meeting because the
building has been in his family for 100 years and he loves to share it with the public. He’s put a
lot of time and money into renovating the upstairs in the last year, and wants to see
improvements made in the basement too, but if this bookstore doesn’t go in there, nothing will.
She said it is their goal to bring new life to old buildings and increase their longevity. She said
that she wishes she didn’t have to build a ramp either, but for it to become a successful
bookstore, she needs to make it feel warm and welcoming.
A. Smith asked if she had considered installing a lift.
L. Larson said she doesn’t foresee parents with children using those lifts for their strollers, and
she sees that as a barrier to entry. She said it needs to feel really open and like something
beautiful and exciting that you want to walk down to see.
The Commission members next discussed the visual impacts of the proposal and possible
changes to the railing design to make it more compatible.
RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by A. Smith.
WHEREAS, 115 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, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated June 25, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
9
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Noah Demarest of STREAM
Collaborative on behalf of property owner Laura Larsen, including the following: (1)
two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
Changes(s); (2) twelve sheets of product specifications for three proposed pieces of
mechanical equipment; and (3) six sheets of architectural drawings documenting
existing conditions and depicting the proposed alterations, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within
the Henry St. John Historic District for 115 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
following:
the construction of an accessible ramp to a basement entrance on the north
elevation in the landscape along the east side of property; ramp elements include
concrete paving, dry-laid stone retaining walls with large stone caps, and metal
handrails;
the installation of a semi-circular awning above the basement entrance on the
north elevation;
the replacement of a chain link fence along the east property line with a black
metal, picket-style fence;
the installation of two, three-over-three wood windows in the basement level of
the south elevation near an existing porch;
the installation of three air source heat pump condensers along the east elevation
of the rear, two-story addition, 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 July 9, 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 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 transitional Federal-Greek
Revival Style residence at 115 West Green Street was constructed ca. 1837 and is
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
10
architecturally significant as the City’s only extant building of this style constructed in
stone.
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.
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.
Principle #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be
compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located.
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of an
ADA accessible ramp and the installation of an awning, two windows, three air
source heat pump condensers, and a metal picket style fence will not remove
distinctive materials but will alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
The ILPC notes several large (approximately 3’x4’) stone slabs used as a walkway
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
11
between the primary and secondary basement entrance will be removed as part of
this project. Stone slabs or flags were used extensively throughout the historic
district’s period of significance for sidewalks, walkways and other paving purposes
and are considered character defining features of those properties at which they are
located and the Henry St. John neighborhood in general. Their unavoidable removal
will result in the loss of distinctive materials in this particular location.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, the proposed
accessible ramp, awning, fence and windows are compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment.
With respect to Standard #10, the accessible ramp, awning, fence, and windows 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 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 with the
following conditions:
The stone slabs removed during the construction of the ADA accessible
ramp will be stored in a secure location on the property for future reuse; and
The applicant shall submit design and/or shop drawings illustrating the
proposed metal handrails, and design specifications for the proposed wood
door and associated door surround modifications for review and approval by
the Commission.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: S. Gibian
Seconded by: A. Smith
In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, A. Smith, E. Finegan, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
Notice: Failure on the part of the owner or the owner’s representative to bring to the attention
of the ILPC staff any deviation from the approved plans, including but not limited to changes
required by other involved agencies or that result from unforeseen circumstances as
construction progresses, may result in the issuance by the Building Department of a stop
work order or revocation of the building permit.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
12
C. 214 Eddy Street, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Convert a Carriage Barn
into a Dwelling Unit, Including Moving the Building onto a New Formed Concrete
Foundation that is 5’ East of Its Current Location, Replacing the Existing Doors,
Inserting New Windows and Doors on All Elevations, Inserting Skylights on the
North and South Roof Slopes, and Constructing an Entrance Stoop on the North
Elevation.
Architect John Barradas appeared in front of the ILPC to present a proposal to move a carriage
barn at 214 Eddy Street to a new foundation and make other modifications to convert the barn to
a dwelling unit. He noted one change from the materials previously distributed: changing the
proposed windows from casement to double hung (except for the fixed units). He said they are
wood and that he included specs in the distribution. He also noted that the plans now include a
barrier to automobiles encroaching on the entryway,
Preservation Planner B. McCracken then summarized the results of the site visit. He said that the
Commission members did not have a discussion about moving the building 5 feet and lifting it 2
feet onto a new foundation would cause it to lose its historic context, and suggested they talk
about that issue now.
S. Gibian said they had previously discussed moving it east 5 feet, and now it looks like they are
proposing moving it east 5 feet and north 5 feet. He asked if that is correct.
J. Barradas said yes.
S. Gibian asked why move north.
J. Barradas said there is an issue with a sewer line. He said he just learned from the Assistant
DPW Superintendent Eric Whitney that there’s a sewer line somewhere under the north
foundation. He said that an engineer made the suggestion they move the building so the footer
won’t be directly over the line. He said there’s also a requirement for parking on one side.
K. Olson said that a concrete foundation is going to change the visual characteristics of the
building significantly and suggested they might use stone on the foundation.
After additional discussion, applicant agreed to use a stone veneer to hide the concrete
foundation.
The Commission agreed to move the foundation 5 feet to the east, but declined to agree to the
proposal to move it 5 feet to the north because it would be a bigger change to the way the
building reads from the street (no longer centered on the driveway). They agreed to reconsider
the latter decision if zoning or code concerns later require them to revisit the issue.
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
13
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson.
RESOLUTION: Moved by A. Smith, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 214 Eddy Street is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under
Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New
York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated June XX, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by John Barradas of Barradas Partners
Architects on behalf of property owner Greg and Matoula Halkiopoulos, including
the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed
Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) seven sheets of architectural drawings
dated June 25, 2019 and titled “Cover Specifications” (C-100), “Site Conditions” (S-
100), “First Floor Section and Details” (A-101), “Second Floor Plan Section and
Roof” (A-201), “Elevations” ((A-300), “Mechanical” (M-100), and “Electrical RCP &
Details” (E-100), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within
the East Hill Historic District for 214 Eddy Street, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill
Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
converting the property’s two-story carriage barn into a three-bedroom dwelling unit;
exterior alterations include:
moving the carriage barn 5’ east, raising its elevation 2’, and placing it on a
formed concrete foundation;
repairing or replacing in-kind localized areas of deteriorated board-and-batten
siding;
replacing the deteriorated asphalt shingle and corrugated metal roofing with
architectural-style asphalt shingle roofing;
on the east elevation alterations include replacing the doors in the first-story
south bay with three, six-panel, wood doors, replacing the doors in the first-story
north bay with three, four-light wood doors, and the insertion of four, four-light
windows, two each in the second and attic stories;
on south elevation alterations include the insertion of two three-quarter-glazed,
four-light wood doors in the first story, the insertion of two four-light wood
window in the second story, and the insertion of two skylights in the roof slope;
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
14
on the west elevation alterations include the insertion of six four-light windows,
two each in the first, second and attic stories;
on the north elevation alterations include the insertion of two three-quarter-
glazed, four-light wood doors in the first story, the construction of a stoop at the
door in the east bay, the insertion of two four-light wood windows in the second
story, and the insertion of two skylights in the roof slope, 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 July 9, 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 East Hill Historic District Summary Statement,
the period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is
1830-1932.
As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties
included within the East Hill Historic District, the transitional Queen-Anne-Style
residence at 214 Eddy Street was constructed in 1878. A carriage barn also sets on
this property and was constructed before 1893.
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a high level of integrity, the residence and the carriage barn are
contributing elements of the East Hill Historic District.
In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new
construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that
the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the
landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring
improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value,
the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with
the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or
district in accordance with Section 228-6 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: 13, August 2019
15
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 #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such
as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings,
shall not be undertaken.
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 proposed
modifications to the historic carriage barn, more specifically outlined above, will
remove distinctive materials and will alter features that characterize the property.
However, the ILPC finds the alterations to be sensitive to the historic fabric and
necessary for the adaptive reuse of a carriage barn as a residential structure. In
making this determination, the ILPC considered the following: the new window and
door penetrations are required to provide adequate natural light and pedestrian
access to the building; although the changes to the exterior are substantial, important
character defining features including the building’s size, scale, form, board-and-
batten siding, and door opening that communicate its historic use are preserved; the
building will continue to visually read as an accessory carriage barn for the subject
property from the public way; and the proposed windows and doors are
proportionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing historic fabric; and the
subject resource is an accessory structure on the property and not the principle
historic structure.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed windows, doors
and skylights are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
of the property and its environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial
adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill
Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further,
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
16
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:
The exposed sections of formed concrete foundation shall have a natural stone
veneer, with the specific stone product to be review by ILPC staff;
The carriage barn shall not be moved 5’ to the north; and
All exterior design changes, including those resulting from subsequent building
code, site plan, and zoning reviews, shall be submitted to the ILPC for review.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: A. Smith
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, A. Smith, E. Finegan, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: S. Stein, M.M. McDonald
Absent: 0
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.
Mary Tomlan, City Historian, submitted the following comment in writing and asked it be read
into the record by staff:
“I support the ILPC statement for historical and political reasons.
“I hope there will be a presentation to the BPW with more information/ documentation of
‘green’ benefits.
“The historical development and promotion of masonry paving is significant, especially
in light of transportation modes in use in the late 19th Century – street railway and
bicycles, specified in contemporary newspapers regarding brick.”
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
17
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the
public comment period.
III. OLD BUSINESS
Stewart Avenue, East Hill Historic District – Brick Paving Discussion and Resolution
The ILPC next considered a resolution regarding repair and maintenance and repair of remnant
brick and masonry streets for submittal to the BPW and Common Council.
RESOLUTION: Continued Repair and Maintenance of Remnant Brick and Masonry Streets
WHEREAS, Stewart Avenue is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section
228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State
and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and
WHEREAS, remnant brick and masonry streets, such as found on sections of Stewart Avenue, West
State Street, East State Street and Ferris Place represent a finite historic resource
available to the general public, and
WHEREAS, remnant sections on Stewart Avenue and Ferris Place are an important character-defining
feature of the East Hill Historic District and provide a physical representation of the
affluence, influence, and prestige of the neighborhood during the late 19th century and the
achievements of the City’s first mayor, David B. Stewart, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council adopted a Green New Deal on June 5, 2019, establishing goals to
address climate change and the community’s adverse impacts on the environment, and
WHEREAS, brick and masonry paving materials have several environmental and economic
advantages over asphalt paving that would complement the objectives of the Green New
Deal; advantages include a semi-permeable surface that reduces stormwater runoff,
greater durability and reduced long-term maintenance requirements, long life expectancy,
a smaller contribution to the heat island effect, a smaller carbon footprint, and reduced
consumption of and reliance on fossil fuels, and
WHEREAS, Common Council endorsed a request to the State of New York to amend Vehicle and
Traffic Law Title 8, Article 38, Section 1643 to allow all communities to establish a city-
wide speed limit as low as 25 miles per hour in March 2019. The intent of the requested
change was to improve pedestrian safety in the City, and
WHEREAS, masonry paved streets act as pieces of traffic calming infrastructure, improving
pedestrian safety by reducing vehicle speeds, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council adopted resolutions in October 1986 and October 1984 (copies
attached) establishing the City’s policies concerning retention and reimplacement of brick
and masonry paving materials, and
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
18
WHEREAS, the policies include the following key points:
Prioritize the retention and reimplacement of brick and masonry paving on local
streets and appurtenances within National Register listed or eligible historic districts
or on which National Register buildings are located;
Prioritize the retention and reimplacement of brick and masonry paving on local
streets and appurtenances within locally-designated historic districts or proposed
districts;
That all utility and other openings are required to be repaired with identical historic
brick and stone paving materials and reimplacement techniques;
That Department of Public Works personnel would be cross trained to
repair/maintain such streets and appurtenances, ensuring the brick laying skill
remains within the department;
That annual maintenance scheduled be included in the Department of Public Works’
work program, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-12 of the Municipal Code, all changes to City-owned
property affecting an individual landmark or within an historic district are subject to
the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance unless “there exists…a substantial hazard
to public health, safety or welfare” and immediate remedial action is required, and
WHEREAS, recent repairs to Stewart Avenue have not been in keeping with the City’s policies, most
notably the overlay of brick paving in the 100 and 200 blocks with asphalt in May 2019,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission requests
that the Board of Public works (BPW) continue its previous practice of repairing new
cuts and openings with identical historic brick and stone paving materials and
reimplacement techniques and include the regular maintenance and systematic restoration
of surviving masonry streets in the Department’s work program, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ILPC respectfully requests that the BPW give particular
attention to remnant brick and masonry streets within the East Hill Historic District, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ILPC respectfully requests that Common Council consider
including policies as part of the Green New Deal that encourage the retention,
reimplacement and restoration of brick- and masonry-paved streets in the City.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: D. Kramer
In Favor: S. Gibian, K. Olson, A. Smith, E. Finegan, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
Approved by ILPC: 13, August 2019
19
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Annual Retreat/ Sexual Harassment Training
B. McCracken said he is still working on setting up a time for the ILPC members to meet at the
Argos warehouse space to take the training together as a group.
He also said that Sustainability Coordinator Nick Goldsmith will probably attend for a portion of
the meeting to discuss the Green Building Policy.
VII. Approval of Minutes
The June 11, 2019 minutes were unanimously approved with no modifications.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. by unanimous consent.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission