Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-08-13Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — August 13, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The Clinton House, 116 North Cayuga Street, Clinton Block Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Metal Railings and Metal Screens on the East Elevation. Sara Hayes appeared in front of the ILPC to present a proposal to replace some railings and sand and repaint several others. She referred the Commission to materials she submitted, which include pictures and a shop drawing of the proposed replacement railings. She said that at the last meeting, the ILPC requested that they try to have AccuFab restore the four decorative metal grates, but they weren’t able to get them in much better shape, and they aren’t confident of their long-term structural integrity even if they are dis-assembled and rebuilt into new frames. She said they are proposing instead to replace them with new grates built from stainless steel. She also showed the Commission members a prototype of the turned wood replacement baluster they are proposing for the roof (manufactured by ArtCraft). She said the masonry repairs approved at the last meeting have been moving forward, and the work is being inspected weekly by Preservation Planner B. McCracken. She also detailed a few changes to the proposed work that have been approved at the staff level, including removing the parging from a wall next to Hairy Canary, repointing it, and then deciding to leave the natural stone wall exposed, rather than re-parging it. S. Hayes also said that Elwyn & Palmer did a structural engineering report on the state of the steel under the portico and some of it was replaced when the stairs were replaced in 2017. She said they are now interested in doing the remainder of the needed repairs identified at that time, but none of it should be visible from the street, so ILPC approval should not be required. She also reported that they have removed all the planters from the porch, and those probably would not be returning. Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 2 D. Kramer asked if the designs for the railings would be as shown in the pictures provided. S. Hayes said they would do a radius corner on the rail to match the existing. S. Gibian asked if the bottom of the railing would be round or rectangular. S. Hayes said round. D. Kramer asked if anyone else is concerned about the size of the gap between the railings and the columns. S. Hayes said that Code Inspector Mary Brenner had okayed the drawings, but she would ask her to review the shop drawings again before they have the fabrication done. Public Hearing On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Christine O’Malley of Historic Ithaca said she doesn’t see any problems with the proposed railings, but she is concerned about the grates because they are on the façade. She said she doesn’t like to get into micro-curations with preservation projects, but she thinks the grates are integral to the original 19th Century façade and requested that the applicant explore other options for repairing them. She said that Historic Ithaca has worked with local blacksmith Durand Van Doren on projects at the City Cemetery and suggested that they have him look at the grates and determine if they might be repaired or replicated. She said that the sample of the stainless steel wire mesh that the applicant is proposing is very different in appearance (even if powder coated in black), especially the border edge with its very distinctive scrolls. She asked them to explore what possible options are out there. Suzy Kramer of 406 S. Cayuga Street said she appreciates all the repairs being made, but she is very concerned about the downspouts missing all around the building. She asked if the applicant has done anything to mitigate the water issues and also if they are going to move away from applying salt to melt the snow and ice, as it’s damaging the brick, especially in the alleyway. She also expressed support for C. O’Malley’s suggestion that the applicant reach out to D. Van Doren to inquire about the possibility of him restoring or replicating the grates. She said the grates are a major component of the façade, and the proposed replacements don’t resemble the existing. She also expressed concerns about the railing design, saying that the example pictured looks pre-fabricated and institutional, and the design will really detract from the façade. She said that it is her experience as an owner of historic properties that it is not difficult to obtain a variance for railings. Further, she said, the school has been there for many years, and they have not had problems with people falling through the existing railings. She suggested the applicant might pursue a variance to keep the look similar to what is there now. Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 3 There being no more 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 asked the applicant how they had measured to determine where guard rails would be needed. S. Hayes said from the sidewalk. S. Gibian said that he measured it, and the porch height was 32 inches, only 2 inches over 30, which is where guard rails become a requirement. He suggested that might be a starting point for requesting a variance (at least for the front sections along the sidewalk) for not meeting the 42- inch guard rail requirement, as well as for omitting the vertical pickets. D. Kramer said he has found photos of the building that indicate that while the grates are not original to the building, they date to at least 1905. He said that he thinks they have been there long enough to acquire significance and be considered part of the historic fabric. Chair E. Finegan asked how to proceed, and if the applicant should remove consideration of the grates from the proposal. B. McCracken said they could, and they had asked the applicant to look into alternatives for the grates the last time they appeared in front of the ILPC. He said that now the ILPC might provide more specific recommendations for where to go to look for assistance to restore the grates if possible. He said it’s up to the Commission what they want to do. B. McCracken said the period of significance for the Clinton Block Historic District is 1830 to 1901. D. Kramer said he thinks the building burned in 1901 and the grates date to the restoration that followed the fire. B. McCracken said that it is his understanding that that is why the period of significance was determined the way it was. He said that sounds like the Commission members have determined that the grates have achieved significance, and they are an important character-defining feature of the building. He said it looks like the next step is for the Commission to make suggestions to the applicant as to where to look for assistance with repairing them or replacing them in-kind. Chair E. Finegan asked how Commission members feel about the railings. S. Stein said that what’s proposed is such a slight change from what’s existing that maybe the applicant should apply for a variance. S. Gibian said it would probably require a variance from the Department of State. D. Kramer agreed. Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 4 B. McCracken said that the Building division is usually willing to grant variances for slight deviations from the code, but because this is in use as an educational facility, he’s not sure they will have the same lenience as they would for a residential property. He said he would work with the applicant to explore the possibility, but because the existing railings have deteriorated and need to be replaced, it is likely that the Building division will want to see the new railings brought up to code. S. Gibian said that one issue he noted is that the large masonry piers (three at the north end, and two at the south) are only 36 inches tall, so any new rails at 42 inches would stick up above them. Chair E. Finegan asked about the applicant’s desired timeline for completing the railing work. S. Hayes said that AccuFab requires about 6 weeks lead time to do the fabrication. She said she currently has chain link panels up to control traffic, but she said they are looking to get the work done as soon as possible. S. Gibian asked about the handrails that had been recently repainted. S. Hayes said they would be refinished in place. S. Gibian asked which ones would be replaced. S. Hayes said the ones going down to Hairy Canary and down to the basement on the north side would be replaced. D. Kramer asked if they were keeping the finials. S. Hayes said yes, the finials and also the claw tips were being preserved. Chair E. Finegan asked how the Commission wanted to proceed. He said it seems like the Commission members generally prefer the applicant further explore other options for the grates, and he asked how they felt about the railings. M.M. McDonald said that if they are asking the applicant to apply for a variance, she wonders if there is a fall back plan, so they can avoid dragging the process out for the applicant in the event it is denied (a conditional approval or referring it to staff, for example). S. Gibian said a Department of State variance can take about 3 months. D. Kramer said he just went through the process and it took about 2 months. He asked if that process wouldn’t also require City approvals. B. McCracken said he isn’t sure. He said that the City will document that something doesn’t meet code and then defer to the State. He said that for historic properties, there seems to be an Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 5 understanding that if something is 37-1/2 inches or above, they are pretty sure to receive a variance, but anything under that would have to be changed. He said the short answer is no, the City doesn’t approve anything in advance of the State. S. Gibian said a favorable recommendation from the City improves the likelihood of the State approving a variance request. D. Kramer said that in light of the building’s use as a school, the code inspector would probably prefer that the railings be up to code. S. Gibian asked if the proposed railing design is acceptable to the Commission. S. Stein asked if the new handrails would match the current. S. Hayes said the diameters would match. S. Gibian said it looks like the design includes a rectangular bottom rail. Chair E. Finegan asked if the Commission would be in favor of approving the proposed railings with the condition that the applicant seek a variance. B. McCracken said it seems like more work needs to be done on the proposal, in terms of both the grates and the railings, so rather than approving something that may or may not happen, he suggested they table the resolution. He said they could talk with the Building Division within the next day to see if a variance is possible. He said that it would be a good idea to give feedback on what has been proposed because if a variance isn’t approved, this is what will be moved forward. S. Gibian said one good thing about the proposed railing design is that it doesn’t engage the columns. The rounded corners mimics existing conditions. He said he thinks the bottom rail might look a little lighter if it were like 5/8- by 1-inch rectangular, rather than a tube. It would look less like a bike rack. He said he hopes the stainless steel fasteners prevent further damage being done to the stone. He said he doesn’t like the height of the proposed rails or the 4-inch on center balusters (both required by code). D. Kramer said he would be okay with the railing as proposed if needed. Applicant asked for clarification on what variance to request: height of rail or removal of the balusters, or both? After additional discussion, lowered height (36 inches) with balusters was suggested as a preferred option. RESOLUTION ~ Tabled ~ Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 6 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the public comment period. Suzy Kramer of 406 S. Cayuga Street said she feels very strongly about the Clinton House grates, and said that she thinks the repair would be a pretty easy thing for Durand Van Doren or another fabricator to do. She said that even if the grates don’t date specifically to the period of significance, people would appreciate that they be preserved. As for the railings, she said she still thinks they look institutional and would be a dominant feature in black across the front of the building. She also said that as for the building being used for a school, she said she thinks they are not supposed to consider the use of the building, which may change over time. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the public comment period, on a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by D. Kramer. III. OLD BUSINESS  Stewart Avenue, Stewart Avenue Paving, East Hill Historic District ― Update B. McCracken said that he would be presenting the resolution the ILPC had passed at the PEDC and at the BPW meetings. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, the July 9, 2019 minutes were unanimously approved with the following modifications:  Page 1, change “replace all the wooden trim” to “replace the deteriorated wooden trim.”  Page 6, change “34-inch existing opening” to “32-inch existing opening.”  Page 7, change “Llenroc” to “bluestone.” VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  ILPC Retreat Agenda Finalization Retreat scheduled for September 17. Nick Goldsmith would be attending and doing a Q&A session on the Green Building Policy. The second half of the retreat would be the Sexual Harassment training.  Ithaca City Cemetery cleanup is scheduled for September 17 at 9:30 a.m. Approved by ILPC: 10, September 2019 7 VII. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by M.M. McDonald, Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission