HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-09-10Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — September 10, 2019
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
Katelin Olson, Member
Absent:
Megan McDonald, 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 5:34 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 408 Stewart Avenue, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Reconstruct the East
Porch, Including New Railings, Decking, Brackets and Roof Details; Reconstruct the
East and South Retaining Walls, with Changes in Design and the Addition of Metal
and Concrete Railings; and Replace Rear Wood Exit Stair with Metal Stairs and
Railings.
Architect Jagat Sharma and owner Jim Goldman appeared in front of the Commission to present
their proposal to replace retaining walls, and make exterior renovations at 408 Stewart Avenue.
The applicant proposed removing the existing dry laid stone retaining walls with poured concrete
capped with bluestone. Also proposed is to replace the wooden exit stair in the rear with a metal
stair.
Applicants also want to remove the vinyl siding on the first floor façade and replace it with
HardieBoard and remodel the front entry porch.
J. Sharma said they want to present their proposal at this meeting for feedback, and then return
the following month with a final design and materials samples, etc.
Owner J. Goldman said they want to replace the wooden stairs in the back with metal ones for
improved fire safety. The retaining walls need to be replaced because they are currently moving
(albeit slowly) and the reason for the proposed façade work is to improve the appearance of the
building in the context of the two new buildings next door (rebuilt after a fire). They are
proposing a small overhang along the front of the building to create a unifying look across the
first floor of all three buildings.
D. Kramer asked how to proceed given that nothing they are looking at on the building at 408
Stewart Ave is original, save for the retaining walls.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
2
K. Olson said that after the fire, it was proposed to designate this building a non-contributing
structure, but the Commission voted to retain it. She said that it had been inappropriately (and
without permitting or approval) been clad in vinyl siding, but even so, it retained the massing,
size, scale, and visible composition of materials underneath. Further, she said that the fire
exposed the fact that the clapboard still exists under the vinyl. She said she would be wary of
accepting the proposition that the building doesn’t retain any historic value. She said she thinks
the Commission needs to consider what historic materials might still exist – whether they can see
them or not. She said the siding did take away some distinctive elements of the building, but
maybe not completely; we just don’t know.
Chair E. Finegan referred to the photo included and said that it looks like the building underwent
significant changes even before the siding was applied.
B. McCracken said that those changes weren’t necessarily uncommon in the historic district. He
said that he thinks this building was constructed either as a boarding house or student housing,
and as demand for student housing increased, many buildings were enlarged as this one was. He
said the blue form notes that the building probably once had a gabled front, and at some point in
the early 20th Century, that was raised to create a flat roof line and a truly occupiable third floor.
He said that while we don’t know exactly when those changes occurred, it’s likely that they
happened during the District’s period of significance. He said that the changes reflect how East
Hill was a desirable neighborhood in which to live for both people who worked at Cornell as
well as for students, and how the buildings changed over time to meet increased demand for
housing.
S. Gibian said it looks like the section next to the porch with two windows and the two windows
above it was the part that had a gabled roof on it, and it looks like they filled in the second floor
when they added the third floor.
K. Olson agreed and said it was believed to have been a Queen Anne, so that would make sense.
S. Gibian said he really doesn’t have a problem with the proposal, except for all the details to be
determined – stonework, railings, bollards, brackets. He said that the building originally belled-
out at the top of the first floor windows and by extending the porch roof across the front, they are
changing that, which perpetuates something that was never there previously. He asked how the
applicant proposed to treat the south end, if they intend to wrap the roof around the corner and
return it or just chop it off. He also asked if they could provide details on the stone caps.
K. Olson said that at 406 Stewart Ave, they continued the first floor roof detail all the way
around the building
S. Gibian asked if the 4-by-4 posts would be wrapped and if the brackets would be solid, rather
than open brackets. He also said that he hoped the new bollards would be painted rather than
encased in a plastic sleeve like what’s there now. He asked if they will be steel pipe filled with
concrete.
Applicants said yes.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
3
K. Olson asked if the existing stone foundation would be retained.
Applicants said yes, repaired and repointed.
K. Olson asked if the retaining wall could be rebuilt using the existing material.
J. Sharma said no, it would be replaced with a concrete wall faced with stone to resemble the
existing.
K. Olson asked if the existing stone could be repurposed as cladding.
J. Sharma said yes, he thinks so.
K. Olson said retaining as much of the original as possible would be her preference.
S. Gibian said that the existing stones are probably about 12 inches thick, and for a veneer you
would want them to be around 4 inches thick.
K. Olson said she has had bluestone cut before. It depends on the quality of the material.
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 K. Olson.
K. Olson asked if there has been any investigation into the condition of the clapboard existing
under the vinyl siding.
Applicants said no.
K. Olson said she thinks that should be assessed. She thinks they should investigate what is
under there and what kind of condition it is in before moving ahead with replacing it.
J. Sharma said that if they remove the siding and find that the clapboard is in good shape
underneath, they could restore it.
S. Gibian said he had tried to find the clapboard under the vinyl but could not.
Applicants said they would check to see if the clapboard is able to be restored before replacing it
with Hardieboard.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
4
S. Stein asked if they could re-use the stone for the retaining wall.
J. Goldman said they could use it decoratively but not structurally. He said they could continue
to repair it, as they have been doing, but to really correct the issue of movement in the wall, they
would need to replace what’s there with a poured concrete retaining wall.
K. Olson said that in instances where there is enough space, an owner could excavate around the
wall and construct a functional retaining wall alongside, but leave the existing structure in place,
but here it doesn’t seem like there is sufficient space to allow for that.
B. McCracken said that that has been proposed as a solution elsewhere but no, it doesn’t seem
like there is enough room to do that here.
Chair E. Finegan asked what the Commission members thought about the porch detailing, and he
asked B. McCracken what they are considering here.
B. McCracken said that the Commission is considering the concept today and would be looking
at specific materials samples at a subsequent meeting.
S. Gibian said that the exposed 4-by-4 posts would not be acceptable, and he suggested the
applicants propose wrapping them, especially if adding brackets to them.
J. Sharma agreed.
D. Kramer said that if they are going to do this much work, he thinks they ought to consider the
possibility of removing the vinyl siding entirely, at least from the front façade.
J. Goldman said it’s a thought but said he’s concerned that if you re-did the front but left vinyl
three-quarters of the way around, what you’re left with might be worse.
K. Olson said that the vinyl siding will reach the end of its useful life at some point, so anything
that is done should keep in mind what’s going to come after the vinyl. She said that the project
should be done in such a way as to allow for the future replacement of that vinyl.
S. Gibian said that he’s concerned with the proposed roof running along under the windowsills
because it could in the future prevent the façade from being put back the way it used to be before
the vinyl siding was applied.
K. Olson said she wonders if there is a way to carry forward with a design that mimics the
original and would allow it the building to be put back to its original condition in the future. She
said that in the current proposal, it looks like the roofline of the porch is lower than the original.
M.M. McDonald said it looks like there was an extra piece of trim added to the window, and it
seems like it wasn’t there originally, and then when it was encased in vinyl, the porch ceiling
was dropped even lower.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
5
K. Olson said that she recommends (at a minimum) replacing the porch ceiling. She asked what
the other ILPC members think about the extension of the roof, noting that something sort of like
that existed, but not exactly because it was the bell, not a roof.
A. Smith said that as long as there’s vinyl siding on the building, it won’t be possible to re-create
the bell.
M.M. McDonald said that whatever they approve, down the line when the vinyl does come off,
it’s not going to recreate the shingled bell look.
K. Olson said that’s true unless they opt for a restoration. She said adding the roof isn’t truly
reversible at that point.
Chair E. Finegan asked if anyone had any questions or concerns.
S. Gibian asked if everyone was okay with the exposed concrete on the inside of the retaining
walls. He said there is no real outside to the retaining walls, just a stone cap.
A. Smith said that if it’s not visible from the street, it’s not exactly a part of the façade, but it
seems like from the street, you will be able to look down along the wall.
J. Goldman said it sees like it would be most visible to the residents of the apartment.
S. Gibian said the proposal also calls for re-setting the stone pavers. He asked if that is still the
plan.
J. Sharma said yes.
S. Gibian said it looks like there’s no drain there currently. He said it’s surprising that it doesn’t
fill up with water.
Applicants said that it drains remarkably well now, but they were planning on adding a drain.
K. Olson asked about the cap on the retaining wall.
Applicants said they would use stone, as is currently there.
K. Olson asked about what they were doing in the rear.
J. Goldman said he wants to replace the wooden fire stairs with metal. He said that his desire to
improve safety inspired the rest of the proposed work on the façade, as he noticed the retaining
walls were moving and in need of repair too.
S. Gibian asked if, as it’s a multi-family residence, all the railings have to be 42 inches above
grade. He said they appear to be drawn lower than that.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
6
J. Sharma said they would be around 44 inches high.
S. Gibian said it does look like they are drawn lower, and meeting that requirement could greatly
change the appearance of the façade.
D. Kramer began reading the resolution, but K. Olson raised some concerns about the precedent
of approving the proposal with so many unknowns. Other Commission members agreed.
Applicants agreed to return at a future date with final design drawings for consideration.
Resolution ~ TABLED ~
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Chair E. Finegan next opened the public comment period.
Susan Holland, executive director of Historic Ithaca spoke about the Chacona Block
redevelopment proposal. She said they had sort of anticipated the move to redevelop the site. She
said the Historic Ithaca Advocacy Committee had met earlier in the day and is preparing a
response. She said one of their primary concerns is ensuring the Collegetown Design Guidelines
are applied. She said the project is on the agenda for the September 24th Planning Board meeting,
and they will be submitting comments in advance of that meeting. She asked the ILPC members
to also submit their comments as the Planning Board considers the proposal.
S. Holland also commented on the fire at 409 E. Buffalo Street. She said some people from
Historic Ithaca had looked at the building recently, and the house appeared to them at that time to
be vacant. They had hoped to possibly get involved in a restoration effort, and were very
saddened to learn of the damage to the building and loss of life in the recent fire.
Steve Wolf of 608 E. Seneca Street (East Hill Historic District) spoke about an issue with a
neighbor who has had several significant construction projects ongoing but not active for a
period of 5 to 7 years now. He said this property owner has had a lift truck parked out in front of
a house at the corner of Schuyler and E. Buffalo for approximately 5 years, he’s had orange
construction fence up for 3 years now on the former location of a stone retaining wall he took
down as it was in danger of collapsing, and has not had any front steps on a third property since
removing them 7 years ago. He asked the ILPC what tools are available to move him along on
completing the work. He said he’s called the owner repeatedly and had civil discussions with
him. The owner insists his slowness is a result of his attention to detail, but Wolf says he thinks
there must be some problem preventing him from moving forward. He said he doesn’t want to be
too hard on the guy, but he wants to encourage him to move forward.
B. McCracken said the retaining wall was removed at the request of the Superintendent of Public
Works, who deemed it unsafe as it was at risk of falling onto the sidewalk. He said that the
owner’s permit has expired if the owner applied for it shortly after the wall was removed. He
said the other projects have either had their permits extended or those permits have expired. He
said that with respect to what tools are available, the said the Landmarks ordinance has an
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
7
affirmative maintenance provision, but that is a punitive way to get compliance, and it is often
met with a lot of resistance. He said clearly Wolf wants to try to stay on good terms with his
neighbor, but if the Commission wants to take a look at the projects and determines that that’s
the approach they want to take, they can draft a letter to the City Attorney requesting he take
action.
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the
public comment period.
III. OLD BUSINESS
The Clinton House, 116 North Cayuga Street, Clinton Block Historic District ― Proposal
to Replace Metal Railings and Metal Screens on the East Elevation.
B. McCracken provided an update to the proposal and shared materials samples with the ILPC.
He said that Director of Code Enforcement Mike Niechwiadowicz is allowing the rails between
the piers on either end to be at 36 inches, but he is requiring the sections between the columns to
be 42 inches tall and have pickets every 4 inches. He said that any type of commercial use of the
building would require it.
A brief question and answer session with applicant Sara Hayes followed.
The ILPC members requested that B. McCracken draft a memo to M. Niechwiadowicz
requesting that he consider making all the railings 36 inches tall.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by M.M. McDonald.
WHEREAS, The Clinton House at 116 North Cayuga Street is located within the Clinton Block
Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code in 1980, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, dated July 19, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Sarah Hayes on behalf of property
owner The Historic Clinton House of Ithaca, LLC, including the following: (1) two
narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for
Changes(s); (2) eight sheets of photographs documenting existing conditions and the
proposed design details; and (3) two sheets of shop drawings by AccuFab illustrating
the designs for proposed alterations, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
The Clinton House at 116 North Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s Clinton
Block Historic District Summary Statement, and
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
8
WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves
replacing twelve metal railings on the east portico, with changes in design, 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 August 13, 2019, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and
the proposal:
The period of significance for the area now known as the Clinton Block is identified
in the City of Ithaca’s Clinton Block Historic District Summary Significance
Statement as 1868-1919.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the Clinton
House at 116 North Cayuga Street was constructed in 1828 and 1830 as a hotel/inn
in the transitional Federal/Greek Revival Style.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Clinton Block Historic District
and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Clinton Block 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
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
9
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 replacement of the
metal railings 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 metal railings 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 Clinton
Block 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 applicant shall submit shop drawings for the proposed metal railings for
consideration by the Commission at a future meeting;
The applicant and ILPC staff shall request a review of the Building Code for the
proposed height of the four sections of railing beneath the portico, with a
request to lower the height from 42” to 36” based on site conditions.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: M.M. McDonald
In favor: M.M. McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, A. Smith, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Opposed: 0
Absent: 0
Abstain: 0
Recuse: 0
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
10
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.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Chacona Block Redevelopment Proposal
McCracken noted that redevelopment plans for the Chacona Block have been put forward. He
said that its eligibility for listing on the National Register will come into consideration during the
environmental review.
Fire at 409 E. Buffalo Street
B. McCracken said the house was originally constructed as a Greek Revival but was significantly
renovated based on a design by William Henry Miller. Local philanthropist and architect Henry
Hinckley lived there.
D. Kramer said one of the founders of Wells College lived there prior to that.
B. McCracken said that the fire started in the rear of the home last night. He said the rear of the
building was significantly damaged, but the extent of overall damage is unknown. He said he
walked the building with M. Niechwiadowicz earlier in the day, but he wasn’t sure the extent of
the damage. He said that he would have to have a structural engineer look at it to determine if it
can be saved or if it needs to be demolished.
Ferris Place Paving
B. McCracken said that at some point in the last year the City paved Ferris Place, the last
cobblestone street in the City. He said no approvals or review by the ILPC had been sought.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by D. Kramer, the August 13, 2019 minutes were
unanimously approved with the following modifications:
Page 1, fourth paragraph, delete the word “nest.”
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
National Alliance of Preservation Commissions CAMP Training
Several sessions will be offered around Upstate New York in October. B. McCracken distributed
a flyer and reminded the members that the Planning Department would cover the registration
cost.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
11
2019 ILPC Retreat – September 17, 2019 at 5:15 PM to 7:00 PM at the Argos Warehouse
Lounge
VII. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan adjourned the meeting at
7:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission