HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-11-12Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
1
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes — November 12, 2019
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice Chair
Stephen Gibian, Member
M.M. McDonald
Avi Smith, Member
Susan Stein, Member
Donna Fleming, Common Council
Liaison
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Anya Harris, City of Ithaca staff
Absent:
Katelin Olson, Member
Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 115 Llenroc Court, University Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace Three
Non-Historic Casement Windows With Two Double-Hung Windows on the Primary
(north) Elevation.
Drew Watson appeared on behalf of the applicant Maria Maynard of Ashley Management (on
behalf of Cornell University Real Estate). He said that the proposal is to replace three fixed pane
windows with a pair of double-hung Andersen wood windows to meet egress requirements so the
room can be used as a bedroom. He said they have revised their initial proposal to use vinyl
replacement to be wood instead, as it has come to their attention that vinyl would not be
approved.
S. Gibian said he isn’t confident that what’s being proposed will meet the minimum square
footage required for egress in the code.
M.M. McDonald asked if the windows would have muntins.
D. Watson said yes.
S. Gibian asked if they would be simulated divided lights.
D. Watson said yes, they would be grills between the glass.
A. Smith asked about pictures.
Applicant referenced a spec sheet from the manufacturer.
B. McCracken referred the Commission members to the design guidelines which require true
divided lights, not simulated, as proposed. He said applied dividers can be considered on a case
by case basis.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
2
M.M. McDonald said that she wonders if by mimicking the windows on the main house, if it
might lead people to mistake the converted porch for an original feature of the building. She said
another option might be for the new windows to have no dividers.
S. Gibian asked if the intent is to have the new windows fit within the existing casing.
D. Watson said yes, the intent is to not have to mess with the exterior around the window.
Chair E. Finegan asked what members think about the divided lights.
D. Kramer said that the enclosed porch clearly a later addition, and not original, so he thinks the
divided lights will look alright.
S. Stein said she doesn’t think people will confuse the new with the original windows.
M.M. McDonald said it’s difficult to know without a drawing showing dimensions.
S. Gibian said he’s not sure the 200 Series of Andersens are even available with a simulated
divided light as submitted. He said he has problems with the application because it did not
include drawings of current conditions or proposed conditions, and no spec sheet or samples
were submitted either. He said he doesn’t think this proposed project will even meet code (egress
requirements), and if that’s the case, they will have to propose something significantly larger.
M.M. McDonald said not having any dimensions is a problem.
S. Gibian asked if the new would match the existing casements, the existing double-hung
windows on the first story or the second story. He said it’s a very confusing application.
S. Gibian said that all the other windows in the house have a heavy trim board at the top, and if
you really wanted to do this sensitively, you would put in a 4-inch header and rebuild the casing
with 4-inch instead of 2-inch casing. He said the current proposal seems to be to do the bare
minimum, but he’s not even sure it will provide the egress required by code.
S. Stein asked if he would suggest a larger window.
S. Gibian said he thinks they are going to have to look at that. He said existing windows on the
main house are 30 by 30 inches, and those are starting to get big enough to meet egress
requirements. He said if you took that approach, you could begin to match the window heights to
the main façade, but that would require more work. He said one larger window might meet the
requirements, and the bedroom might be easier to furnish too.
S. Stein echoed S. Gibian’s concern.
A. Smith said that if the proposed windows won’t meet code, he likes S. Gibian’s suggestion to
match the size and trim of older windows.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
3
Public Hearing
On a motion by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein, Chair E. Finegan opened the Public
Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M.M. McDonald.
D. Kramer said that given that the addition (presumably a porch) is fairly well differentiated
from the main house, he doesn’t have a problem with having a different type of window there. If,
however, it’s not approved by the Building Department, and comes back to the ILPC, he said he
would support S. Gibian’s suggestion.
M.M. McDonald said she would like to see a drawing that includes all the measurements because
she would like to know how they would do the install if the new windows don’t exactly match
the existing opening.
The ILPC requested updated drawings showing all dimensions and spec sheets for the proposed
replacement windows. They also asked the applicant to confirm with the Building Division that
the proposed windows would meet the egress requirements in the Code before returning.
Resolution ~ TABLED ~
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Chair E. Finegan next opened the public comment period.
There being members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the public
comment period.
III. OLD BUSINESS
First Presbyterian Church, 315 North Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District –
Proposal to Install an Illuminated 42- by 50-inch Glass and Metal Sign Cabinet on the
North Elevation.
B. McCracken said they had a site visit a few weeks prior. Several members asked if the sign
could be installed in the ground in order to avoid damage to the historic stone. He said that he
spoke with the zoning administrator and the staff person who administers the sign ordinance.
Both said that if installed that way they think it should still be considered a wall sign under the
ordinance.
Suzanne Scholtoen appeared on behalf of First Presbyterian Church to present updates to the
proposed sign. She confirmed that they had decided they want to have the sign standing on legs
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
4
rather than mounted to the wall. She said they had confirmed with their electrician that it would
be no problem to run any wiring for lights up a leg instead of through the back.
ILPC members expressed support for the modified plan because it will result in no damage to the
building and it would be completely reversible in the future.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M.M. McDonald, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, First Presbyterian Church, 315 North Cayuga Street, is located in the DeWitt Park Historic
District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971,
and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness dated September 10, 2019 was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Susanne Scholten on behalf of property
owner First Presbyterian Church of Ithaca, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two
renderings of the proposed project; (3) product specifications for proposed materials; (4) a
site plan showing the location of the proposed project; and (5) a scope of work from an
electrician for the installation of the proposed product, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC conducted a Site Visit at the subject property on October 22, 2019 to examine the
proposed sign and installation location, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for the
First Presbyterian Church, 315 North Cayuga Street and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park
Historic District Summary Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the installation of a free-standing, illuminated,
42”X50”, metal cabinet sign adjacent to the north elevation of the church, 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 Certificate
of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on October 10,
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 DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the DeWitt Park Historic District is 1820-
1930.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
5
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 315 North Cayuga
Street was designed in the Richardsonian Romanesque Revival Style by noted New York
City architect J. Cleveland Cady and was constructed in 1900. It is the third church structure
to occupy the site.
Constructed within the period of significance of the DeWitt Park Historic District and
possessing a high level of architectural integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
DeWitt Park 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 proposed sign 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 sign is compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The
ILPC notes the constraints of the site in considering the appropriateness of the sign’s back
lighting. The sign will be placed in a narrow (approximately 12” to 18” wide) strip of grass
between the public sidewalk and the building. The building’s highly rusticated stone surface
requires the sign to stand off the building approximately 4” to 6”, placing it in the
approximate middle of the narrow strip of grass. The use of traditional gooseneck lighting
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
6
in this location would likely result in the light’s arm projecting over the public sidewalk,
potentially creating a hazard to pedestrians on this heavily travelled thoroughfare. The
proposed internal illumination creates a subtle, not glaring, glow behind the organization’s
name and washes the materials placed in the cabinet below it.
With respect to Standard #10, proposed sign 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 findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect
on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the First Presbyterian Church at 315
North Cayuga Street and the DeWitt Park 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 the
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: 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.
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 appeared in front of the Commission to present updates to the proposed
façade restoration project. He showed revised drawings and detailed changes to the proposal.
M.M. McDonald asked if the wooden siding is in such poor condition that it can’t be restored,
would B. McCracken feel comfortable approving it at the staff level.
B. McCracken said no, he would prefer it go back to the full Commission. He then asked about
the porch floor.
Sharma answered that the current wood floor would be restored.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
7
B. McCracken asked if the soffit could be solid wood instead of plywood.
Sharma said it could.
B. McCracken asked if the bead board on the porch roof could be restored.
Sharma said yes, but if it is not real bead board (metal instead), they would replace it with wood.
S. Gibian asked if the proposal is still for poured concrete retaining walls with stone caps on top.
Sharma said yes.
B. McCracken said a small portion of the concrete wall would be visible from Stewart Avenue.
He asked Sharma how large that would be.
Sharma said they would try to keep it to 4 inches tall or less.
RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 408 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, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 23, 2019, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jagat Sharma on behalf of property owner James L.
Goldman, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of
Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a Project Narrative dated August 23,
2019; (3) eight sheets of architectural drawings dated August 23, 2019 and titled “Survey,
Existing Street Façade” (A100), “Existing Photos – Front Façade” (A101), “Existing Photos
– Retaining Walls” (A102), Existing Photos – Rear Exit” (A103), “Basement Plan” (A104),
“First Floor Plan” (A105), “Renderings” (A106), and “Proposed Street Façade” (A107), and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 408
Stewart Avenue, 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: the
rehabilitation of the east porch, including the replacement of roofing materials, railings, and
steps and the installation of decorative wood brackets; the replacement of deteriorated stone
retaining walls and steps on the east and south elevations; the construction of stone-clad
concrete piers and installation of metal railings on the east façade; the removal of vinyl siding
on the first story of the east façade and the restoration of the wood siding beneath; the
installation of metal guardrails and bollards on the south elevation; and replacing a wood-
framed rear exit stair with a steel-framed exit structure, and
WHEREAS, the original proposal was reviewed by the ILPC at their regularly scheduled meeting on
September 10, 2019, at which time the application was tabled to allow the applicant time to
conduct additional research and prepare supplemental materials, and
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
8
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted supplemental materials for consideration by the ILPC on October
24, 2019, including (1) a project narrative titled “408 Stewart Avenue, Ithaca, NY, Proposed
Exterior Renovations” and dated October 24, 2019, and thirteen sheets of architectural
drawings dated October 24, 2019 and titled “Survey, Existing Street Façade” (A100),
“Existing Photos – Front Façade” (A101), “Existing Photos – Retaining Walls” (A102),
Existing Photos – Rear Exit” (A103), “Basement Plan” (A104), “First Floor Plan” (A105),
“Second Floor Plan” (A106), “Third Floor Plan” (A107), “South Retaining Wall” (A201),
“East Retaining Wall” (A202), “Porch Detail, Materials” (A203), Renderings (R01) and
“Proposed Street Façade” (R02), 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 September
10, 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 New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 408 Stewart Avenue
was constructed between 1890 and 1907
Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and
possessing a fair level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill
Historic District.
At some point between 1975 and 1992, gray vinyl siding was installed over the property’s
wood clapboard and shingle siding. Some of the primary facades architectural details were
removed, as well.
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: 10, December 2019
9
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 rehabilitation of the porch,
replacement of the retaining walls, installation of metal railings and guardrails, and
replacement of the rear wood exit stair with a steel structure will not remove distinctive
materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property.
With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the submitted photographs, the
severity of the deterioration of the retaining walls requires their replacement. The publically
visible proposed new work will visually match the old in design, color, texture, material and
other visual qualities.
Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed metal railings and
guardrails 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 408 Stewart Avenue
and the East Hill 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: 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
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
McGraw Hall, Cornell Arts Quad Historic District – Rehabilitation Project Introduction
and Discussion
Margaret Carney, Cornell University architect, and Carmen Menocal and Miriam Kelly of Beyer
Blinder Belle Architects and Planners, appeared in front of the ILPC to present a proposal to
stabilize and renovate McGraw Hall. The masonry walls are pushing out and voids are opening
up between the outer and inner wythes. Bracing has been applied to the outside to prevent the
outer walls from collapsing outward. The proposal is to stabilize the walls by filling the voids
with grout and pinning the walls together. The interior would be completely removed and
replaced with a steel frame structure, to which the exterior walls would be pinned. The basement
level would be excavated to house building mechanicals. The addition of entrance ramps and an
elevator would make the building accessible. The proposal also involves a slight modification to
the line of the hipped roof. Applicants said they are still exploring how to address the windows,
which are quite large and quite deteriorated.
S. Stein said their solution for the entry ramp is clever.
S. Gibian asked if greenspace would be retained between the ramp and the basement windows to
allow light to come in.
Applicants said yes.
D. Kramer asked what possible repairs to the windows they were considering.
Applicants said they were looking at a range of options, from – at one end of the spectrum –
retaining existing glazing and repairing the wooden frames and sashes and adding storm
windows to – at the other end of the spectrum – installing replacements while trying to retain as
much of the existing character as possible. Some of the existing frames have been reinforced in
the past, somewhat unsuccessfully, so the windows have presented challenges over time, but they
know it’s an important issue given the building’s location and prominence.
S. Gibian said that several years ago, Cornell replaced the wood windows in Sibley Hall with
new triple-glazed wood frame windows.
Applicants said that another unknown is the implication of leaving the windows in place while
they inject grout into the voids in the walls.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
11
S. Gibian asked if the goal is to bring the shell back to plumb.
Applicants said no, just to stabilize in place.
A. Smith said it’s an interesting project. He asked if there are any plans to salvage any of the
interior materials or architectural elements.
Applicants said they don’t know yet, and noted that the interiors were rather simple from the
beginning. There have been some discussions around possibly reusing some woodwork, stairs,
railings, etc., but they aren’t ready to determine that yet.
S. Gibian said that they only consider changes to the exterior, so it seems like the elevator
bulkhead, the addition of the accessible ramp, and the changes to the eave height would be their
primary concerns, as well as materials selections. He asked if they were proposing a standing
seam metal roof.
Applicants said yes.
S. Gibian asked what is on the roof currently.
Applicants said asphalt on the hip roof and ornamental slate on the mansard.
S. Gibian asked if they would retain the slate.
Applicants said they would replace the slate with new once they restructure the roof.
S. Gibian asked if they would save and re-install the existing dormers.
Applicants said that is their intention. They said they are also planning on removing the louvers
from the bell tower.
S. Gibian asked about the height of the elevator bulkhead.
Applicants said that was still being determined. They are studying it in more detail to determine
how tall it can be without causing visual impacts. They said they hope to figure out many of the
details in the next 5 or 6 months so they can return with more detailed plans.
The ILPC members thanked them for their time.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
2020 Meeting Schedule
B. McCracken said he wanted Commission members’ input on possibly switching the meeting
date from the second Tuesday of the month. He asked about their availability on and interest in
moving it to the third Wednesday.
Approved by ILPC: 10, December 2019
12
D. Kramer said he can’t do Wednesday because teaches until 7 p.m.
B. McCracken asked if they would like to keep it the same date, and said he would work with
them to find an alternate date if they would like.
He said he would prepare the 2020 schedule as well as present some possible alternate dates.
Members agreed that Tuesdays and Thursdays look the best for the group.
B. McCracken said they might have a working group in the new year to revise the CA
application to make the submission requirements clearer.
B. McCracken said he would have a year-end spreadsheet of all the staff level approvals he’s
done in 2019.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission