Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2019-12-10Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 1 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — December 10, 2019 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice Chair Stephen Gibian, Member M.M. McDonald , Member 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 Absent: None Chair E. Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. I. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS City of Ithaca Building Division employee Kristen Kwasnic appeared in front of the Commission to give a brief presentation on emergency preparedness and evacuation instructions for City Hall. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST Chair E. Finegan opened the public comment period. There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair E. Finegan closed the public comment period. III. NEW BUSINESS  The Sage Block, 137-139 E. State Street, Ithaca Downtown Historic District – Review of Proposed Exterior Alterations Pursuant to a Site Plan Approval Condition. Scott Selin of CJS Architects and Historic Preservation Architect Elise Johnson-Schmidt appeared in front of the Commission to present their proposal to replace the windows in the historic Sage Block. The proposal includes cleaning and re-pointing the façade, replacing the roof, and replacing the front windows and four of the windows on the west façade with aluminum clad wood windows designed to replicate the appearance of the historic ones and the remaining six of the 10 windows along the west side with four-over-four windows. E. Johnson-Schmidt explained that the second story windows are not original, but were replaced in the 1970s, so if they were to replace those with aluminum clad wood windows that replicate the appearance of the old, and restore the third-story original windows, the difference in appearance would be highly noticeable. She said the originals would be carefully stored and maintained safely in the basement so they can be used in the future as a reference. She said the Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 2 new windows should match the originals as closely as possible (with the difference being the thickness of the muntins). S. Gibian asked why they are proposing aluminum clad wood windows and not wood windows. E. Johnson-Schmidt said her firm does a lot of projects seeking historic preservation tax credits, which means they work closely with the National Parks Service and the State Historic Preservation Office, and using aluminum clad wood windows is now accepted by both of those organizations because from the inside, it looks like a regular wood window but from the outside, especially up on the second or third floor, you can’t really tell if it is wood or metal. She said the metal has the added benefit of giving the window a longer lifespan. S. Gibian asked S. Selin if the proposal was for simulated divided light windows. S. Selin said yes. S. Gibian asked then why the muntins have to be wider. E. Johnson-Schmidt said she didn’t know the proposal was actually for SDLs. S. Selin said there are options and they would consider true divided lights. E. Johnson-Schmidt said she would advocate for true divided lights because the shadow line it creates makes a significant difference. S. Gibian said that there are many points in the application where the claim is that the new would exactly match the existing, but he’s not sure that’s accurate. S. Gibian said it looked to him like the windows on the north side are set in more deeply than on the west. He said it looks like the windows are constructed with a lower sash and then a parting stop, and the upper sash recess and then another parting stop, then another sash width, and then the round brick molding. He said the drawing submitted doesn’t appear to have that same configuration, and the Marvin windows proposed don’t have the same profile. He said the proposal also looks like it calls for an aluminum half screen on the outside of the lower sash, and it seems like an aluminum screen on the outside of the upper sash would ruin the whole effect. S. Gibian also said that it seems like the setback of the new window would be greater than the existing, so it seems like more brick will be exposed. S. Selin said only on the sills, not on the jambs. S. Gibian said that the lug detail also won’t match the existing and that it seems like they would be trying to match the sizes and profiles of the existing windows, but it doesn’t seem like they have tried to do that here. He said he doesn’t think the proposed match the existing as closely as they could. He said that it probably wouldn’t matter if this was on the back of a house somewhere, but this is on the front of one of the nicest buildings on the Commons. He said he Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 3 thinks the three considerations they need to make are: 1. Are the windows so bad that they need to be replaced? 2. If so, what material should they be? and 3. How closely should the replacements match the originals? E. Johnson-Schmidt said that from the perspective of matching, she thinks it’s important to replace all the windows on the front so they all match one another. S. Selin said that the windows on the second floor that were replaced in the ‘70s were not well constructed. K. Olson said that it seems like the applicant is asking the Commission to prioritize the aesthetics of making the windows match over the integrity of the materiality of the original windows on the third floor. She asked if they are operable windows, and said that the letter they received from Ms. Kitson, she states the windows are in poor shape, but she doesn’t specify which windows, but it sounds like, from this conversation, the third floor windows are still intact. S. Selin said the windows are actually in pretty poor shape. K. Olson said it wasn’t entirely clear from the letters submitted. She also said that she can’t remember a case where they have approved a SDL and not a true divided light. She said she knows they have talked about it, but she can’t remember a case where they have approved them. She also asked for clarification on the location of the new sandstone belt course (note B on the drawings). S. Selin responded with where he thought it was, but said he would have to consult a photo and get back to her. K. Olson asked where they will be sourcing the replacement sandstone and limestone, and she asked where the limestone replacement would be happening. S. Selin said that some of the lintels are cracked and would need replacement, and there are possibly some missing sills as well. He indicated on the drawings where the ones needing replacement were located. K. Olson asked if the building was shifting. S. Selin said the building was jacked up at one point when they removed the brick wall at the first floor to open it up to the neighboring building, so while he’s not sure, the damage may have happened then. E. Johnson-Schmidt said that she has never seen this type of thing anywhere else (where two neighboring load bearing walls were just removed completely). She said that it’s pretty impressive that it hasn’t fallen down, as the steel structure is supporting the entire building. K. Olson said she would like to have staff approval of the limestone and sandstone replacement materials as a condition of approval. She also asked how much brick they anticipate replacing. Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 4 S. Selin said they anticipate mostly replacing the brick in the lower areas where it had been removed previously. He said some areas of the parapet would also need to be rebuilt, as the wall is leaning. He said the roof has a pretty good pitch to the south, and the parapet is probably around 4 feet tall at the back, and tapers to nothing at the front. He said their intent is to reuse as much brick as possible, and there is actually a lot of brick they recovered from the attic where it had been stored. S. Gibian asked about their plan for the decorative front cornice, and he asked what they are going to do behind it. S. Selin said it is currently a limestone cap, and it’s cracked and letting water into the parapet, so the plan is to replace it with a sheet metal coping. K. Olson asked if they are planning on replacing the roof at the same time. S. Selin said they were planning on it. K. Olson asked B. McCracken if they would review the roof as well. B. McCracken said no, it already has a built-up, non-historic roof, and that kind of replacement is typically handled at the staff level. S. Selin said that at some point the built-up roof failed and the owner had since replaced it with a rubber roof. K. Olson said she didn’t see any chimneys. S. Selin said yes, those are all gone. K. Olson asked how they were planning to clean the brick. S. Selin said they have to determine that with the contractor, but their goal is to do it with a minimum of damage to the brick. K. Olson suggested they work with B. McCracken to come to a decision on the cleaning method to be used. She also suggested that they consider putting in a pair of date markers, one with the original date of construction and another with the date of reconstruction. She said with the amount of non-historic/ simulated historic materials going into the renovated building, she wants to make it clear what people are looking at, in that while it is a Queen Anne building, not all of the materials are original. She said a lot of historic material will be lost in this project, and while a lot of that might seem inevitable, identifying it in a subtle fashion will help it read as an appropriate representative of two different time periods. E. Johnson-Schmidt said that with her background in both the public and private sectors, she wants to take a pragmatic approach, and that with respect to the windows, one of their concerns Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 5 is energy efficiency. She said that if there were more of the originals left to restore, she would recommend repairing them and using an interior storm insert, but she said there are not, and that is why she is recommending a double glazed window with true divided lights – and even if that’s not what was initially proposed, the applicant seems willing to go that route. She said that from a distance, the only difference between the original and a modern window made to replicate what was there is the thickness of the muntins, and they are not likely to be noticeably bigger, especially as they are so high up on the building. K. Olson said one of the reasons she is so concerned is that it sounds like the third floor windows could be restored. She said they have had numerous property owners come forward wanting to replace their windows, but we have determined that they could be repaired and have required them to do so. She said that one letter is saying that they need to be replaced, but it seems from this presentation that they possibly could be repaired, so which is it? E. Johnson-Schmidt said that with repairing them, you would end up with almost entirely new material, new sills, new rails, new stiles. She said she does not think you would end up with much historic fabric left. S. Selin said they are no longer operable and if you tried to open them, they would probably fall apart. E. Johnson-Schmidt said she does not think they are good candidates for restoration. K. Olson said she doesn’t think it would be fair to all the other applicants who have requested to install new but have been told they have to restore their historic windows to allow this proposal to proceed without being sure. She asked if they have to be operable. S. Selin said they would like them to be. He said the ones on the third story haven’t been maintained in a long time, as the upper floors have been vacant for 30-40 years. S. Stein asked about S. Gibian’s suggestion of using wooden windows. S. Selin said it’s something they could explore. He said they have done a lot of Historic Preservation Tax Credit projects and used aluminum clad wood windows like what they are proposing, and they were approved by the NPS and SHPO. E. Johnson-Schmidt said also because they will be up on the third story, the lower need for maintenance is a consideration. S. Stein also suggested they consider doing the ground floor storefront in wood, and she suggested they go look at the Mahogany Grill on Aurora Street for an example. D. Kramer said they could look right next door at the former Home Dairy. K. Olson asked if the original front was cast iron or wood. Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 6 B. McCracken said it was cast iron and referred the Commission members to the historic photos provided in their meeting materials. Chair E. Finegan asked if they were going to vote on this today. B. McCracken said yes, thay can if they feel like they have enough information, but if they have additional questions or would like to see additional materials, they can request that. S. Gibian said that with respect to the SDL question, he thinks they have approved the simulated previously. He said that with SDLs the muntins can be a little smaller too. He also observed that the originals look like they are held with putty. He said that he wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to SDLs. E. Johnson-Schmidt asked if he would want simulated dividers on outside and in and then spacer bars in between the panes. S. Gibian said yes. K. Olson said she doesn’t remember ever voting in favor of SDLs. S. Gibian said that for a project like this one, they would usually do a site visit. B. McCracken asked if the Commission members feel they have enough information to make a decision. He said he thinks they need to determine that before hammering out the details. M.M. McDonald said that if they move forward without additional information, they should note in the resolution that they have testimony and that the situation is unique in that access to the building is limited. A. Smith asked if it would be possible to get access. B. McCracken asked S. Selin if it would be possible to get access to the building. S. Selin said that could be arranged. B. McCracken asked if the Commission members feel they need a site visit. A. Smith said it’s hard to get a sense of how deteriorated they are from just one or two photos. S. Selin said he has more photos if that would help. S. Gibian said that if they are nailed shut, it’s going to be hard to see the exterior condition even with a site visit. Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 7 M.M. McDonald said that even if they do a site visit, they will also need to know what options are available on the market, so they can make materials recommendations and keep the process moving along. Chair E. Finegan asked the Commission members if they wanted a site visit. Several members said yes. S. Gibian said that from the inside, it would still be hard to determine what the outside conditions are. S. Selin said that when J. Kitson visited, they had a lift out front she was able to use to assess the outside of the third story windows, and LaChase had used it as well to take pictures as well. K. Olson said that it might be helpful if someone could go up and take additional photographs of the exterior as well. She said in other projects of a similar scale they have requested a window survey. S. Gibian said the ones on the west appear to be shot, so that means you’re down to the eight on the north, four of which were replaced in the ‘70s, so you’re really only considering the four on the third floor. K. Olson said that the condition of what’s going on with the third floor will determine what will happen on the second floor, as aluminum clad would stand out if the original wood windows could be repaired and remain. S. Gibian said he recently repaired some wood windows he had put in in the mid-‘80s, so maintenance can be an issue, and modern wood doesn’t seem to stand up as well as the old wood did. Chair E. Finegan asked about the question of SDLs versus true divided lights. B. McCracken said that they have approved SDLs in the past. He said they have never to his knowledge approved them for an entire building, but in cases where they approved them it was because of the smaller muntins, but it’s up to the Commission. Chair E. Finegan said S. Gibian seems to be in favor. K. Olson asked if he was okay SDLs on just the north or on both façades. S. Gibian said both. Chair E. Finegan asked what action, if any, they might be able to take at this point. B. McCracken said they could consider the proposal for the cornice, and the masonry, as well as staff approvals of materials (limestone, sandstone, brick, and the red mortar). He said that they Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 8 could consider the replacement of the windows on the west elevation as well (the six four-over- four) if they feel enough information has been provided. He asked if they want to move forward with the resolution tonight or wait for the results of the window survey. K. Olson said she would be in favor of approving as many things as possible then, so they aren’t re-covering old ground at the next meeting. D. Fleming departed the meeting at 6:47 p.m. The ILPC members next discussed the materials to be used for and the design of the storefront B. McCracken asked about the plan is for the stub wall towards the storefront. S. Selin said the plan is to remove it. It is not historic. It dates to the McDonalds era. B. McCracken asked what is behind it. S. Selin said it is the brick of the Home Dairy building. B. McCracken asked the Commission members if they want to vote tonight or if they want to wait until they receive more information on the windows. After some additional discussion, the Commission members agreed that they wanted to vote on everything but the windows, as the final determination on the Queen Anne windows would determine their decision on what materials and what divided light options should be used for the four-over-four more modern ones. Chair E. Finegan asked the applicant at what point they need final approval on their windows. S. Selin said as soon as possible. Chair E. Finegan asked how the Commission members want to handle this, and if they want to hold a special meeting. He noted that the January meeting isn’t scheduled until January 28th . B. McCracken said that scheduling another meeting earlier in January would be difficult for him, but he said he could see if he could find another staff member to attend. M.M. McDonald asked how quickly the applicant could supply the additional photos as requested. S. Selin said he thinks they could turn them around in as little as a week. K. Olson asked if others could be available for a slightly earlier meeting. She said she doesn’t think it will have to be a very long meeting once they have the additional materials in front of them. Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 9 After some discussion, the applicant agreed to try to get photos in by EOD December 12 (end of the week) in order for the Commission to hold a special meeting on Monday, December 16 at 5:00 p.m. S. Selin asked about what they wanted to see from the photographs. B. McCracken said an overall shot of the building with each window keyed, an overview shot of of each window, and then close-up shots with something in it for scale (such as a tape measure) justifying the window’s replacement (shots showing deflection or rot, and for shots showing rot, show something like a screwdriver probing the rotten window sill or trim). Chair E. Finegan asked if they wanted to read any of the resolution that day. B. McCracken said that if they are going to review photos the following week, they might just hold off and do the whole thing then. Resolution ~TABLED~ IV. OLD BUSINESS B. McCracken said that the East Hill Historic District property owner with several complaints against him for unpermitted work, expired permits, and the lift in his front yard has been contacted. The lift has been moved, and other issues are being addressed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by K. Olson and seconded by S. Stein, the September, October, and November 2019 meeting minutes were approved unanimously with the following modifications:  09/10/19 Page 1, strike references to “clad” and replace with “capped.” Page 3, fix the typo on the applicant’s name “J. Sharma” not “H. Sharma.”  10/10/19 Page 11, insert “block” at the end of K. Olson’s sentence “set the tone for the rest of the …”.  11/12/19 No modifications. Approved by ILPC: 19, March 2020 10 V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  2020 Meeting Schedule – Review and Discussion B. McCracken reviewed options to change the meeting schedule, with the option of moving it to the third Tuesday of the month. K. Olson said she now has a scheduling conflict with the second Tuesday. ILPC members agreed that the third Tuesday would work for them.  2019 Staff Approvals – Review and Discussion B. McCracken shared the list of his 2019 staff level approvals.  M.M. McDonald’s departure from the Commission M.M. McDonald said that due to her work with the County changing, she would no longer be able to be a member of the Commission (after next week’s special meeting). VII. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by S. Stein, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission