Loading...
MN-ILPC-2015-08-11Approved by ILPC: September 22, 2015 1 of 31 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)  Minutes – August 11, 2015 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Katelin Olson Stephen Gibian Jennifer Minner Michael McGandy Ellen McCollister (Common Council Liaison) Bryan McCracken, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 201 W. Clinton St., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Enlarge Ancillary Building Applicant Zac Boggs recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting he made minor changes to the proposal since the last Commission meeting. Although there was a suggestion at that first meeting that the carriage house be designed in Greek Revival style, to match the house, he wants to be able to maintain the mezzanine level at the roof line, and the Greek Revival style would not be compatible with that. The applicants now propose a design with a steeper pitch, almost Victorian in style, painted the same white color/shade as the house. The Commission also originally expressed concern the garage door was too modern-looking, so the applicants are now considering a wooden garage door, perhaps matching the front door of carriage house. Finally, the Commission originally expressed concern that the proposed structure would not be easily distinguishable enough as a new building in the Historic District; so the applicants will affix the date of construction to the front. The applicants do not currently have specifications for the windows and roofing material. They will submit them as soon as possible. The applicants also changed the garage windows to match the existing openings on the garage and added a triangle window in the gable. Overall, it is a very similar design to the one the Commission reviewed previously. D. Kramer indicated he likes the proposal more than the previous one. B. McCracken indicated a condition could be added to the resolution, requiring the applicant to return for either staff-level or full Commission approval of the materials and specifications for the windows, doors, and siding. J. Minner replied she is comfortable with that option, as long as the materials are compatible with the rest of the Historic District. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 2 of 31 RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 201 W. Clinton St. 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 July 2, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Zac Boggs and Isabel Fernandez, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a letter addressed to the ILPC from the property owners; (3) a property survey; (4) two photographs of existing conditions; (5) six photographs of carriage barns within the Henry St. John Historic District; (6) a proposed Site Plan; and (7) renderings depicting the completed project, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the Henry St. John Historic District for 201 W. Clinton St., 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 construction of a one-and-a-half-story addition on top of a non-contributing concrete- masonry-unit garage, 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 11, 2015, 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, 201 W. Clinton St. was constructed around 1835 and is a good example of a transitional Federal-Greek Revival style. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 3 of 31 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. The project under consideration impacts a non-contributing garage constructed sometime after 1961 and well outside of the district’s period of significance. The intent of the proposed addition to the garage is to give the building the appearance of being a carriage barn, which would be more in keeping with the character of the 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: 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. As a non-contributing concrete-masonry-unit garage at 201 W. Clinton St, by definition, does not possess historic materials or features that are subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is, therefore, limited to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures in the district and on the Henry St. John Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being that the proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non- contributing structure with its historic environment. With respect to Standard #9, the proposed addition to the non-contributing garage are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the Henry St. John Historic District. Also in keeping with Standard #9, the incorporation of a date placard and contemporary construction techniques will differentiate the proposed alterations to the garage from the surrounding historic fabric. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 4 of 31 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 applicant will return to the Commission for a staff-level review and approval of all exterior finish materials, including windows, doors, roofing and siding. • Any alterations to the design that result from other board approvals will be reviewed and approved by ILPC or its staff to ensure that the proposed addition remains compatible with Henry St. John Historic District. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: J. Minner Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein Vacancies: 0 B. 121 E. Buffalo St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Demolish a Garage Applicant Chad Doolittle recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting he bought the property earlier this year and has been working towards preserving it. Unfortunately, there is small garage in the rear that is beyond repair in his opinion (and in his contractor’s opinion). A large tree has grown into the building and deflected the wall. The combination of precipitation pouring into the rear and the natural freeze-thaw cycle has also caused some of the brick to collapse. Since there is no need for a garage on the property, he does not plan on replacing it; and he does not have the right to remove the tree. K. Olson asked if the applicant has ever been cited for using the structure. C. Doolittle replied, no. S. Gibian observed it appears to be another ‘demolition by neglect’ situation, since the tree could have been removed years ago. C. Doolittle responded he has done a considerable amount of landscaping to avoid similar situations in the future. M. McGandy asked if the applicant discussed preserving the garage at all with anyone. C. Doolittle replied he did not seek out a professional opinion, but both he and the prior owner believe the garage should be demolished for safety reasons. D. Kramer asked how old the garage is. C. Doolittle replied that B. McCracken determined it was between built sometime in 1919-1925, so it was a later addition to the property. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 5 of 31 D. Kramer noted the garage is a nice structure and could have been saved, at some point. C. Doolittle responded that the applicants plan on saving all the salvageable garage building materials (e.g., ceiling, bead board, slate) in a way that could potentially be repurposed. Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian. M. McGandy agreed the walls should be salvaged as much as possible. C. Doolittle responded he will be very careful to try to salvage as much of it as possible. K. Olson noted that, had the application been from the original owner, it would be a very different situation; however, since the applicant only recently purchased the building, she can understand the need to demolish the building. She added that the resolution should refer to the garage being situated in the rear of the property and not adjacent to the primary façade. It is also an ancillary building that, while significant, is not original to the property. J. Minner asked if staff and the applicant could be required to document the condition of the building before demolition. B. McCracken agreed that would be reasonable. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 121 E. Buffalo St. 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 July 16, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Chad Doolittle, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two survey maps of the property with notes; (3) five photographs documenting existing conditions; (4) a letter to the property owner from Matthew J. Haney of Carina Construction; and (5) an email to the property owner from Carl Wharton of Wharton Construction and Masonry, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form for 121 E. Buffalo St., and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the proposed project involves the demolition of the contributing brick garage located southeast corner of the property, and ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 6 of 31 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 August 11, 2015, 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. As indicated in the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form, the brick, “Dutch” form building at 119-121 E. Buffalo St. was constructed in c. 1851. The building is historically and architecturally significant as a good and relatively rare local example of a Federal-Style, masonry double house. 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. The proposal under consideration involves the demolition of an early brick automobile garage constructed between 1910 and 1919, during the district’s period of significance. Despite its visibly deteriorated condition, the garage exhibits a high level of material integrity, including structural brick walls and slate roof. 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: ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 7 of 31 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 demolition of the garage will remove distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. As noted above, the automotive garage is an intact example of its architectural typology and contains a high level of material integrity. It also clearly links the advent and proliferation of automobiles in the first decades of the 20th century to the development of the DeWitt Park area during its period of significance. For these reasons, its removal would significantly impact the character of the property and the DeWitt Park Historic District. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photographs submitted with the application and narrated in the professional opinions of two contractors, the severity of the deterioration of the garage regrettably requires its demolition. The garage’s deteriorated condition represents a clear case of “demolition by neglect;” which is the result of years of deferred maintenance by the previous property owner. The ILPC specifically notes the large caliper tree growing adjacent to the garage and causing considerable damage to the structural integrity of the east brick wall. At the time the applicant purchased the property in January 2015, the garage’s deteriorated condition already required its demolition. In addition to the deteriorated condition of the automobile garage, the ILPC also considered the following in making its decision: the garage is an ancillary and not a primary contributing structure within the DeWitt Park Historic District; it was not built at the same time as the primary contributing structure; and it is not highly visible from the public way. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 8 of 31 RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse but unavoidable effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 121 E. Buffalo St. 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 with the following condition(s): • The applicant will provide full photographic documentation of the structure to ILPC staff prior to the commencement of demolition. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: M. McGandy Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein Vacancies: 0 C. 118 Schuyler Pl., East Hill Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval of Window Replacements Applicant Tim Terpening recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and distributed some photographs to the Commission. He indicated he has operated as a property owner in Ithaca for over 35 years. He is proud to say he owns some of the most beautiful houses and apartments in the city. T. Terpening indicated that he does not agree with the underlying premise of establishing defined Historic Districts. He asked the Commission to recognize that windows represent a crucial amenity to a home’s interior. He cannot think of a single other improvement that would last virtually the life of the house and have such an impact on life inside the house. T. Terpening added that houses with replacement windows look better, cleaner, well-kept, and more dynamic. He asked the Commission to elucidate its opposition to vinyl windows, if treated properly and installed correctly. E. Finegan asked why the applicant selected the four specific windows. T. Terpening responded he reached a point when he wanted to upgrade the building and improve all the amenities. The windows he chose can easily be washed, opened, etc.; and awning windows also seemed superior to the older windows. While the original windows functioned as they were designed, they were dysfunctional compared to the utility of modern windows. E. Finegan wondered if the same windows are manufactured in wood versions. He explained that the Commission generally expects replacement windows to be wood and easily painted. The primary problem with vinyl windows is they generally cannot be painted. T. Terpening agreed the windows should be the same color of the trim. But while he could most likely have had them produced in wood, they would cost $500 a piece; and vinyl replacement windows do come in various colors. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 9 of 31 E. McCollister assured the applicant the Commission is not being unnecessarily arbitrary. It is obligated to follow State and Federal historic preservation standards. She asked about the applicant’s property ownership history in Ithaca and if he purchased his properties prior to the establishment of the Historic District. Given the applicant’s concerns, she does not know why he would purchase a property in an Historic District. B. McCracken responded 118 Schuyler Place was locally designated in 1988. T. Terpening remarked he believes he bought the property in 1986. D. Kramer informed the applicant that the Commission does not consider financial details of proposed alterations, until the Certificate of Appropriateness application has actually been denied. Only then, is an applicant invited to return to the Commission and present a financial hardship case. T. Terpening responded he would not return to the Commission, if that were the case. At this point, he would simply like the Commission to consider his application from the larger perspective and that it not focus solely on whether or not the windows happen to be vinyl. J. Minner emphasized the Commission does not base its decisions on personal aesthetic preferences. It is required to adhere to the standards established in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. Windows are a very important component in considering the historic integrity of a given property. Unfortunately, vinyl windows are simply not historically appropriate, from a visual perspective. T. Terpening responded that he would then ask that the ordinance be changed. K. Olson replied that would need to be done at the State level. E. Finegan noted that retaining the historic integrity of Historic Districts also serves to preserve the value of the buildings within them. There is no valid reason for removing their character-defining elements. The applicant owns buildings in the Historic Districts and there are constraints associated with that. D. Kramer remarked he feels particularly strongly about the vinyl replacements of the attic windows, which he believes seriously detract from the appearance of the house. T. Terpening responded that if the Commission would genuinely prefer the attic windows to be wood, then he may be willing to do that. K. Olson noted the crux of the matter before the Commission is whether it would have approved the alterations had the application been submitted before the work was completed. The Commission should approve the windows it would ordinarily have approved, prior to any work being done. B. McCracken noted the Commission can review the window replacement issue separately from considering the product that was installed: (1) did the windows need to be replaced; and (2) was the selected product appropriate. J. Minner responded that the windows would have needed to match the old windows in terms of visual texture, design, etc. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 10 of 31 T. Terpening asked the Commission if when it refers to “wood windows” it is referring to just the window sash. S. Gibian responded that the window operating mechanism itself is not really within the Commission’s purview. T. Terpening replied, in that case, he could purchase the window with the crank, just as he proposed, except that it would be wood. B. McCracken asked if the applicant retained the sashes. T. Terpening replied, no. Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by S. Gibian, seconded by J. Minner. M. McGandy remarked that the Commission also needs to assess the circumstances leading to the window replacements and whether the City Attorney should be involved. T. Terpening acknowledged he was confused about the process. He did not really consider the extent to which the property being in an Historic District should have informed his decision. If he had, he assured the Commission, he would have followed the appropriate process. (Certainly, he routinely obtains Building Permits.) K. Olson remarked the Commission should also ensure the address-of-record is correct for the annual notification to owners of properties in an Historic District. At this point, the Commission needs to determine whether or not the windows should have been replaced. E. Finegan noted the Commission is confronted with a situation in which it simply does not know whether that was the case. T. Terpening replied the windows definitely needed to be replaced. They were completely non-functional. K. Olson responded that from the applicant’s own testimony it seems the windows actually were functional, by the Commission’s own definition. M. McGandy agreed. D. Kramer indicated he would not be comfortable referring the matter to the City Attorney. E. Finegan agreed. The Commission simply does not have the facts. At this point, he would simply like the windows replaced with what the Commission would have approved. D. Kramer emphasized to the applicant that the Commission has traditionally worked in a genuine, amicable, and constructive way with applicants. The vast majority of the time applicants exit the process feeling that the Commission helped them. E. McCollister noted that considering the City’s need to prioritize the allocation of scarce resources, she does not believe this particular case needs to be referred to the City Attorney. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 11 of 31 J. Minner agreed, although if the Commission encounters another similar situation it should be referred to the City Attorney. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by J. Minner. WHEREAS, 118 Schuyler Pl. 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 July 27, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Timothy Terpening, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) photographs of the existing conditions; and (3) product specifications for the installed window units, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 118 Schuyler Pl., 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 replacement of four awning-style, wood-sash windows with vinyl units, for which work has already been completed, 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 11, 2015, 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, 118 Schuyler Pl was constructed between 1904 and 1910 in the Colonial Revival Style. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 12 of 31 Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The proposal under consideration is for the retroactive approval of window replacements for which work was completed without a Building Permit or Certificate of Appropriateness in 2011. Two of the windows are located in an attic-story Palladian window on the east (primary) façade; these were replaced with vinyl, double-hung units. The other two windows are located on the north elevation; these were replaced with vinyl, awing-style units. 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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 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, Standard #5 and Standard #9, the replacement of windows, which work has already been completed removed distinctive materials and altered features and spaces that characterized the property. The ILPC has determined that the vinyl windows do not match the old in design, color, texture, materials, and other visual qualities. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 13 of 31 Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the installed vinyl units are not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The double-hung vinyl windows installed in the attic-story Palladian window do not match the size, scale, functionality or architectural features of the property. In consideration of the clear violation of Principle #2, Standard #2, Standard #5 and Standard #9 and after a lengthy discussion with the Commission, the applicant revised the proposal to include the replacement of the previously installed vinyl windows with custom milled wood sashes that matched the original wood sashes in design, color, texture, material and other visual qualities. 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 118 Schuyler Pl. 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 with the following condition(s): • The owner will replace the vinyl windows with new custom milled wood windows to address the requirement in Standard #9 that the new windows shall match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities. The proposed replacement sashes will be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff prior to installation. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: J. Minner In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein Vacancies: 0 (K. Olson departed at 7:10 p.m.) D. 109 Dearborn Pl., Cornell Heights Historic District (non-contributing) ― Proposal to Alter Roof, Siding, & Other Exterior Features Applicant Tom Ellis recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project, noting the building used to be owned by Cornell University. The current owner then purchased the building a few years ago, with the aim of renovating it, beginning the roof lines and overhangs, then adding dormers and eave extensions. The windows would be Marvin Integrity windows, which the Commission has approved before for the building. The intent is to perform the various renovations to the property in stages. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 14 of 31 E. Finegan asked what kind of siding would be used. T. Ellis replied, wood siding and shakes; however, that would not be added this year. S. Gibian noted it is a non-contributing building, so the Commission’s standards are a little different, compared to a contributing building. He asked if the casement windows would imitate double-hung windows. Some casement windows are egress-sized. B. McCracken noted he had one question about what siding material would be used on the dormers. The siding should be compatible throughout the building. T. Ellis replied, at this point, he anticipates that the applicants would employ a rough cedar plywood with a stain. Shakes could certainly be used. It would definitely be wood siding of some kind. B. McCracken indicated the Commission could approve the temporary siding and provide further approval within 2 years. There is a 2-year expiration period for Certificates of Appropriateness. J. Minner remarked the siding could potentially be approved by staff, especially since it is a non- contributing building. She is not so concerned with the need to convey the sense that the building originates from the 1920s. The proposal generally seems compatible. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 109 Dearborn Pl. 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 July 13, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Dr. Lee Ambrose, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)a Site Plan, Roof Framing Plan, Roof Plan, North and West Elevations, and Details prepared by Bero Architecture, PLLC, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 109 Dearborn Pl. 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 the phased redevelopment of the exterior of the building; the current application under consideration includes the reconfiguration of the roof line through the construction of wall dormers, eave and rake extensions and the installation of wood windows, sections of new roof and siding, and ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 15 of 31 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 11, 2015, 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, 109 Dearborn Pl. was constructed in ca. 1942-1944, outside of the Cornell Heights Historic District’s period of significance, and is considered a non-contributing element within that district. All exterior alterations are, therefore, evaluated for their impact on adjacent historic properties and on the historic environment as a whole. The project currently under consideration is the modification of the roofline through the addition of wall dormers, eave and rake extensions and windows. This work is part of a larger project to extensively rehabilitate the building. Future applications will be submitted to the ILPC for other exterior alterations. 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: 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. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 16 of 31 As a non-contributing structure 109 Dearborn Pl., by definition, does not possess historic materials or features that are subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is, therefore, limited to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures in the district and on the Cornell Heights Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being that the proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non-contributing structure with its historic environment. With respect to Standard #9, the proposed roof modifications are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the Cornell Heights Historic District. Also with respect to Standard #9, the use of contemporary building techniques and materials to construct the wall dormers will not differentiated the work for the surrounding historic properties. New architectural style shingles installed as part of the project will match the existing in color; new windows will be Marvin Integrity Wood Ultrex casement units; and eave and rake extensions will be wood. The temporary siding material for the dormers will be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff. 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 with following condition(s): • The following exterior finish materials will be used: new architectural style shingles will match the existing in color; new windows will be Marvin Integrity Wood Ultrex casement units; and eave and rake extensions will be wood. • The temporary siding material for the dormers will be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein, K. Olson Vacancies: 0 ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 17 of 31 E. 410 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Alter Construction Technique of Stone Entrance Stairs Applicant Walter Hollien recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project and distributed a photograph. He noted he would use bluestone for the landing and stone for the stair treads, covering the existing, very badly deteriorated sedimentary stone. E. Finegan asked how the work would actually be executed and if the applicant would use the old stair foundation. W. Hollien replied that some treads are very deteriorated, so they would be leveled off with pieces of bluestone laid over them. The same would apply to the riser and landing. On the stone sides, the applicants would perform some renovation work in keeping with what is already there. They would also restore the railing, which is also in bad shape towards the base. D. Kramer recalled the Commission approved similar work at the DeWitt Park Inn. B. McCracken replied that property had a block foundation with stucco. S. Gibian noted the existing stairs are most likely not historic. They appear to have been dry-laid, perhaps fairly recently, like in the 1980s. Furthermore, the side wall stones are backfilled with crushed stone, something that was not done in the 1890s; and the side wall stones appear to have been cut by guillotine, a technique used in the 1960s-1980s. His only possible objection to the proposed alterations is the gluing on of the stone risers and the view that would present from the sides. He wondered if plastering or stucco on the faces would not look better on the risers. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. M. McGandy indicated he is comfortable with the proposal, although he agrees with S. Gibian’s objection. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 410 N. Cayuga St., 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 July 29, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Walter Hollien, RA, on behalf of property owner Jeffrey Moses, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a drawing of the proposed changes; and (3) 4 photographs of existing conditions, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form for 410 N. Cayuga St., and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 18 of 31 WHEREAS, as stated in the Description of Proposed Changes, the proposed project involves the replacement of stone steps, 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 August 11, 2015, 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. As indicated in the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form, 410 N. Cayuga St. was constructed before 1851 and exhibits the massing of the Federal Style and the detailing of the Italianate Style, particularly the wide, bracketed eaves. 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. The proposal under consideration is the replacement of the stone entrance stairs comprised of approximately 7”x13”X7’ monolithic Llenroc blocks with new treads and risers constructed of 2” thick bluestone. Although the materiality of the stairs will match the existing, the visual quality of the stairs will be altered due to the change in construction technique. 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: ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 19 of 31 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 #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 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, Standard #5 and Standard #9, the replacement of the stone stairs will remove distinctive materials but will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photographs submitted with the application, the severity of the deterioration of the blocks that comprise the existing stairs requires their replacement. The proposed new work will closely match the old in design, color, texture, material and other visual qualities. Also with respect to Principle #2, and Standard #9, the proposed stair treads and risers are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the 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 410 N. Cayuga St. 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. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 20 of 31 RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein, K. Olson Vacancies: 0 F. 110 Westbourne Ln., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Install Retaining Wall The applicant did not appear before the Commission. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Gibian. WHEREAS, 110 Westbourne Ln 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 April 24, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owners Michael Sturman, including two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s), and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 110 Westbourne Ln. 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 constructing 4’X70’ planter boxes constructed of 6”X6” landscape timbers in the rear yard of the property, 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 ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 21 of 31 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 11, 2015, 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 Craftsman- Style residence at 110 Westbourne Ln. was constructed between 1912 and 1913 for Cornell University professor of mathematics, Frederick W. Owens. 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. The proposal under consideration involves constructing planter boxes that will essentially act as retaining walls, creating terraces in the rear yard. 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. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 22 of 31 With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of planter boxes constructed of 6”X6” landscape timbers 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 planter boxes 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: M. McGandy Seconded by: S. Gibian In Favor: M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein, K. Olson Vacancies: 0 G. 400-404 Stewart Ave., The Chapter House, East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Demolish Fire-Damaged Structure Applicant Jason Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed project. He and the property owner conducted a thorough investigation of the building and documented the interior. As they walked through the building, it soon became apparent the water damage to the building over the past few months had been catastrophic. They also opened up holes in the building to determine if there had been any water intrusion into those sections and they found considerable water saturation in the joist structure. The second floor is buckling and the wall finishes are falling off on the inside. It would be too expensive to preserve the interior. At this juncture, he and the owner have discussed possibly retaining the south and east walls. J. Demarest noted that, in consultation with an engineer, they explored what could conceivably be done to save the façades. They concluded it may be possible, but would involve an inordinate amount of time, expense, and significant peril. McPherson Builders, Inc., which performed the building stabilization work, also believe the building should be demolished. As a result of these findings, the applicant proposes demolishing the entire structure and building a more historic building, referencing the original pre-Chapter House structure (perhaps adding a fourth floor and a mansard roof). They would re-create the Chapter House’s main hall and vaulted ceiling. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 23 of 31 E. Fingean asked if the applicant knows when the original building was converted to the more recent Chapter House design. J. Demarest replied he contacted the History Center about that, but there was no record of it. M. McGandy remarked it is very unfortunate the surviving portions of the building were not covered with tarp or some other protective covering, after the fire, to preserve as much of it as possible. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Gibian, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer. J. Minner remarked it is certainly a tragic loss; however, based on the evidence and expert testimony, it seems the building is genuinely un-salvageable. RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 400-404 Stewart Ave, The Chapter House, 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 July 28, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property owner MSW Management, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a photograph taken ca. 1900; (3) a letter addressed to Jerry Deitz of CSP Management from Michael C. Palmer, Ph.D. PE of Elwyn & Palmer, Consulting Engineers, PLLC; (3) a letter addressed to the ILPC from Jason Demarest, RA; and (4) a Demolition Assessment Plan, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 400-404 Stewart Ave 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 demolition of the remaining fire-damaged structure, and WHEREAS, in April 2015, the building was significantly damaged by a fired that also completely destroyed the adjacent building at 406 Stewart Ave and caused minor damage to two other structures, and WHEREAS, the remaining structure at 400-404 Stewart Ave was evaluated by a structural engineer, Michael C. Palmer, Ph.D., PE, immediately following the fire and it was determined at that time that the brick walls along Stewart Ave. and Osmun Pl. as well as some of the interior framed structure were structurally sound and did not require immediate demolition, and ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 24 of 31 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 11, 2015, 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, 400-404 Stewart Ave was constructed between 1904 and 1910 as a large brick-veneered commercial building on a primarily residential street. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element 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: 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. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 25 of 31 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. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #2, the demolition of the remaining fire damaged structure will remove distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as documents in the letter from Michael C. Palmer, Ph.D. PE and shown in the photographs submitted with the application, the severity of the deterioration and fire damage of the building requires its demolition. The ILPC notes that since the building sustained considerable damage during the fire, addition damage to the remaining structure has occurred due to its exposure to the elements. As reported in the letter from structural engineer, Michael C. Palmer, Ph.D., water has saturated the walls, floors and the structural members of each, significantly comprising the structural integrity of the building. The anchors attaching the brick veneer to the wood structure have also corroded as a result of water infiltration, further compromising the structural integrity of the building. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse but unavoidable effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 400- 404 Stewart Ave. 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: J. Minner Seconded by: S. Gibian In Favor: M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein, K. Olson Vacancies: 0 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST None. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 26 of 31 III. OLD BUSINESS • 140 College Ave., Snaith House, Individual Local Landmark ― Review Electrical Pedestal Design (pursuant to August 27, 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness condition) & Design Modifications Applicant Jason Demarest recapitulated the salient details of the proposed alterations, noting he is presenting the concept for the screening of the electric pedestal, as required in the original Certificate of Appropriateness. The design includes a roof and small overhang, with sides to match the building. As requested, he brought the sides around to screen the meter cans. He originally attempted to include brackets and dentils, but they actually seemed to detract from the main building too much. He added that the owner requested there be black-painted brackets and polycarbonate roof on the hyphen for weather protection, with something similar on the rear, which is really more of the primary active entrance. B. McCracken indicated the first resolution would be for approval of the pedestal, while the second resolution would be for approval of the modifications to the original approved plan. FIRST RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, John Snaith House, located at 140 College Avenue, is an individual local landmark, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2011, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a “pedestal” on which electrical service equipment would be mounted was approved at the regular August 27, 2014, ILPC meeting, and WHEREAS, a condition was placed on that Certificate of Appropriateness, requiring “The electrical pedestal [to] be redesigned to be more visually appropriate to its historic environment and consistent with the existing historic structure and the new addition. The applicant [was] required to prepare a design for this pedestal that either (1) replaces the existing pedestal (which was installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness) or (2) adapt the existing pedestal to incorporate materials and details used in the new addition, give the “pedestal” a finished appearance, and give depth to the “pedestal” by boxing it out to obscure the view of the electrical equipment from College Avenue facing the primary façade. This new design must be submitted to the full ILPC for review at a regularly scheduled ILPC meeting, and must be approved by the ILPC and installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,” and WHEREAS, the ILPC has received a submission from Jason Demarest, dated July 14, 2015, illustrating the proposed “pedestal,” including three renderings of the structure from several views, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed this submission for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, now therefore be it ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 27 of 31 RESOLVED, that the ILPC finds that the “pedestal” and its proposed finish materials are compatible with the architectural features of the property and its environment and are approved for use, and be it further RESOLVED, that the original condition placed on the project’s Certificate of Appropriateness has been satisfied. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein, K. Olson Vacancies: 0 SECOND RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, John Snaith House, located at 140 College Avenue, is an individual local landmark, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2011, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a three-story addition constructed over an existing one-story garage area was approved after the required public hearing at the regular July 8, 2014, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) meeting, and WHEREAS, all proposed changes to the approved project must be reviewed by the (ILPC), and WHEREAS, the ILPC has received a submission from Jason Demarest, dated July 31, 2015, illustrating alterations to the originally approved addition design, including the construction of two entry roofs, and WHEREAS, as illustrated in the submitted renderings, the alterations include the construction of a glass and metal canopy above the door located in the glass hyphen on the east (primary) façade, and a gable-roofed projection supported by wood brackets above the door in the north elevation, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed this submission for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, the John Snaith House was constructed in 1874 and rebuilt in 1894-95 after fire damage. It is the sole nineteenth century brick dwelling along College Avenue. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 28 of 31 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 228-5 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-5C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #1 The historic features of an individual landmark shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with the historic character of the landmark. 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 #1, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the construction of entry roofs will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #1 and Standard #9, the proposed entry roofs 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 John Snaith House, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the proposed project alterations. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 29 of 31 RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: M. McGandy Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein, K. Olson Vacancies: 0 IV. NEW BUSINESS • 406 & 408 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District ― Preliminary Discussion Owners Jim Goldman and Alice Goldman remarked that they purchased the property on April 1st, 2015. They also own the building next door. They would like to solicit the Commission’s feedback on a proposal they have recently been considering. They noted there is considerable need for higher-density housing in Ithaca; and recent fires have also raised the issue of fire safety for older buildings. 408 Stewart Avenue is an approximately 100-year-old building, with wooden fire stairs, which are a potential safety concern. Another concern is the building’s visual impact on the entire appearance of Stewart Avenue: it is not the most aesthetically pleasing building. As a result of all these factors, J. Goldman is seriously considering demolishing 408 Stewart Avenue and building a single, larger building on both adjacent parcels, with a façade that would appear in greater harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. This would also serve to provide more housing than either of the two original buildings and present an opportunity to replace the old, fire-prone building with modern fire-safety features. Architect Andrew Sprague indicated he knows the Commission will undoubtedly have significant concerns with building a whole new building; however, he would like to note that the addition of the vinyl siding to 408 Stewart Avenue means the building contributes far less to the Historic District than it would have. The potential new structure would be designed as a more compatible historical building, in every other respect, than what currently exists. The front elements, like the entry porch and more pronounced entryway, would be duplicated. Jason Demarest added there is also an effort by the Goldmans and the Chapter House building owners to construct a fire stair that would be jointly owned and used by the two buildings. The potential new building could be designed to appear more like the Chapter House. E. McCollister noted it would normally require a 10-foot setback; and she would personally be opposed to bringing the potential new building to the street, especially given it would be such a large building. J. Demarest responded it would actually be more like a 3-foot setback (compared to the current setback of 5-6 feet). He emphasized that the potential new building would be designed to appear as two separate massings. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 30 of 31 M. McGandy expressed concern with the residential nature of the building, its scale, and the prospect it would make that particular section of the street appear like a “wall.” These are all the types of issues the owners should consider. He is skeptical a larger building would not undermine the residential character of the Historic District. The Commission is interested in maintaining individually distinct buildings, on separate lots. On the other hand, the Commission may be open to designs that merely modify and rehabilitate the building. E. Finegan asked if 408 Stewart Avenue is a contributing building. B. McCracken replied, yes. Despite the fact that the building as a whole is historically and aesthetically unremarkable, the massing and scale of the building remain important contributing features. J. Goldman remarked it would be an expensive proposition to demolish one building and build a much larger building, so he would hesitate to pursue the concept without some substantial support from the Commission. S. Gibian asked if the owners developed any drawings of what they might propose. J. Demarest replied, no. B. McCracken noted demolishing the building would preclude the owners from applying for State historic tax credits. S. Gibian suggested that the less connection between the buildings, the better; and also the more those connections are set back, the better. Likewise, the more distinct the two portions of the building could be made, the better. He noted he did not find too much salvageable material in the 408 Stewart Avenue building. J. Minner disagreed: it seems there may be a lot to work with. A. Sprague observed it sounds like the owners will need to return to the Commission for another informal discussion to resolve the issue, with some rudimentary concept images. M. McGandy added they should also develop an argument for why 408 Stewart Avenue should in fact be considered non-contributing. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by D. Kramer and seconded by M, McGandy, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with one minor modification. • July 14, 2015 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Staff Update ― Office Hours B. McCracken reported that, with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan, he will only be in the office Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 7:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. ILPC Minutes August 11, 2015 31 of 31 • September 2015 Meeting ― Alternate Date B. McCracken indicated that he will not be available for the regularly scheduled September Commission meeting, so he proposed postponing the meeting to Tuesday, September 15, 2015. No objections were raised. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:30 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission