Ithaca commission approves reconstruction of century-old porch at 115 The Knoll; rooftop terrace withdrawn

The Ithaca Landmark Preservation Commission on Jan. 21 approved a certificate of appropriateness for work at 115 The Knoll, authorizing the removal of the deteriorated wooden portions of the partially enclosed west porch and installation of the proposed window system while requiring the applicant to preserve and document original fabric where feasible. The applicant withdrew the rooftop terrace and exterior stair as part of the application and said it will return if it proposes a revised terrace design.

The commission said the work matters because 115 The Knoll is a contributing property in the Cornell Heights Historic District (period of significance 1898–1937) and the commission must find that proposed exterior changes will not have a substantial adverse effect on the district’s historic character. The approval cites municipal review standards and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in making that determination.

Stream Collaborative representatives Rob Mirage and Noah Demarest presented the application and described the porch as historically significant but severely deteriorated. “So what we'd like to do is tear it all down and rebuild it from the top of the stone upward because the stone's in good shape,” said Rob Mirage of Stream Collaborative. The design approved by the commission calls for reconstructing columns, rafters and rafter tails to match the existing historic appearance and setting a narrow-frame glazing wall (Marvin Modern-series style, described in the record as fiberglass) several inches behind the reconstructed porch elements so the historic porch reads as the foreground feature.

Commission discussion focused on several technical and design points: condition of the existing timber members (presenters documented rot, insect damage and delamination in exposed rafters), whether original columns are solid timber or laminated, how to detail the new glazing behind the columns (presenters said the glazing would be set roughly seven inches behind the porch face), and options for making any future roof deck code-compliant. Commissioners raised concerns about an exterior stair shown in the submission; several said the stair would be visually intrusive on the principal façade and lacked support. The applicant told the commission the stair and rooftop terrace would be withdrawn and could return as a separate, revised proposal.

The commission’s approval included conditions requiring: that the applicant make “every effort to preserve as much of the original historic property as possible during deconstruction” (staff to review salvaged material and approve replacement wood materials); photographic documentation of conditions encountered during deconstruction; and that stone repairs and repointing proceed under staff review. The commission noted the submitted photographs and the city inventory form documenting the house’s architectural significance in its findings.

The commission read findings that the porch’s deterioration justifies replacement of the distinct wooden elements under the municipal code standards cited in the record and that the proposed window treatment and reconstructed porch, as conditioned, will be compatible with the property and district. The resolution as adopted states that the proposed work “will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance” of the Cornell Heights Historic District.

The commission opened the matter for public comment; no members of the public spoke and no written comments had been submitted. After further brief clarifications about detailing and construction sequencing, the commission approved the certificate of appropriateness with the stated conditions. The resolution also recorded the applicant’s withdrawal of the rooftop terrace and exterior stair; the applicant may return with a revised proposal if desired.

Project proponents and city staff may return to the commission with additional documentation if they propose a rooftop terrace or other changes not covered by the current approval. The commission’s findings in the record reference municipal code section 228-6 and related subsections and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.