Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables decision on 103 Spring Lane garage‑door replacement after compatibility concerns
Summary
Ithaca’s landmarks commission tabled consideration of a proposed metal replacement garage door at 103 Spring Lane on March 17 after commissioners questioned whether off‑the‑shelf metal doors can replicate historic wood detailing; the applicant will pursue repair/reconstruction or alternate designs and agreed to extend the review period.
The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission on March 17 tabled a proposal to replace a wooden garage door at 103 Spring Lane with a metal (steel) door, citing concerns from commissioners and members of the public about authenticity and long‑term durability.
A neighbor, Susie Kramer, urged the commission to require a wooden replacement, saying an attractive wooden door had been removed and that wood doors can be repaired and made to last. Kramer said owners who manage rental properties should set an example in historic districts and that stamped‑metal or cheap aluminum doors often dent, warp and fail quickly.
The property owner and applicant (who did not give a full name on the record) said they had researched options with staff and proposed two durable factory metal options — a Bridgeport roll‑up model and a coachman‑style outswing variant — that they believed would be less visually busy than the previously removed door. The applicant also said the pieces of the original door may still be in the garage and that a carpenter had suggested reconstruction could be possible, which staff said would change the review pathway to a staff‑level repair rather than a commission‑level new‑construction review.
Staff and commissioners discussed whether the commission can require particular materials for compatibility and noted precedent where in‑kind or visually compatible replacements were required. Commissioners said off‑the‑shelf metal doors generally fail to reproduce the delicate rail‑and‑stile detailing of traditional wood doors; one commissioner said she would vote against the proposed metal designs. Because only four commissioners were present and at least one voiced opposition, members agreed that a unanimous vote would be required for approval and moved to table the proposal to give the applicant time to (a) pursue possible repair/reconstruction using the original door pieces, (b) explore a wood replacement that matches historic detailing, or (c) bring a revised design.
The applicant agreed to extend the statutory review period to allow staff time to meet on site with a carpenter and prepare follow‑up materials for the commission. The commission recorded the motion to table as approved by the members present and will expect the applicant to return with repair feasibility or an alternative that responds to the commission’s concerns.
A commission staff member offered to meet the applicant and their carpenter on site to assess whether the original door can be reconstructed; if repair is feasible, the work could be handled at the staff level rather than returning to the commission for a new‑construction review.
