Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-07-14Approved by ILPC: 08/14/2015 1 of 26 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes – July 14, 2015 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Susan Stein Michael McGandy Katelin Olson Stephen Gibian Jennifer Minner Bryan McCracken, Staff Erin Frederickson, Intern Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 122 Wait Ave, Cornell Heights Historic District – Retroactive Request for Approval of Modifications to an Unpainted Brick Chimney Applicant, Fares Nassar, was not in attendance. The application was tabled until the end of the meeting. B. 120 E. Buffalo St., Boardman House, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Install Fence Applicants Susan V. Compton and Cathy Saloff-Coste of Boardman House LLC appeared before the Commission and recapitulated the salient details of the proposal. C. Saloff-Coste explained that a 12x18 foot area in the rear of the property housing air conditioning units has recently shown evidence that it is used for illicit activities, and some damage to the property has occurred as a result. The fence would keep trespassers out and prevent damage to the property, specifically the air conditioning condensers. She further explained that the proposed black vinyl-coated chain link fence was the most economically feasible solution and required the least amount of routine maintenance. Although a 6’ fence was proposed, the applicants felt that a 5’ fence would serve the same purpose. E. Finegan asked if they have a fence currently. C. Saloff-Coste responded, yes, a temporary fence was installed by the fencing contractor hired to install the permanent enclosure. Damage to AC units and rainspouts forced them to protect the area. M. McGandy asked if this is a recurring problem and if the previous owner had mentioned it before the applicants purchased the property. S. Compton said the previous owner did mention an instance in which a trespasser attempted to dig up copper tubing connected to the AC units, and that a fence was suggested. The neighboring Tompkins County Assessment Office has also complained about loiterers behind the Boardman House. S. Gibian asked if there is any lighting at the rear of the property. The applicants responded no, as a light that used to be there no longer worked. S. Gibian observed that the greenery hides the fence but also makes the rear of the property more secretive. He asked what color the fence would be, as a green color would blend into the foliage of the surrounding plantings. The applicants were open to the suggestion. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 2 of 26 K. Olson asked if any other materials were considered, as a wood fence may hide the units completely. S. Compton said she was advised wood fences are much easier to break into. D. Kramer stated the fence is definitely needed here, and anything would be an improvement. S. Stein agreed. S. Gibian asked to confirm if the height of the fence is now 5’, as 6’ was listed on the application. Applicants responded, yes. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, 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. Stein. J. Minner asked if the resolution should indicate that a 6’ fence is also acceptable, should the applicants decide to go wit the taller option. B. McCracken indicated that he would note the acceptability of a 5’ or 6’ fence in the resolution. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 120 E. Buffalo Street, also known as the Boardman House, 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 June 29, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Susan V. Compton on behalf of property owner Boardman House LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) photographs of existing conditions; (3) site plans showing location and dimensions of proposed change; and (4) a description of design details and materials to be used, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form for 120 E. Buffalo Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the addition of a 5’ or 6’ vinyl-coated black chain-link fence around a northeast rear corner 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 July 14, 2015 3 of 26 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 July 14, 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, 120 E. Buffalo Street was constructed in 1866 by prominent local architect A. B. Dale in the Italianate style. 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 involves the addition of a black chain-link fence projecting off the northern elevation of the structure. The proposed black chain-link fence will be blocked from view by vegetation and will not be easily visible from the public way. 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 ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 4 of 26 differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the addition of a chain-link fence will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2, Principal #3, and Standard #9, the proposed fence is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, the fence can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 120 E. Buffalo Street and the DeWitt Park Historic District as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets the criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: M. McGandy Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Stein, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 C. 314 W. State St., Downtown West Historic District – Proposal to Install Windows and Wheelchair Lift Applicant Julie Kerr, representing the Southern Tier AIDS Program, Inc., recapitulated the salient details of the project, which involves the installation of a wheelchair lift in an east elevation alcove, as well as the addition of two awning windows on the north elevation. J. Kerr noted that they required to provide handicapped access to the building to comply with building code requirements and stated that the lift would be mostly hidden from view from the public way. J. Kerr also proposed adding two windows to the north elevation where two had previously been located. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 5 of 26 M. McGandy asked if the roof would be extended over the landing to protect the top of the wheelchair ramp. J. Kerr responded, yes. M. McGandy asked how far the roof would be extended. J. Kerr responded, I am not sure. S. Gibian stated that the submitted drawings show the new roof overhang, which seems to be extend several feet and is pitched toward the carriage house. D. Kramer asked if the extended roof would maintain the same pitch. J. Kerr answered, yes. S. Gibian advised that the orientation and location of the large downspout on the corner of alcove needs to be adjusted. J. Kerr responded it may be moved. E. Finegan asked how the new windows would appear on the rear façade. J. Kerr said new windows would be installed above the original window openings and the trim and infill from the original windows would be removed and new siding installed. S. Gibian asked if the storage shed will be removed eventually. Applicant answered, yes, and went on to ask if a temporary shed would require another application. B. McCracken advised a Certificate of Appropriateness would be needed to add a temporary structure; since the shed is a non-contributing element in the district, it could be approved at the staff level. 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 S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer. S. Gibian asked if the trim around the original windows would be removed and siding would be added. Applicant answered yes. S. Gibian observed that the application materials did not indicate the proposed treatment of the original window opeings. K. Olson agreed that the drawings were slightly confusing, as they suggest siding would not be added. J. Kerr responded they would be open to not adding siding. J. Minner posited that the changes seem reasonable. If windows are extant behind the plywood, they should remain in the event that restoration becomes possible in the future. J. Minner added that the addition of siding over the plywood would not be a significant change to her, since it is not visible from the street. S. Gibian said the window trim would be a record of where the windows were. K. Olson advised new plywood in place of the current deteriorated plywood would be the minimum expectation. E. Finegan suggested applying clapboard inside of the original trim instead of plywood. S. Stein asked if the new windows would be wood. Applicant Kerr replied, yes. S. Gibian requested that the extended roof be included in the resolution, as it alters the appearance of the carriage house and is a significant change. M. McGandy asked if the structure’s roofing material is currently asphalt shingle. S. Gibian said the proposed roof is too low-pitched for asphalt shingle and would require a membrane roof. J. Kerr was not sure of the proposed roofing material. RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 6 of 26 WHEREAS, 314 W. State Street is located within the Downtown West Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 2015, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated June 23, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by the Southern Tier AIDS Program, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) 5 architectural drawings tilted “Notes, Drawing List,” “Floor Plans,” “Large Scale Plans, Toilet Room Elevations,” Plans and Elevations,” and “Site Plan, Section;” (3) 6 photographs documenting existing condition; (4) product information for a Symmetry Vertical Platform Lift; and (5) product information for Marvin Ultimate Awning windows, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the Downtown West Historic District for 314 W. State St., and the City of Ithaca’s Downtown West Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves installing a wheelchair lift and roof overhang in an alcove on the east elevation and two casement-style windows on the north elevation, 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 July 14, 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 Downtown West Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Downtown West Historic District is 1880 - c.1922. As indicated in the individual property entry in the annotated list of properties included within the Downtown West Historic District, 314 W. State St. was constructed as a Queen Ann Style residence between 1885 and 1886, and was designed by the locally prominent architect, Alvah. B. Wood. Constructed within the period of significance of the Downtown West Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the Downtown West Historic District. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 7 of 26 A modern, single-story, concrete-masonry-unit-constructed addition connects the primary structure at 314 W. State St. to its historic wood-framed carriage barn located along the north property line. The proposed wheelchair lift will be install adjacent to this non- historic addition and will not be highly visible from the public way. The project also includes installing two casement-style windows above historic enclosed window openings on the north elevation of the carriage barn. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: Principle #2 The historic features of a property located within, and contributing to the significance of, an historic district shall be altered as little as possible and any alterations made shall be compatible with both the historic character of the individual property and the character of the district as a whole. Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of a wheelchair lift and two casement-style windows 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 Symmetry Vertical Platform Lift and aluminum-clad wood Marvin Ultimate Awning windows are ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 8 of 26 compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard #10, wheelchair lift and windows can be removed in the future without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the Downtown West 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:  The existing trim around the enclosed window opening on the north elevation will be retained and new clapboard siding matching the existing will replace the plywood infill. Siding will be recessed within the window opening. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: K. Olson Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Stein, M. McGandy, K. Olson, J. Minner Against: S. Gibian Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 D. 120 Highland Place, East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Replace Retaining Wall Applicants Harold Schultz, property owner, and Richard Sanders, contractor, recapitulated the salient details of the project, noting this is a safety issue. H. Schultz noted that this is his first opportunity to complete work for several year, as there are no students living in the building currently. S. Gibian asked the applicants to confirm the measurements of the proposed wall that will be visible from the public way. R. Sanders replied that the retaining wall will be raised above grade about 18”. . S. Gibian asked if the railroad tie stairs will be repaired. R. Sanders answered, yes.. S. Gibian asked if any materials were considered other than concrete. R. Sanders replied, yes, but the use railroad ties is no longer permitted and sourcing the pressure-treated wood would be difficult and extend the timeline for the project. S. Gibian asked where the new wall would stand. R. Sanders answered, in the middle of the white line depicted in the submitted drawings. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 9 of 26 K. Olson said since it cannot be replaced in kind, this seems to be a reasonable alternative. D. Kramer added it doesn’t seem to be highly visible from public way. S. Gibian countered that, actually, a 1’6” section would be visible. M. McGandy asked how the wall will look where it meets the stone wall and if the flower garden at the retaining wall’s base will be altered. R. Sanders replied that the flower garden will not be altered. The stone wall around the flower bed will be moved during construction and reinstalled after work on the proposed retaining wall is complete. M. McGandy asked if the decorative stone wall will be moved. R. Sanders answered the stone wall will stay and will be stabilized with 4x4’s. M. McGandy noted that the changes are visible since it serves as an entranceway. He inquired about the potential use of decorative stone to make the wall slightly more attractive. K. Olson suggested a stone cap. Applicant responded that the narrowness of the walkway poses a problem in terms of navigation. If a stone cap is installed, the wall may have to be moved. K. Olson suggested that the dimensions would not necessary need to change if a stone cap was added. J. Minner added that though the stone cap is an interesting design suggestion, it is not a historic aspect and she would feel uncomfortable making it a requirement. S. Gibian mentioned that poured concrete seems reasonable since there is a safety issue, but a stone cap could be a nice condition. B. McCracken suggested using wood forms to achieve a wood grain texture on the concrete. R. Sanders replied that steel forms were going to be used. M. McGandy suggested that anything to increase the attractiveness would be welcome, especially since residents would be seeing the wall. M. McGandy also noted he would feel uncomfortable requiring stone caps for the same reason as J. Minner. D. Kramer suggested using ivy, which is an inexpensive solution. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by J. Minner, seconded by K. Olson. S. Gibian suggested the steel forms could be lined with wood, and stone caps would add interest. B. McCracken asked if this should be added as condition or a recommendation, and the commission agreed it should be a recommendation. E. Finegan suggested the resolution note that a stone cap or wood-grain texture could be approved at the staff level. B. McCracken agreed. R. Sanders asked if the use of wood forms is mandatory. B. McCracken answered, no. J. Minner advised that the resolution note that certain design solutions have been recommended. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 120 Highland Place 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 June 29, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 10 of 26 Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Harold Schultz, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) 5 photographs documenting the condition of the existing retaining wall; (3) drawings of the proposed new retaining wall; and (4) specifications for the proposed concrete mixture, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 120 Highland Place, 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 replacing an existing deteriorated 4’ by 21’ railroad tie retaining wall with a 4’ by 21’ poured concrete retaining wall, 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 July 14, 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, 120 Highland Place was originally constructed as an industrial building in ca. 1870 and was later converted to residential use. 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 ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 11 of 26 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. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of a railroad tie retaining wall with poured concrete retaining wall 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 concrete retaining wall is 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 120 Highland Place 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 ILPC recommends that the applicant consider using wood forms for the poured concrete to add texture to the completed retaining wall and/or install either a bluestone stone or red brick cap, material to match the primary structure’s red brick, to the top of the retaining wall. Should the application incorporate one or both of these alternates into the project, the modification to the proposed work can be reviewed and approved by ILPC staff. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 12 of 26 RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Stein Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Stein, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 E. 209 College Ave., the Grand View House, Individual Local Landmark – Proposal to Install Asphalt Paving Applicant David Beer, on behalf of property owner Beer Properties, LLC, recapitulated the salient details of the project and brought additional images for the Commission to review. D. Beer explained that the paved driveway extends from the sidewalk approximately 60-70’ to the rear of the property. The rear parking area is a combination of paving, gravel and dirt. D. Beer would like to pave the dirt and gravel with asphalt for added ease of use and maintenance. S. Gibian asked if the parking spot in front of the property would be paved as well. D. Beer answered, no. E. Finegan asked if the size of the lot would be expanded. D. Beer answered, no. D. Kramer asked to confirm that this proposal is just a change in material. B. McCracken answered, yes. D. Kramer said the last time the Commission saw a similar proposal for a property on DeWitt Place, it was approved. E. Finegan asked if lines would be added. D. Beer answered, yes, to outline parking spaces. These would not be visible from the street but potentially visible from Linden Ave. S. Gibian inquired if the applicant had any concerns about storm water runoff. D. Beer explained storm water would have to be caught in a catch basin. J. Minner noted the gravel is not a character-defining feature, and finds the asphalt material compatible with the individual landmark. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, 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 K. Olson. S. Stein noted that she did not have any concerns about the use of asphalt at the property. M. McGandy inquired about the fee structure for storm water runoff and imperviously paved surfaces. B. McCracken answered that he is not sure, but he believes that the city may not charge the same fee if the surface is permeable. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 13 of 26 S. Gibian asked if the grade would need to be altered. D. Beer replied it would be altered only slightly in a cut-and-fill manner to direct water appropriately. RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Gibian, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 209 College Ave, known locally as the Grand View House, 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 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated June 30, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Beer on behalf of property owner Beer Properties, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a site plan illustrating the proposed paved area, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 209 College Ave, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves paving an existing gravel and dirt parking area with an asphalt material, 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 Collegetown Area Form Districts were established in 2014, eliminating the minimum off-street parking requirement in the Collegetown mixed-use districts; however, off-street parking remained a permitted use within these districts, and WHEREAS, 209 College Ave is located within a Collegetown mixed-use district and had off-street parking at the time the Collegetown Area Form Districts were established, 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 July 14, 2015, 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 large frame boarding house 209 College Ave, known locally as the Grand View House, was constructed in 1888 in response to increased enrollment at Cornell University during the last quarter of the 19th century. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 14 of 26 The proposal under consideration involves paving with an asphalt material the existing gravel parking area occupying the eastern portion of the subject property and the associated access driveway. The parking area is located behind the primary structure and its size will not increase or decrease. 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 #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, paving the existing gravel parking area with an asphalt material 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 asphalt material is 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 209 College Ave, 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 ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 15 of 26 RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Gibian Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Stein, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 F. 608 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District – Proposal to Install Asphalt Paving Applicant David Beer, on behalf of Beer Properties, LLC, recapitulated the salient details of the project, which involves the paving of the existing gravel driveway and parking area with an asphalt material. S. Stein suggested that the parking lot and driveway should not be blacktopped since it could not be easily reversed in the future if the property was converted back to a single-family residence. M. McGandy asked if there is an economical way of adding something that is permeable and addresses the question of runoff. D. Beer asked to clarify if the Commission’s concerns are aesthetic or structural. M. McGandy answered both, and that the City is also concerned with water runoff. D. Beer replied that he cannot think of any comparable materials. K. Olson inquired about the parking requirement for the property. B. McCracken replied that the property is not required to provide any off-street parking. The existing gravel parking lot was approved by the ILPC when it was installed in the 1997. At that time, zoning required eight parking spaces. With the repeal of the The Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, this requirement was removed. 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 J. Minner. S. Stein noted she was against the use of asphalt at this particularly property, noting that its use would inhibit the conversion of the parking lot back into a yard. K. Olson added she would also like to see a green backyard, and that she is concerned by the use of asphalt in the East Hill Historic District. However, since the parking lot at 608 E. Buffalo St. was already approved and is not a change of use, the asphalt paving can be approved. K. Olson requested that the resolution clearly specifies that this is a pre-qualified use, and there will be no change in land use. D. Beer asked that a clause be added stating that if the applicant chooses to use paving blocks, it can be approved at the staff level. B. McCracken answered, yes. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 16 of 26 RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 608 E. Buffalo St. 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 June 30, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Beer on behalf of property owner Beer Properties, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a site plan illustrating the proposed paved area, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 608 E. Buffalo St., 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 paving an existing gravel driveway and parking area with an asphalt material, 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, at their regularly scheduled meeting on October 5, 1993, the ILPC issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a driveway, retaining wall and parking area at 608 E. Buffalo St., for which project details were approved at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on December 2, 1997, and WHEREAS, at the time the rear-parking project was approved by the ILPC, 608 E. Buffalo St. was located in a B-2a zone, which required a certain number of off-street parking spaces per bedroom within each dwelling unit, and WHEREAS, 608 E. Buffalo Street is now located in the B-2d zone, which does not have an off-street parking requirement but does allow it as a permitted use, 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 July 14, 2015, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 17 of 26 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, The Colonial Revival Style residence located at 608 E. Buffalo was constructed between 1893 and 1899. 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. 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 #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, paving the existing gravel parking area with an asphalt material will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 18 of 26 Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed asphalt material is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The ILPC notes that the use of the property’s rear yard as a parking lot was previously approved by the Commission in 1993, when zoning regulations for the property required a certain number of parking spaces per dwelling unit. Despite the change in zoning, the Commission feels that that the approval of asphalt paving material and the continued use of the rear yard as a parking lot is appropriate given its earlier approval. The Commission also notes that asphalt paving has been approved for use in the East Hill Historic District when it has been determined that the existing paving material is not a character defining feature of the property or the district. The existing gravel parking lot and associated access drive were install outside of the district’s period of significance and are not considered a character defining feature of the property or district. 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 608 E. Buffalo St. 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:  If the applicant proposes using an alternate, permeable paving surface for the driveway portion of the project, the material can be reviewed and approval by ILPC staff. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: J. Minner Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Gibian, K. Olson, E. Finegan, J. Minner, D. Kramer Against: S. Stein Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 G. 110 Westbourne Ln., Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Concrete Sidewalk Applicant Stacey Becker with Becker and Associates, on behalf of property owners Kelly and Michael Sturman, recapitulated the salient details of the project, noting that the current poured concrete walkway between the public sidewalk and the residence would be replaced with bluestone. S. Becker further explained that the concrete would be replaced with Llenroc in a cut pattern. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 19 of 26 S. Stein said she had no problem with the proposal. K. Olson and S. Gibian agreed. B. McCracken explained this application is a simple change of materials which could not be approved at the staff-level. Public Hearing On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, 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 Stacey Becker on behalf of property owners Kelly and 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 replacing a poured concrete walkway with a patterned bluestone walkway, 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 July 14, 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. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 20 of 26 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 replacing the poured concrete walkway connecting the residence’s primary entrance to the public sidewalk with a patterned bluestone walkway. 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. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of the existing concrete walkway with a patterned bluestone walkway 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 bluestone walkway wall is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 21 of 26 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: D. Kramer Seconded by: S. Gibian In Favor: E. Finegan, D. Kramer, S. Stein, M. McGandy, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 A. 122 Wait Ave, Cornell Heights Historic District – Retroactive Request for Approval of Modifications to an Unpainted Brick Chimney (continued) By 7:30pm, the applicant had not arrived. B. McCracken suggested that the application be tabled until next month. M. McGandy agreed. B. McCracken explained that communications with the property owner regarding the chimney had begun before he accepted the position of Historic Preservation Planner. The property owner was cited during a housing inspection for the condition of the chimney. Without a Certificate of Appropriateness, a contractor was hired to repoint the chimney, but mortar was applied to the entire exterior of the chimney. The previous Historic Preservation Planner advised the homeowner to reverse the application of the mortar. The mortar was chipped off and the chimney was repointed. To avoid future citations, the brick was painted red and the mortar painted white so that damage would be easily discernible in the future. J. Minner suggested that the paint could be removed, though not easily. B. McCracken noted that he explained to the property owner that the paint would have required ILPC review and a Certificate of Appropriateness. S. Stein asked if there was a building permit acquired. B. McCracken answered, yes. K. Olson asked why the permit wasn’t conditional. M. McGandy requested that the applicant come to the commission to discuss the proposal. B. McCracken advised the applicant does not seem to be clear on what the proper channels are. S. Stein suggested offering the applicant to use a product that will chip off paint, as suggested by J. Minner. K. Olson advised the paint will chip off eventually. ― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ― ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 22 of 26 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST None. III. OLD BUSINESS  527 E. State St., East Hill Historic District – Multiple Proposals B. McCracken explained that he has been in communication with the applicant, and the new proposal is a repair in kind of the exterior stucco. Upon receipt of 2’x2’ stucco sample boards, a staff level approval will be issued. He added that a weekly meeting with the applicant could be arranged to monitor the progress of the project. B. McCracken mentioned that the applicant is still working on hiring a stucco contractor. IV. NEW BUSINESS  201 W. Clinton St., Henry St. John Historic District – Early Design Guidance Applicant Zach Boggs, property owner, explained that he purchased the property at 201 W. Clinton St. from the American Red Cross two years ago. He proposes to construct a large addition on top of a non- contributing garage, giving it the appearance of a carriage barn. He explained that the existing garage is too close to the house and the addition above it will step back to comply with currently set back requirements. The siding of the new carriage house would be sawn board-and-batten fitting with the character of other carriage barns in the neighborhood. Other design details including the trussing in the gable ends and the cross-gabled roof design would also be in keeping with other similar structures in the neighborhood. S. Gibian noted the style of the proposal is Victorian or Queen Anne, but the architectural style of the house is earlier. The implied story would suggest that the carriage barn was added later. He asked if there is another style that would be more appropriate for the age and style of the primary structure. M. McGandy commented that the carriage barn should be easily distinguishable as a new building within the historic district. K. Olson added that the design is compatible with neighboring carriage barns, and the later architectural style is in keeping with it being a later addition. She advised that the carriage barn should not be designed to appear as an historic building; it should be easy to distinguish that it is new construction. J. Minner suggested adding the date of construction to the exterior, and added that the garage door is obviously contemporary. K. Olson agreed with the design suggestion. In reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, J. Minner advised the property owner against constructing a new carriage barn that creates a false sense of history. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 23 of 26 E. Finegan asked what kind of windows and siding will be used. Z. Boggs answered that no particular window has been chosen, but perhaps wood with a grid pattern. The siding would be milled board and batten. S. Gibian acknowledged that a tall roof pitch is probably necessary for the apartment that will be added. Z. Boggs asked if the gable bracket should be removed. S. Gibian suggested that details more in keeping with the Greek Revival the house should be incorporated into the design. J. Minner said she thought it would be acceptable to include a gable bracket.  Discussion: 406 and 408 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District B. McCracken explained that he received a request from the property manager, Jerry Dietz, for the in- kind replacement of vinyl siding at the property that was damaged during the fire at the Chapter House. He stated that the house was covered in vinyl siding after designation of the East Hill Historic District without the necessary Building Permit and/or Certificate of Appropriateness. At that time, a significant number of character-defining features were removed. The vinyl was installed over 20 years ago; the current property owner purchased the property 8 months ago, shortly before the fire. B. McCracken stated that he felt uncomfortable approving vinyl at the staff level as it was not approved by the Commission at the time of installation. He requested guidance from the Commission on how to proceed. B. McCracken questioned whether the property was still considered a contributing structure within the East Hill Historic District given the significant loss of character defining features at the time the vinyl was installed. B. McCracken continued that the owner of 408 Stewart Ave also owns 406 Stewart, which was completely destroyed during the fire at the Chapter House. He reported that the property owner is considering combining the two lots and developing a much larger project. The Commission considered the implications of determining that the building is no longer a contributing structure in the historic district and any potential precedent that that determination might set. J. Minner said that the structure is still contributing in massing and scale. B. McCracken advised that the Commission has in the past made the determination that a building is no longer a contributing element. K. Olson suggested that this has been done before at 108 Elston Place. However, Elston Pl. is hidden and not visible from the public way. The properties on Stewart Ave are some of the most highly visible in the district. The Commission considered whether this should be consideration. K. Olson suggested that the character defining features of the property could be restored using photographic evidence. D. Kramer suggested a site visit. K. Olson added that the south-facing protruding bay that remains is character-defining, and indicated that the building should remain contributing. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 24 of 26 M. McGandy stated that the integrity of the building and whether is still contributes to the district need to be evaluated completely separately from the proposal construct a new building on the site. The building should be evaluated based on its own merits. K. Olson referenced the building at 202 Eddy Street, which was destroyed in a fire last year, as a good example of ILPC assistance during development post-disaster. S. Gibian suggested that a new development there could look nice. K. Olson countered it would be too large. B. McCracken said that the changes made at 408 Stewart Ave are a tragedy. K. Olson said that this is partly the fault of the city, and that for this reason, the Commission should let the property owner replace the melted vinyl in-kind. B. McCracken indicated that the owner of the property is looking to see if combined-lot development is possible here. K. Olson replied that the massing of the new development would be important to make a decision. After further discussion about the potential development on the combined lots, integrity of the existing building and the potential for restoration, the Commission decided to schedule a site visit to examine the building. ILPC staff was directed to approve the in-kind replacement of the vinyl siding.  325 S. Geneva St., Henry St. John Historic District – Update B. McCracken explained that he has approved the 6-over-6 wood window acquired by the property owner and has authorized its installation, thus fulfilling the condition placed on the November 15, 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Gibian, and seconded by K. Olson, the Commission members approved the meeting minutes with two minor corrections.  June 9, 2015 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  Discussion: Fall Creek Drive Fence, Cornell Heights Historic District B. McCracken reported that he had been contacted by Cornell University about adding fence along the 100 block of Fall Creek Drive that would connect two other sections of fence and make a continuous barrier along the street. Only a short section of the fence would be within boundaries of the Cornell Heights Historic District; however, as this would be a new fence within the district, B. McCracken said he did not feel comfortable approving it at the staff level without discussing the proposal with the Commission first. ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 25 of 26 S. Stein asked if the fence would be visible from the street. B. McCracken responded, yes, but only a roughly 4’ section, which would be directly behind the guardrail in that location. The rest of the fence would be located within the wooded area behind the guardrail. E. Finegan recalled that the fence was informally deemed acceptable at a site visit several years ago. All Commission member felt comfortable with a staff level approval.  123 and 125 Highland Pl., East Hill Historic District S. Stein reported that she observed fresh gravel in the front yards of 123 and 125 Highland Place while visiting 120 Highland Pl. B. McCracken replied that he was contacted by the Building Division about the situation. The front yards of these properties had gravel previously; however, how large theses parking spaces were was not easily discernable. B. McCracken reminded Commission members to walk the districts to look out for unauthorized changes.  118 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District B. McCracken recapitulated details of a proposal made by a property owner to replace all the wood windows in his William Henry Miller home with vinyl unites. B. McCracken has told the property owner to complete a window survey, though the applicant feels it is an obstructive and unnecessary task.  140 College Ave., Individual Local Landmark K. Olson stated that the addition to the Snaith House is coming along. D. Kramer added that the gazebo used for the electric is not compatible. B. McCracken provided an update on the progress of the project and reported that he received renderings of the proposed electrical “pedestal” earlier in the day. The Commission will be reviewing the proposal at the August meeting.  102 E. Court St., DeWitt Park Historic District D. Kramer inquired about 102 E. Court. B. McCracken advised there is progress, and the new contactor is preservation-minded. Work on the windows, columns, and porch has commenced. The shutters are being scraped and painted. Once the porch foundation and floor are complete, the columns can be lowered and the roof work can begin. The contractor believes the original slate roof may be under the plywood material installed last fall. B. McCracken stated he has weekly meetings with the contractor/architect and encouraged Commission members to join. He notef that the cleaning of debris on the property alone was an excellent improvement.  312 N. Cayuga St., Old County Library Site, DeWitt Park Historic District D. Kramer inquired about the status of the Old County Library Site at 312 N. Cayuga St., after hearing that a representative of the Commission had spoken at the last Tompkins County Legislature meeting about a preference for the Franklin Properties’ proposal for the site over the one submitted by Travis- Hyde Properties. All Commission members reported that they did not speak at the meeting. B. McCracken stated that Alderperson Seph Murtagh had written a letter to the County legislature about the ILPC process and its impact on past projects. He also reported that he had responded to this letter, reiterating Alderperson Murtagh’s key point that the size of any project might be scaled down as it goes ILPC Minutes July 14, 2015 26 of 26 through ILPC review. B. McCracken mentioned that G. Gillespie of Holt Architects, the architect for the Travis-Hyde, had contacted him about the ILPC’s perceived preference for the Franklin Properties’ proposal. B. McCracken said that he assured Gillespie that Commission members are open to all suggestions and proposals for the Old Library site and are willing to work with any developer to create a project that satisfies everyone’s requirements. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:32pm by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission