Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-10-13 Approved by ILPC:November 10,2015 Ithaca landmarks[Preservation[Eommission JILPC)Ed Minutes — October 13, 2015 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair Stephen Gibian Bryan McCracken, Staff David Kramer, Vice-Chair Jennifer Minner Charles Pyott, Staff Katelin Olson Michael McGandy Susan Stein Ellen McCollister(Common Council Liaison) Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 305 W. Green St., Henry St. John Historic District— Proposal to Replace Roof on Accessory Building Applicants Doug Albern and Richard Buechel presented an overview of the proposed project, noting they would like to install a new roof on what had been a barn on the property. The building currently has asphalt shingles, over cedar shakes. D. Albern indicated that a Building Inspector examined the structure and approved it for metal roofing. From the street, one would virtually never be able to see the roof, which is not historic. 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 M. McGandy. S. Gibian remarked he generally does not prefer metal-panel roofing for primary structures, but it is probably appropriate for an accessory building. RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 305 W. Green 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 September 18, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC) by Doug Albern on behalf of property owner Dick Buechel, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) two sheets of product specifications for Ameri-CanaTM Panel, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the entry in the annotated list of properties included within the Henry St. John Historic District for 305 W. Green St, and the City ofIthaca's Henry St. John Historic District Summary Statement, and 1 of 14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the replacement of the asphalt shingle roof on an accessory barn structure with Ameri- CanaTM Panel, a corrugated sheet metal roof material, in Stone Gray, 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 October 13, 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, 305 W. Green St. was constructed in the Shingle Style in ca. 1864. 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 accessory barn in question was constructed prior to 1888 and is partially visible from Fayette and S. Albany Streets. Between 1919 and 1929, a one-story, flat- or low-pitched- roof, L-shaped commercial building was constructed around this structure. 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 228-611 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: 2of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 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 42 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 49 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 roof replacement will 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 Ameri-CanaTM Panel is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The ILPC finds that application of a corrugated, sheet-metal roof to the accessory barn structure is appropriate for the following reasons: the barn is not the primary contributing structure on the lot; it is not highly visible from the public way, with only portions of its roof slopes visible from Fayette and S. Albany Streets; the removal of the existing asphalt shingle roof cladding, which is required by code if a new asphalt shingle roof was applied, would be logistically difficult due to the building's location on the property line and proximity to other buildings; galvanized, corrugated, sheet-metal panels were used as a roof cladding on agricultural buildings during the district's period of significance, and the color and other visual properties of the proposed material reflect the visual properties of this historic material. 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. 3of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: K. Olson Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, S. Stein, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 B. 409 S.Albany St.,Henry St.John Historic District—Proposal to Replace Steps&Install Fence Applicant Rebecca Levin presented an overview of the proposed project, noting she and her husband would like to replace the crumbling front steps and banisters with wood, as well as install stockade fencing on the sides of the house to enclose the back yard. (B. McCracken distributed specifications for the proposed stockade fence.) E. Finegan asked about the rationale for replacing the steps with wood,rather than concrete. R. Levin replied they simply prefer the appearance of wood; and concrete is also significantly more expensive. E. Finegan asked what the applicants have in mind for the banister. R. Levin replied that they did not initially have pipe-railing in mind,but that is what the designers proposed. She knows that Building Code requires a person to be able to place one's hand around it. S. Gibian agreed the handrail has to meet specific grip requirements; however, the handrail could be independent of the guardrail, so the applicants could have one kind of handrail and one kind of guardrail. R. Levin replied they would be willing to consider a different type of railing; they were simply proceeding with the pipe-railing the designers identified. S. Gibian observed there does not appear to have been considerable thought placed into the design. R. Levin agreed it seems somewhat rudimentary. She would like to be able to proceed soon with the project, however, since they have not been receiving mail at the house. S. Gibian remarked his first reaction was that something more elaborate could be installed; however, he subsequently noticed most of the similarly styled properties in the area do not have fancy handrails. M. McGandy indicated it is difficult to make a decision, since the Commission does not know precisely what the applicant would be installing. B. McCracken suggested it may be appropriate for the Commission to identify parameters for a staff- level review. S. Gibian noted he has no objection to the wooden steps, but he does object to the diagonal lattice. D. Kramer agreed. B. McCracken informed the applicant that if the designers provide him with more detailed information, he could most likely approve the work. 4of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 S. Gibian asked if the applicants would be painting the wood. R. Levin replied she would defer to the Commission's judgment. S. Gibian suggested painting the wood the same color as the green trim. R. Levin agreed. J. Minner noted she does not object to the fence's being approved at the staff level either. R. Levin further explained that the fence would be situated in the rear, connecting one or two feet from the edge of the back of the house. Since there is very little room on the left side of the house (as one faces it), there would be no gate there; the fence would run from the back steps and connect to the carriage house next door. On other side of the house, the fence would be situated one or two feet from the back of the house, connecting to the carriage house on the other side, and it would include a gate. S. Stein remarked she would not object to a staff-level review. 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 S. Stein seconded by M. McGandy. M. McGandy indicated the Commission could table the application and request a staff-level approval. S. Stein and E. Finegan both agreed. S. Gibian remarked he would like to see the trim boards around a lattice panel (not a diagonal panel), which could be painted after a weathering period. E. Finegan wondered how the Commission would like to handle the pipe-railing. B. McCracken asked if the Commission would like the applicant to return to the Commission if a guardrail is required. S. Stein replied she would be fine with also keeping that at the staff level. E. Finegan agreed. K. Olson remarked she would like the minutes to reflect that the alterations involve a material change: the applicants would be replacing a pre-cast set of stairs, which are not original to the building, with materials that are historically appropriate to the architectural style in the neighborhood and surrounding Historic District. E. Finegan asked if all Commission members are satisfied that the proposed stockade fence should match what is already in place. There were no objections. —The application was TABLED and the proposed alterations were delegated to staff for review. — C. 410 Stewart Ave.,East Hill Historic District—Proposal to Replace Six Windows Applicant Shun Cheung presented an overview of the proposed project, which would involve replacing multiple windows with only two windows. He explained that the current windows do not meet current emergency egress code. The proposed windows would each replace three windows with a single sliding window, for two of the third-floor rooms. 5of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 K. Olson asked the applicant if there is any change in use that prompted the alterations. S. Cheung replied, no. A current resident's parent is strongly urging the applicant to make the alteration. S. Gibian asked where the windows are situated. S. Cheung replied, one faces the front (east),while one is situated on the side facing north. S. Gibian observed the application is not very detailed. E. Finegan noted it appears the applicant would eliminate all the detailing between the three current windows and install a new vinyl sliding window. I Minner expressed surprise there is already a vinyl window on this property. D. Kramer agreed. I Minner explained to the applicant that windows are typically considered a highly character-defining feature of a historic property, so a proposal like the applicant's would typically not comply with the regulations the Commission is obligated to follow. E. Finegan asked if the current Certificate of Compliance clearly states that the rooms in question are satisfactory. S. Cheung replied, yes. S. Gibian observed that it appears that in 1975 the windows were awning windows. B. McCracken added that also appears to have been the case in 1992. S. Gibian noted that if the windows were converted back to casement windows, that would increase the opening for egress to twice as large as it is now. D. Kramer agreed that converting them back to casements would be a good solution. B. McCracken wondered if requiring the applicant to revert to awning-style windows would mean he would be required to increase their size to comply with Building Code. D. Kramer observed that the applicant's real quarrel is with the tenant's parent, so perhaps he should consult with her to determine if an awning-style window would suit her. E. McCollister noted the situation should really be handled between the City Attorney's Office, the Building Division, and the tenant's parent. B. McCracken responded the Commission could deny the current application and refer it to the City Attorney's Office for final resolution. E. Finegan wondered how the situation would be affected if the current windows had been installed without a permit. B. McCracken replied he could not find anything in the official Building Division property file to suggest when those windows were installed. 6of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 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 D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. WHEREAS, 410 Stewart Ave. 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 October 1, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC)by property owner Shun Cheung, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) two photographs documenting existing conditions; and (3) an image depicting the proposed window product, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 410 Stewart Ave, and the City ofIthaca's East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves replacing two sets of three double-hung windows with two slider-style windows by combining the smaller window openings of the individual sets, 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 October 13, 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. 7of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 410 Stewart Ave was presumably constructed in the Shingle-Style in c. 1890. While the massing of the Shingle-Style building remains, the exterior appearance of the building has significantly changed through the addition of stucco cladding and a terra cotta tile roof. 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 involves replacing windows to meet current egress requirements at the current tenant's request. The replacement of these windows is not required by state or local building code, as stated in an email to Bryan McCracken, Secretary to the ILPC, from William"Skip" Schell, Senior Plan Examiner, which is attached herein. It also appears that the windows in question were replaced without a Building Permit or a Certificate of Appropriate after 1992. Photographs from that year show two sets of three awning-style windows in the third story of the east fagade. These windows are currently double-hung, vinyl replacement 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 228-613 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 49 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. 8of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 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 42, Standard 42, and Standard 49, the replacement of two sets of windows will remove distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. While the window openings no longer contain the historic awning-style sashes, the historic configuration, size, proportions and trim of the openings remain. Also with respect to Principle 42 and Standard 49, the proposed windows are not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. With respect to Standard 410, the window replacements cannot 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 have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 410 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 does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: K. Olson In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson,E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner, S. Stein, D. Kramer Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 D. 527 E. State St., East Hill Historic District—Proposal to Demolish Porch Applicants Daniel Francis and Jose Guisado presented an overview of the proposed project, noting that it would involve the demolition of the existing back porch, which is failing structurally. J. Guisado distributed photographs of the current condition of the porch. M. McGandy remarked that the applicant has essentially dumped a considerable amount of information on the Commission at a late stage in the process, which makes it very difficult for the Commission to make a decision. Moreover, until the Commission receives official documentation from the Building Division that the porch has in fact been condemned, he does not see how the Commission can approve the current application. 9of14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 E. Finegan suggested the Commission arrange a time with the applicants to conduct a site visit, in the presence of the Building Inspector, to resolve the issue. It should be noted that if the porch does genuinely need to be demolished, it would have been the direct result of the property owner's neglect. J. Minner observed that the building is not individually landmarked, which complicates the situation in her mind, since it is not visible from the front right-of-way. On the other hand, the Building-Structure Inventory Form states fairly clearly that a three-level back porch was added between 1910 and 1919. K. Olson responded she does not think the Commission should handle individually landmarked buildings differently from any other building. S. Stein observed it is in fact possible to see the porch from the side street. D. Kramer asked if the Commission should table the application at this time and schedule the site visit. J. Guisado reiterated that he definitely believes the porch needs to be demolished. D. Kramer responded that the Commission cannot possibly answer that particular question tonight with the information it has and in the absence of a site visit. J. Guisado replied that the applicant would like to move forward and demolish the porch as soon as possible. E. Finegan asked if Commission members would be amenable to meeting together on-site with Building Inspector Bob Ripa. K. Olson replied she would really also like to see finalized drawings of what the replacement porch would look like, before approving the demolition. She does not see how it would be possible to approve the demolition before the next meeting. J. Guisado responded that the Commission now has numerous photographs documenting the condition of the porch, as well as the dimensional details necessary for reconstruction. E. Finegan remarked that the application could have been submitted to the Commission considerably sooner that it was, if the project is so urgent. The applicant already has considerable experience with the Commission's process. J. Guisado responded he is merely asking for permission to demolish the porch. He needed some time to identify a qualified contractor, but he is now ready to move forward with the project. E. Finegan reiterated that the Commission has to assess whether the porch genuinely needs to be demolished. J. Guisado replied that only by demolishing the porch will he be able to design the plans for the replacement porch. S. Gibian indicated he would probably support the demolition; however, the problem with moving forward with the demolition is that, once demolished, it becomes more difficult to reproduce the original porch. 10 of 14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 E. Finegan remarked that the applicant was well aware that he needed to have detailed plans of the new porch for the Commission to be able to approve the demolition. J. Minner asked if it would be possible to salvage the windows if the applicant ends up reconstructing the porch. J. Guisado replied that is another issue that needs to be resolved; it would be a question of which historical version of the porch the Commission would like to have restored. E. Finegan indicated the applicant should be restoring the original version of the porch. K. Olson noted the windows are definitely historic. J. Guisado responded that all the windows could certainly be saved and stored. B. McCracken indicated he would schedule a site visit with the Commission, as well as Building Inspector Bob Ripa. 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 K. Olson. E. Finegan asked the applicant when the Commission could expect to see the plans for the new porch. J. Guisado responded perhaps by the middle of next week. E. Finegan polled the Commission if it would prefer the porch to be rebuilt, if it ends up needing to be demolished. M. McGandy replied he is uncertain at this point. S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, and K. Olson all indicated they would like it rebuilt. J. Minner noted that the issue of"demolition by neglect" is an important factor to consider in this situation. If the windows were retained and elements of the original porch design were incorporated into the design, she would be willing to approve a new, compatible porch; however, she is not necessarily supportive of complete reconstruction of the porch. S. Gibian indicated be would also be willing to consider approving the demolition, based on the distributed photos. He added that without some structure in the rear of the building, the back fagade would look fairly austere. If there is sufficient evidence to support the suggestion that there bad once been a two-story porch on the building, he would be willing to consider that. 11 of 14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST • 400-404 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District—Correspondence from Mary Raddant Tomlan B. McCracken indicated the following public comment should be read into the record for the minutes: October 13, 2015 To: Members, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Bryan McCracken, Secretary to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission From: Mary Raddant Tomlan, Ithaca City Historian In the wake of the Chapter House fire,I became interested, as did many, in the history of the building, especially after seeing the photograph of it as it was originally built circa 1904. In particular, I have attempted to learn when the building was re-faced, altering it from a very geometric form with light-toned brick and a mansard roof to a more crafted appearance, its dark brick and pent roof perhaps calling forth the image of an English pub. I have wondered about the date of the change and its impetus. Since my limited research has turned up no indication of fire or other destructive force, I am left to wonder whether the architectural change accompanied a change in use or ownership, or whether it was simply a matter of stylistic choice. The dark brick of the remodeled building was popular in the `teens and the `twenties, as seen in the former Ithaca High School, now DeWitt Building, and in the Henry St. John or Belle Sherman elementary schools. Could the major remodeling thus have been done in the 1920s,when the property changed hands, or about 1934, when Jim's Place, a confectionery, was joined by Jim's taproom and restaurant following the repeal of prohibition? The earliest photo of the remodeled building that I've seen is one published in the Ithaca Journal in January 1963,when the property,part of the estate of James Floros, changed bands. At that time, the ground floor tenant was Jim's Place,a restaurant and bar;I have found no identification of the Chapter House until 1964, when it was known as the Chapter House at Jim's Place and subsequently, the Chapter House. This chronology,then, suggests that the iconic Chapter House pub never occupied a building that looked like that of c.1904; indeed, an advertisement for the bar in the Cornell Daily Sun some months after its opening showed a photo of the c.1904 building with the words "We've come a long way." Speaking now as an independent architectural historian,I believe that to place the Chapter House as a major tenant of a new structure that clearly evokes the form of the building prior to the bar's existence in it would be most unfortunate (even if the tag line for a new Chapter House would be "We've come a very, very long way"). The evocation of a history that never existed can only create confusion among those who would seek to understand Ithaca's past, and would always beg explanation. I hope you will consider these matters as you further address the proposal for the new building. 12 of 14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 M. McGandy observed that the preliminary proposal for reconstruction of 400-404 Stewart Avenue appears to be moving towards a purely historic reconstruction of the building, which he does not believe is necessarily something the Commission should be aiming to achieve. D. Kramer agreed he did not find the argument for that very persuasive. B. McCracken remarked that other historic preservation commissions prefer that a newly constructed building be designed to reflect a more contemporary time and style. K. Olson noted it greatly depends on the creativity of the architect in being able to combine both the historical and the contemporary. M. McGandy expressed concern that the Commission would set a precedent that it would prefer to see complete historical mimicry for these kinds of projects. K. Olson suggested amending the City's Historic District&Landmark Design Guidelines to provide more guidance on the subject and counter the perception that people must design faux historical structures. J. Minner agreed. D. Kramer suggested identifying some good existing buildings to serve as illustrative models of what the Commission would prefer to see. III. OLD BUSINESS • 408 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District—Update B. McCracken reported that after the last Commission meeting the property owner indicated that continuing with the original demolition proposal may not be the best approach, given the uncertainty of securing the Commission's support. The current plan is to renovate the building. IV. NEW BUSINESS • 120 E. Buffalo St. (Boardman House), DeWitt Park Historic District—Proposal to Install Impermanent/Temporary Fencing B. McCracken reported that several months ago the Commission approved a fence on the property, which people have subsequently been using as a de facto public restroom. The property owner would like to erect a temporary fence to help alleviate the problem, which would involve no excavation or use of concrete. It would be a simple low 30-inch fence. (On a related subject, B. McCracken added that he participated in a Parks Commission meeting at which DeWitt Park was identified as needing security-oriented improvements. He informed the Parks Commission that the Commission would like to be involved in any discussions.) B. McCracken noted he has a photograph of the proposed Boardman House temporary fence, which he could either approve at the staff level or ask the property to owner appear before the Commission for approval. 13 of 14 ILPC Minutes October 13,2015 M. McGandy indicated he would be comfortable with a staff-level approval— as long the issue of the fence is revisited in the future. There were no objections. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Gibian, seconded by M. McGandy, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with two minor modifications. • September 22, 2015 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Update: Historic Preservation Planner Office Hours B. McCracken reported that funding for the full-time Historic Preservation Planner position was included in the Mayor's Budget (35 hrs./week) and there appears to be a good chance it will be approved by Common Council. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:55 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission 14 of 14