Loading...
MN-ILPC-2016-02-09Approved by ILPC: March 8, 2016 1 of 15 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — February 9, 2016 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice Chair Michael McGandy, Second Vice Chair Susan Stein Stephen Gibian Jennifer Minner Katelin Olson Seph Murtagh (Common Council Liaison) Bryan McCracken, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 228 Wait Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Install Section of Wood Fence Applicants David Fernandez and Christian A. Gruber, Cayuga Landscape Company, described the details of the proposal, noting the proposed fence would generally not be visible to the public and would also include plantings to soften its appearance. D. Kramer responded it is a nice proposal. K. Olson agreed. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, 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. RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 228 Wait Ave. 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 January 14, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Christian A. Gruber on behalf of property owner Cornell University, Office of Campus Housing, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a narrative titled “Work Proposal – Site Improvements;” and (3) a site plan and elevation illustrating the proposed changes, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 228 Wait Ave., and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, and ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 2 of 15 WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves the installation of a 6’ fence and gate, constructed of rough-sawn cedar boards in varying widths and set back approximately 5’ from the corner of the building, 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 February 9, 2016, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: As identified in the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary Statement, the period of significance for the area now known as the Cornell Heights Historic District is 1898-1937. As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 228 Wait Ave. was constructed in 1899. The Colonial-Revival Style residence was designed by Clinton L. Vivian of the locally prominent firm, Vivian and Gibb. 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. In consideration of this and all approvals of proposals for alterations, new construction, or demolition in historic districts, the ILPC must determine that the proposed exterior work will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the landmark or, if the improvement is within a district, of the neighboring improvements in such district. In considering architectural and cultural value, the Commission shall consider whether the proposed change is consistent with the historic value and the spirit of the architectural style of the landmark or district in accordance with Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by the principles set forth in Section 228-6B of the Municipal Code, as further elaborated in Section 228-6C, and by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the following principles and Standards: ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 3 of 15 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 6’ fence and gate 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 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 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: K. Olson Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: K. Olson, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, S. Stein, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 4 of 15 B. 210 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval to Replace Windows Applicant Jim Bilinski described the details of the project, noting he has owned the property for 34 years. In March 2015, he decided to replace 21 windows. (The image he submitted with the application shows the work that was done.) The existing double-hung windows were replaced with new double- hung windows. From street-level, there is very little difference in appearance between the two. E. Finegan asked if the applicant applied for a Building Permit for the work. J. Bilinski replied, no. He did not realize Stewart Avenue is in an Historic District, although he was aware of the existence of the East Hill Historic District. He honestly believed it was a simple repair job. The windows at that time were single-paned and energy-inefficient. B. McCracken explained that any window replacement requires a Building Permit. E. Finegan asked for more information about the replacement windows. J. Bilinski replied they are vinyl windows, manufactured by the Seneca Building Company, LLC. They were custom-built for the window size. B. McCracken confirmed that a Historic District notification postcard was in fact mailed to the applicant in 2013, informing him that he owns a property in an Historic District. He asked if the applicant happens to own any other properties he may have confused it with. J. Bilinski replied, no. B. McCracken remarked that the Commission should now try to assess the condition of the original windows and whether they were beyond repair. It will then need to determine if the replacement windows are appropriate. D. Kramer asked if the applicant has any evidence of the deteriorated condition of the original windows. J. Bilinski replied, no. He assumes they were the same windows that were there when he purchased the property 34 years ago. E. Finegan asked if the replacement windows were original to the property, or whether they had already been replaced by the time the applicant purchased the property. B. McCracken responded that the one- over-one wood windows that were replaced would have been appropriate for the building at the time it was constructed. J. Minner suggested perhaps some kind of informational campaign could be initiated with the contractor to prevent this kind of situation from recurring. D. Kramer asked if there is any form of sanction identified in the City’s Municipal Code that could be imposed on the contractor in this case. B. McCracken replied he would investigate that. E. Finegan observed there would be a significant cost associated with installing all new windows. He asked if the cost could be borne by the contractor. S. Gibian noted it would be the applicant’s responsibility to recover any damages from the contractor. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 5 of 15 K. Olson noted the question currently before the Commission is whether it would have approved the replacement windows, even with proof of the deterioration of the windows that were replaced. D. Kramer replied, no. E. Finegan agreed. J. Minner observed the draft resolution mentions that the issue would be referred to the City Attorney’s Office. B. McCracken explained that he used prior Commission resolutions as a model for the resolution, assuming the replacement windows would be denied. The ideal outcome would probably be something that would partially satisfy both the applicant and the City. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Christopher Anagnost, Christopher George Real Estate, noted it is unfortunate that many windows in Ithaca are frequently replaced without Building Permits. He suggested the Commission consider allowing the applicant to install aluminum storm windows over the vinyl windows. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer. J. Minner responded that the reason aluminum storm windows are permitted in Historic Districts is that they are reversible alterations. S. Gibian added that in this case the differences in the color of the replacement windows and the original trim also complicate things. He asked if the applicant had considered using a darker color. J. Bilinski replied, no. E. Finegan remarked that, unfortunately, vinyl cannot be painted. B. McCracken noted it would be technically possible, but very expensive and unreliable. K. Olson asked if there is a precedent for the Commission approving vinyl windows in the rear of a property. B. McCracken replied that a similar situation for 123 Roberts Place at the 9/11/12 ILPC meeting was ultimately referred to the City Attorney’s Office. It was eventually negotiated that those vinyl windows could be retained on the side and rear of the property. K. Olson remarked that the Commission would certainly never have approved the applicant’s vinyl window replacement; and she would be very reluctant to approve it retroactively. She is comfortable referring the matter to the City Attorney’s Office and allowing the case to be negotiated. That would also relieve the Commission from potentially setting an undesirable precedent. B. McCracken added that allowing vinyl replacement windows in this case would also be unfair to past applicants who were denied permission to install vinyl windows. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 6 of 15 D. Kramer indicated he would like the Stewart Avenue windows replaced. B. McCracken noted the Commission would have an opportunity to review any agreement negotiated by the City Attorney’s Office. J. Minner asked if the Commission and staff could find a way to share information about the situation to the wider community. B. McCracken replied that although the City mails the annual notices to Historic District property owners, it does not have a comprehensive list of local contractors; however, he would certainly be willing to contact this particular contractor. K. Olson suggested reminding property owners in the annual mailing that they are responsible for any alterations made by their contractors. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 210 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, the property owners, James and Deborah Bilinski, have replaced approximately 21 original wood windows with vinyl replacement windows, without first obtaining a Building Permit and a Certificate of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 27, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner James Bilinski, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) one photograph of the installed windows, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 210-214 Stewart Ave, and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves approval of the replacement of approximately 21 historic wood windows with vinyl replacement windows (for which work has already been completed), and WHEREAS, as stated in the City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines (pg. 58), “vinyl replacement windows are not allowed on designated historic buildings in Ithaca,” and, therefore, the application would not have been approved if the Commission had reviewed the project before work was completed, and WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 7 of 15 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 February 9, 2016, 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, 210 Stewart Ave. was constructed between 1890 and 1893 as part of a Stick Style duplex. 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. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 8 of 15 Standard #6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. When the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the replacement of historic wood windows with vinyl windows has removed distinctive materials and has altered features and spaces that characterize the property. The installed vinyl replacement windows alter the historic planar relationship between the window sashes and wall surface, and reduce the size of exposed exterior window sills. In addition to the change in material, the replacement windows themselves do not replicate the characteristic molding profiles or the glazed-to-solid proportions found in the originals sashes. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, the property owner has stated their opinion that the severity of the deterioration of wood windows was such that their replacement was required. However, since the original materials have already been disposed of, the ILPC is unable to make an independent assessment of their condition. Also with respect to Standard #6, the replacement windows do not match the old in design, color, texture, materials, and other visual qualities. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the replacement of the original wood windows with vinyl replacement windows has destroyed historic materials that characterize the property. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed replacement windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property, that the size of the original window openings was not altered, and most original exterior trim was retained. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the replacement of the historic wood windows with vinyl replacement windows has had a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 210 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 removal of the historic wood windows does not meet criteria for approval under Section 228-6 of the Municipal Code and is a violation of Standard #6 and Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, and be it further ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 9 of 15 RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the installed vinyl replacement windows do 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, and be it further RESOLVED, the violation of Standard #6 and Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code for the removal of an original, character-defining feature without approval is referred to the Office of the City Attorney for resolution. To fully mitigate the negative impacts of the above- described inappropriate alteration, the owner will replace all vinyl replacement windows on all elevations with an appropriate product to address the requirement in Standard #6 that the new windows shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities, and where possible, materials. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 C. 310 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District ― Retroactive Request for Approval to Replace Windows Applicant David G. Huckle, Pyramid Brokerage Company, and agent for property owner, Coze Corporation, described the details of the proposal, noting his client purchased the property one year ago. The prior owners, Robert and Mary Beth Osborn, had replaced the windows a year earlier, but never disclosed the fact. He indicated his client did receive the annual notification postcard. The property was purchased in Fall 2014. At that time, a Transferable Certificate of Compliance was issued, but there was never any mention or notation of the violation. It was only when the current property owner received a March 25, 2015 letter from the Building Division that he became aware of the situation. B. McCracken remarked that when alterations have been made by a previous property owner in the past, the Commission has not held the new property owner responsible for the prior owner’s actions. He asked how many windows had been replaced. D. Huckle replied, approximately 42 of the 50 windows. S. Gibian observed that the window casings and sills were also wrapped with aluminum. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, 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 S. Stein. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 10 of 15 D. Huckle noted if some middle ground could be reached he is confident his client would be willing to agree to it. D. Kramer indicated he would be willing to only require that the Buffalo Street and west façade vinyl windows be replaced. S. Gibian observed some doors were also replaced on the west side. J. Minner remarked that staff would need to review the proposed materials before installation. D. Kramer indicated he would be comfortable with that. K. Olson expressed concern that the wrapping of the window casings and sills may have damaged the trim. E. Finegan observed that the Commission appears to be proposing that the vinyl windows on the west and south façades be removed, along with all the wrappings. K. Olson noted the east façade is also highly visible. E. Finegan asked Commission members to identify how they would be likely to vote. M. McGandy noted that K. Olson made a compelling point about the east façade’s visibility, especially given the building’s history and the prominence of the location. S. Stein noted she would like to see a full mitigation of the alterations. D. Kramer remarked that K. Olson has convinced him. He would also like to see a full mitigation. E. Finegan indicated he could agree to only having the Buffalo Street and west façades mitigated, with the west façade being the most important. K. Olson indicated she would like a complete mitigation. It is an unfortunate situation, but it is an income-generating property in an excellent real estate market. S. Gibian noted he could also agree to only having the Buffalo Street and west façades mitigated. J. Minner remarked she does not see how the Commission could approve the proposal without a complete mitigation, in the absence of more information. E. Finegan wondered if the City Attorney’s Office should review the project. D. Kramer suggested simply requiring a complete remediation at this time, so the matter can be resolved. He would be comfortable with a staff-level review of the proposed windows. S. Gibian remarked he would like the approval conditioned on research being conducted on the original windows’ composition and appearance. There were no objections. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 11 of 15 RESOLUTION: Moved by S. Stein, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 310 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, prior to November 2013, approximately 42 original wood windows, at least two of them containing leaded glass, were replaced with vinyl replacement windows without the required Building Permit or Certificate of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, Code Inspector Robert Ripa sent a letter to Robert and Mary Beth Osborn, the owners of record of 310 E. Buffalo St., regarding the replacement windows and requesting they immediately contact the Building Division to apply for a retroactive Building Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, the Osborns did not respond to the May 2014 letter and sold the property to Coze Properties Corporation in October 2014, and WHEREAS, a Certificate of Compliance was issued to Coze Properties Corporation for 310 E. Buffalo St. on October 17, 2014, with no reference to or citation of the vinyl replacement windows, and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2015, Code Inspector Robert Ripa sent a letter to Coze Properties Corporation regarding the replacement windows and requesting the owner immediately contact the Building Division to apply for a retroactive Building Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness, and WHEREAS, after Coze Properties Corporation did not respond to the March 2015 letter, Code Inspector Robert Ripa sent a second letter on April 1, 2015, to which the property owner did not respond, and WHEREAS, Coze Properties is in the process of selling the property and desires a Transferable Certificate of Compliance, which the Building Division will not issue until the matter regarding the vinyl replacement windows is resolved, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated January 26, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by David Huckle on behalf of property owner Coze Properties Corporation, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a copy of the Certificate of Compliance issued on October 17, 2014, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 310 E. Buffalo St., and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 12 of 15 WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s), the project involves replacing vinyl replacement windows with 2-over-2, wood or aluminum clad wood windows and the removal of aluminum wrapping on all exterior trim and window sills, 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 February 9, 2016, 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, 310 E. Buffalo St. was constructed sometime before 1866 and exhibits characteristics of both the Greek Revival and Gothic Revival Styles. Constructed within the period of significance of the East Hill Historic District and possessing a high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the East Hill Historic District. The proposal under consideration is the replacement of inappropriate vinyl replacement windows installed by a previous property owner with new windows that are more in keeping with the historic and aesthetic quality of the property and 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 ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 13 of 15 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 all vinyl replacement windows with staff-approved product and removal of aluminum wrapping will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. The ILPC notes that the replacement of the wood windows by the previous property removed distinctive materials that characterized the property and the East Hill Historic District. Replacement of the vinyl units with a product that is more appropriate will mitigate the adverse impact of the inappropriate alteration. Also with respect to Principle #2 and Standard #9, the proposed windows are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the 310 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 conditions:  Staff shall review and approve the proposed replacement window product before the windows are installed. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 14 of 15  Research by ILPC staff and the applicant shall be conducted on the building’s original windows, prior to the selection of a replacement product, to ensure the new windows match the original historic materials removed by the previous property owner. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: S. Stein Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: M. McGandy, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST None. III. OLD BUSINESS None. IV. NEW BUSINESS  410 N. Cayuga St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Design Discussion S. Gibian announced that he believes it would be helpful to conduct a preliminary design discussion for a project that property owners, Julia Markovits and Jeffrey Moses, recently asked him to undertake. (He would recuse himself from the Commission’s deliberation of the project.) The project involves converting a pantry in the rear of the house into a sun room and eating area. The total project area would include the laundry room, pantry, and rear porch on the west side of the building. It would be 60- 70 feet from the front of the house and is not very visible to the public. He noted the ceiling height in that portion of the house becomes gradually lower, down to 5’6”. The back porch and steps are not from the period of significance, nor are they character-defining features of the property. The project would retain the parapet on the north side and one 9-over-6 window, although the latter would be relocated above the basement window. One of the basement access-ways would be filled with stone and the shed roof’s eave would be raised 1½ feet. The large picture window in the kitchen would be replaced with a double-hung window. K. Olson agreed the project would be minimally visible to the public.  311 College Ave., The Nines ― Discussion B. McCracken reported that M. McGandy and S. Stein requested that the Commission discuss the merits of the potential designation of The Nines property. He collected as much information as he could on the property; and City Historian Mary Tomlan also has some more information. Part of the rationale for the request originated from the proposal to relocate the current fire station (located next to The Nines) and the likelihood of development pressure then being applied to The Nines building. ILPC Minutes February 9, 2016 15 of 15 V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Stein, seconded by J. Minner, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with three minor modifications.  January 26, 2015 (Rescheduled Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  102 E. Court St. B. McCracken reported that additional work on the property is being done. At the last Ithaca City Court hearing on the case, the judge ordered the property owner to fix some remaining issues with the renovation project. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:14 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission