Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-04-12Approved by ILPC: 5/10/16 1 of 14 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — April 12, 2016 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice Chair Michael McGandy, Second Vice Chair Stephen Gibian Jennifer Minner Katelin Olson Bryan McCracken, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 307 Wait Ave., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Demolish Automotive Garage Applicant Maria Maynard, Ashley Management Corporation, described the details of the application for demolishing the garage and provided photographs documenting its deteriorated condition. Her research suggests when it was originally proposed for demolition to the Commission in 1999, it was not approved. The Building Division subsequently stated it would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy, unless the garage were either repaired or demolished. Over that same time period, several contractors indicated to the property owner that there was virtually nothing to shore up within the garage and it should be demolished. Ashley Management Corporation then sent a letter to the Building Division indicating it would attempt to shore up the interior of the garage. M. Maynard explained the current proposal is once again to demolish the garage, since it is in a state of such disrepair and represents a safety hazard. She noted there is no indication why the Commission did not approve demolition in 1999. In examining the City’s records and viewing the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, she determined the garage was relocated in 1930 to 307 Wait Avenue from another site. She suspects the garage was never provided the necessary infrastructure to support it, after that relocation. E. Finegan asked if there were any further contextual information about the Commission’s intentions at the time. B. McCracken replied that the Commission did not make a formal determination then. It believed at the time that the demolition was a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and was required to conduct a full environmental review for the project. The Commission requested the applicant to complete Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) so the full impact the proposal could be explored. As a result, it concluded it needed more information before it could proceed. B. McCracken found no record of the Commission’s having ever approved or denied the application. D. Kramer suggested the Commission now review the various alternatives for proceeding. B. McCracken replied that the Commission could (1) approve the application as presented, (2) approve the application with conditions (e.g., rebuilding the garage), or (3) deny the application and use the affirmative maintenance provision of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to force the applicant to repair it. J. Minner noted the submitted photographs do not appear to be from 1999. They have date of 2011 on the back. M. Maynard responded she assumed they were from the 1999 Certificate of Appropriateness application. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 2 of 14 J. Minner observed the garage appeared in reasonably good condition in the photograph taken for the Cornell Heights Historic District nomination in 1987. It is unfortunate it has deteriorated so much. S. Gibian noted the garage’s current condition is not salvageable (e.g., it is settling on the ground and just resting on dirt). E. Finegan observed it is a case of demolition by neglect. M. Maynard reiterated that several contractors indicated the garage was not worth saving, in 1999. J. Minner remarked it seems Cornell University is at fault for losing the paper trail. It appears the garage could have been maintained, since 1999. She agreed it is not now salvageable. M. McGandy noted he is not inclined to require reconstruction, since it seems the garage would have no functional purpose. It does seem the record is highly ambiguous, although the prior property management agency should clearly not have allowed it to deteriorate. E. Finegan asked if the applicant has a Certificate of Compliance. M. Maynard replied, yes. E. Finegan replied, in that case, it appears the Building Division allowed the matter to remain unresolved, all this time. 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 D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. D. Kramer indicated he supports demolition. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy seconded by K. Olson. WHEREAS, 307 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 March 28, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Maria Maynard on behalf of property owner Cornell University, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) a narrative documenting the history of the subject of the proposal from its estimated date of construction to the present; (3) a photograph documenting existing conditions; (4) a sheet containing a map and additional details on the property; (5) an enlarged map of the subject property; (6) Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1919 and 1965; (7) a letter dated December 7, 1999 to S.B. Ashley Management Corp. from Code Inspector Michael Dickerson; (8) a letter dated June 30, 2000 to Code Inspector Michael Dickerson from Ashley Management; and (9) an email dated February 22, 2016 to the applicant from Franklin E. Jones, Jr. of F.E. Jones Construction Inc., and ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 3 of 14 WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 307 Wait Ave, 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 the demolition of a severely deteriorated garage, 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 April 12, 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, 307 Wait Ave was constructed between 1912 and 1913 for Mary Fowler, curator for the Cornell University Library. 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 is the demolition of an early automotive garage that was either constructed or moved to its current location during the district’s period of significance. The garage’s simple gable roof, stucco wall finish and double doors are characteristic of this typology, and despite the building’s severely deteriorated condition, it retains a high level of historic integrity. However, the prolonged infiltration of water has resulted in considerable rot that has significantly impacted the building’s structural integrity. 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 ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 4 of 14 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 #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 demolition of the garage will remove distinctive materials and will alter features and spaces that characterize the property. As noted above, the automotive garage is an intact example of its architectural typology and contains a high level of historic integrity. It also clearly links the advent and proliferation of automobiles in the first decades of the 20th century to the development of the Cornell Heights area during its period of significance. For these reasons, its removal would significantly impact the character of the property and the Cornell Heights Historic District. With respect to Principle #2 and Standard #6, as shown in the photograph provide with the application, the observations of ILPC members and the professional opinion of Franklin E. Jones Jr. from F. E. Jones Construction, the severity of the deterioration of the garage regrettably requires its demolition. The garage’s deteriorated condition represents a clear case of “demolition by neglect;” which is the result of years of deferred maintenance. As stated in the application, the property was acquired by Cornell University in 1973. The condition of the garage at that time is unknown; however, it appears to be in fair condition in the photographs taken for the designation of the Cornell Height Historic District in 1987. As part of a housing inspection in 1997, Code Inspector Michael Dickerson noted the deteriorated condition of ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 5 of 14 the garage and ordered its repair in a letter to the Cornell University Real Estate Department dated January 28, 1997. It appears no action was taken to correct the condition until the fall of 1999 when Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner, Leslie Chatterton, sent information on the Certificate of Appropriateness and Economic Hardship processes to the property owner. In April or early May of 2000, Ashley Management as property manager on behalf of Cornell University applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the garage due to its deteriorated condition. At their regularly scheduled meeting on June 8, 2000, the ILPC determined in Resolution - 0612RB-2 that the demolition of the garage “appear[ed] to be a Type I Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act” and instructed the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement so the full impact of the proposal could be determined by the Commission. It seems the Environmental Impact Statement was never submitted and the Commission took no further action on the proposal. In a letter to Code Inspector Michael Dickerson dated June 30, 2000, S.B. Ashley Management, Corp indicated that their “staff [would] attach (from the interior) plywood and any needed supports to the deteriorated portions of the roof, sidewalls, and windows…in order to stabilize and secure the structure.” This “interior” work would not have required approval from the ILPC or its staff, and presumably would not have prevented further deterioration considering one of the areas of noted deterioration was the roof. 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 Cornell Heights Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, however, this adverse effect is regrettably unavoidable due to the structure’s severely deteriorated condition and structural instability, 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:  Once the garage is removed, the area shall be seeded and barriers placed to prevent its conversion to parking. The barriers shall be approved by ILPC staff prior to installation. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: M. McGandy Seconded by: K. Olson In Favor: M. McGandy, K. Olson, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein Vacancies: 0 ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 6 of 14 B. 118 Triphammer Rd., Cornell Heights Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Two Windows Applicants David Ruff and Keith Smith, Ruff Maintenance, Inc., and Mark Chase, Marvin Windows, described the details of the proposal, noting the submitted photographs show the deteriorated condition of the windows, one of which is falling apart. Neither window is visible from the public way. They would be replaced with new identical-looking, aluminum-clad ones. S. Gibian noted the application does not clearly identify the window replacements. D. Ruff replied that “Line #4” would replace the south facing window on the third floor, while “Line #7” would replace the window on the back of the house. M. Chase added they would be aluminum-clad windows with flat casing and a grille pattern, as reflected on the submitted pictures, with three horizontal bars. S. Gibian asked if the casing would be replaced, as well. M. Chase replied, yes; they intend on replacing the casing. E. Finegan asked if that would make the windows look notably different from the originals. M. Chase responded the only difference would be that the slot detail would a little different, compared to what was submitted. The grille size detail would be same. The windows would largely appear the same as the originals, only with a slightly different profile. D. Ruff noted any replaced framing would be wood, with the same profile as the originals. Everything should look the same. S. Gibian remarked the wooden window on the first floor is an example of how replacement windows can end up looking different from the originals (e.g., set back, molding profile). Under the proposal, there would now be three different-looking windows. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Mark Reichert [phon.], associated with a local lumber company, remarked that the proposed windows would be far more authentic than the existing replacement ones. Jan Hendershot, Alumnae House President, Delta Delta Delta, indicated the applicants are trying to balance designing the window replacements to appear as close as possible to the historical look of the house with maintenance efficiency. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. K. Olson noted she did not see anything in the photographs that would concern her too much regarding the functionality of the window damaged by animals. M. Chase replied that it is not structurally as strong as it was (e.g., weakened joints). K. Olson remarked that the other window has been deteriorating for years, which could have been avoided with routine maintenance. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 7 of 14 M. McGandy expressed concern the application is too vague, including an unverified claim of material deterioration. He would be uncomfortable approving window replacements, without most Commission members having the opportunity to inspect them. An elevation showing the location of the windows would have been helpful. D. Kramer indicated he generally agrees with M. McGandy; however, one window is not visible from the street, while the other one is virtually not visible. The windows seem like fairly close replicas of the existing ones, so he would be inclined to approve the application. J. Minner generally agreed with D. Kramer. Given that the Commission has historically required exterior replacement windows to be wood, however, the proposed aluminum-clad windows would be a significant deviation. B. McCracken noted the Commission has in fact approved aluminum-clad windows in the past. E. Finegan agreed that no one would be able to see the window and it is reasonably historically accurate. E. Finegan asked if the vinyl windows on the first floor could be replaced to match the new windows. K. Smith replied, possibly. K. Olson noted the Commission needs to determine if the deterioration warrants replacement and then agree on the replacements. She has significant concerns with the application and would not be inclined to approve it. M. McGandy recommended the Commission schedule a site visit to resolve the issue. There were no objections. B. McCracken indicated he would schedule the site visit. ― The application was TABLED. ― C. 310 N. Aurora St. & 309 N. Tioga St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Install Landscape Signs Applicant Katrina Medeiros, Thaler & Thaler, P.C., described the details of the proposal, noting the application is a continuation of the discussion from the November 10, 2015 Commission meeting and some suggestions the Commission made at that time. The current application is for one additional sign facing away from the Historic District, with colors similar to the sign approved earlier. There would also be two more signs on the Aurora Street side. Public Hearing On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by J. Minner, 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. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 8 of 14 RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer. WHEREAS, 309 N. Tioga and 312 & 314 N Aurora Streets, 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 October 30, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Cayuga Signs, Inc on behalf of property owner TBA, Inc., including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) four photographs documenting the locations of proposed signs; (3) a survey map of the subject property; (4) a tax map depicting the subject property and the parcels surrounding it; and (5) a drawing of one of the proposed signs, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Forms for 309 N. Tioga and 312 & 314 N. Aurora Streets, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the installation of three “Permit Parking Only” signs of varying sizes in three separate locations, 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 Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on April 12, 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 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, 309 N. Tioga St. was constructed in 1975 and is considered a non-contributing resource in the DeWitt Park Historic District. 312 and 314 N Aurora St are vacant parking lots. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 9 of 14 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: 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. As non-contributing properties, 309 N. Tioga and 312 & 314 N. Aurora Streets., by definition, do not possess historic materials or features that are subject to protection under the Principles enumerated in Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The ILPC’s evaluation of the proposed work is, therefore, limited to the assessment of the impact of the proposed work on adjacent historic structures in the district and on the DeWitt Park Historic District as a whole, with the guiding principle being that the proposed work must not further reduce the compatibility of the non- contributing structure with its historic environment. With respect to Standard #9, the installation of three signs will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features and spaces that characterize the property. These signs are being installed on a non-contributing property, are visually unobtrusive, and are entirely reversible. Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed signs are compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. RESOLVED, that, based on findings set forth above, the proposal will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of 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. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 10 of 14 RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: K. Olson Seconded by: D. Kramer In Favor: K. Olson, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, E. Finegan, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein Vacancies: 0 D. 406 E. Buffalo St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Install Railing Applicants Paul Houston and Barbara Lynch described the details of the proposal for a railing on the northwest porch, which it is dangerous. Their insurance company is requiring them to install some kind of railing. It would be fabricated to look like the railing depicted in the application, the only difference being that the top rail would be cherry wood. The remainder would be oak wood, with tung oil and a polyurethane finish. 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 D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. RESOLUTION: Moved by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy. WHEREAS, 406 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 March 8, 2016, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by property owner Paul L. Houston, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) an additional narrative titled “Description of Work;” (3) one photograph titled “Design;” (4) a first-floor floor plan showing the location of the proposed project; (5) three photographs documenting existing conditions; (6) a statement from the Erie and Niagara Insurance Association regarding the project; and (7) an email exchange between the applicant and the Historic Preservation Planner at the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 406 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 the installation of a railing on the northwest porch and ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 11 of 14 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 April 12, 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, the Craftsman- Style residence at 406 E. Buffalo St. was constructed in 1931. 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 April 12, 2016 12 of 14 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 installation of a railing on the northwest porch 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 railing is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. As represented in the submitted “Design” photograph, the railing will have a molded top rail, square-edged bottom rail and approximately 1”x1” spindles spaced approximately 1” apart. All railing materials are solid wood. 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 406 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. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: D. Kramer Seconded by: M. McGandy In Favor: D. Kramer, M. McGandy, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: S. Stein Vacancies: 0 E. 110 N. Titus Ave., Henry St. John Historic District ― Proposal to Install Fence & Pergola Applicant Gary Bucci, David Long Appraisal Co., was not present. M. McGandy indicated he could not proceed with a vote on the application. He is not even sure precisely what the applicant is proposing for the pergola. S. Gibian agreed it is a vague and incomplete application. D. Kramer indicated he could provide the Commission some photographs of the property, both with and without the carriage house. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 13 of 14 B. McCracken noted the applicant would like to install a fence along the driveway. (The work included repaving the driveway and leveling the stone patio in the back, which he approved at the staff level.) The current application includes the fence, pergola, and stairs. He asked the applicant what the pergola material would be as well as several other question related to the proposal. The appliant’s response was included in the distributed materials for the project. The fence would be a salvaged piece of fence, but not original to the house. S. Gibian remarked that the proposal for a pergola is very unclear, since there is no drawing of it. It does not even seem appropriate for the time. J. Minner noted at least it would be reversible. Public Hearing On a motion by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by J. Minner, seconded by D. Kramer. ― The application was TABLED. ― F. 300 & 400 Blocks of N. Tioga St., DeWitt Park Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Paving & Curb Materials Applicant and City Director of Engineering Services Tim Logue was not present. B. McCracken explained that he had a conversation with Mr. Logue, who indicated the City might be altering the scope of the project. Public Hearing On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by J. Minner, 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. ― The application was TABLED. ― II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST David Kramer, 406 N Cayuga St., Commission member, but speaking as a neighboring property owner to the proposed 310-312 N. Cayuga St. (DeWitt House) project, remarked that the project is a complete and utter disaster from a variety of perspectives. He urged the Commission to adopt a more rigorous approach in addressing the project’s deficiencies with the developer. The project as proposed simply does not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, with its two-story Greek Revival style modest vernacular homes. It is genuinely inconsonant with the Historic District. III. OLD BUSINESS  The Chapter House — Update B. McCracken reported the property has been placed on the market; the owner ultimately decided not to rebuild the building that was approved by the Commission. The approved plans for the building, however, are being sold along with the property. ILPC Minutes April 12, 2016 14 of 14  310-312 N. Cayuga St. (DeWitt House) — Old Tompkins County Public Library B. McCracken reported there have been significant changes to the project design. The Commission may like to hold another joint meeting with the Planning and Development Board to discuss the project. J. Minner responded she is unsure if the Commission really needs to continue meeting jointly with the Planning and Development Board. IV. NEW BUSINESS  None V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by S. Gibian, seconded by E. Finegan, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with three minor modifications.  March 8, 2016 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS  NYS Preservation Conference, May 6-8, 2016, Albany, NY — Announcement B. McCracken provided the Commission with details of the 2016 NY Statewide Preservation Conference.  Historic Homeowner Tax Credit Program Workshop — Reminder B. McCracken announced there will be a New York State Historic Homeowner Tax Credit Workshop on Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 5:30 PM, at The History Center.  Historic District Designations — Update B. McCracken reported he is moving forward with preparation of the Historic District nomination materials for The Nines. He also still plans to move forward with the previously discussed East Hill Historic District Expansion proposal. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:41 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission