HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2011-10-11Approved by ILPC – 11/8/11
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – October 11, 2011
Present:
Susan Stein, Chair
Nancy Brcak
David Kramer
Ed Finegan
Michael McGandy
Susan Jones
Lynn Truame, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Susan Stein called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. and read the legal notice for the public
hearings.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Two Original
Casement Windows with Double-Hung Windows. (Tabled at meeting held on Tuesday,
September 13, 2011.)
Applicant Bojan Petek recapitulated the salient details and current status of the application. He noted
that most of the Commission members had now examined the site in person. B. Petek remarked the
original windows in the computer laboratory feature a joint at the springline of the arched tops.
Regrettably, he noted, those joints are in very poor condition on both the windows. Skilled window
restorer, Shad Ryan, examined the windows, but would not be available to perform any work on them
until after January 1, 2012. B. Petek reiterated the need to install low-maintenance windows in these
areas. The owners still prefer to completely replace the windows with Fiberglas windows.
N. Brcak indicated the site visit was very helpful and the applicant built a convincing argument for the
need to replace the windows, under these specific circumstances.
Noting the unique circumstances of these windows, including their placement on the building and their
deteriorated condition, S. Jones remarked that she wants to be clear that Commission approval of their
replacement should not be taken as a precedent that would allow replacement of other windows on the
building.
E. Finegan thanked the applicant for the opportunity to view the site in person and noted he believes the
proposal is reasonable, given the condition of the windows and their discreet location.
D. Kramer concurred, but remarked he would not be positively inclined if the windows were not situated
in such a discreet location. Like S. Jones, D. Kramer stressed he would not want to set a precedent for
replacing any of the other windows in the building.
M. McGandy agreed that the location of the windows is the crucial factor, in this case, and he would be
inclined to approve the proposed work.
1 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
S. Stein indicated she agrees with the other Commission members’ concerns about setting a precedent.
She is inclined to think the windows could be repaired; however, their discreet location makes
replacement far less objectionable.
RESOLUTION: Moved by N. Brcak, seconded by M. McGandy.
WHEREAS, 2 Ridgewood Road is located within the Cornell Heights Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 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(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated August 10, 2011, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Bojan Petek, of Petex Restoration Ltd. on behalf of
property owner Phi Delta Theta Fraternity, including the following: (1) two narratives
respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s); (2)
photographs of the property including: (a) the existing windows, (b) the view of the existing
windows from the street, (c) the interior of the windows proposed for replacement, and (d)
other examples of the proposed installation of a semicircular panel at the top of the existing
window opening; and (3) product specifications for Marvin All Ultrex double-hung
windows, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 2
Ridgewood Road, and the City of Ithaca’s Cornell Heights Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacement of two round-topped casement windows on the
southwest corner of the building with two rectangular Marvin All Ultrex fiberglass windows
topped by a semicircular wood panel, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed
Change(s) and shown in the photographs of the property, and
WHEREAS, the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is a Type II Action under the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance for which no further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation and information to evaluate impacts of
the proposal on the subject property and surrounding properties, and
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 9/13/2011,
at which time Commission members requested an opportunity to view the windows from
the interior of the building in order to better assess the severity of their deterioration, and
WHEREAS, members of the Commission did visit the property to view the windows on September 15
and September 16, 2011, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
2 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
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, the house was
constructed between 1921 and 1922 and combines elements of revival styles of the first
quarter of the 20th Century.
Constructed within the period of significance of the Cornell Heights Historic District and
possessing a relatively high level of integrity, the property is a contributing element of the
Cornell Heights Historic District.
The purpose of the proposal is to replace deteriorated windows.
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 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this case
specifically the following Standards:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
#6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where 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.
#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 Standard #2, the existing round-topped casement windows, as shown in the
photographs of the building, are not distinctive features that characterize the property.
3 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
With respect to Standard #2, the addition of semicircular wood panels filling in the top of
the existing window openings, as shown in the photograph of the proposed treatment, will
not alter features that characterize the property.
With respect to Standard #6, as shown on the photographs of the existing windows, the
existing round-topped casement windows have deteriorated to a condition that requires their
replacement.
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 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC approves the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
N. Brcak
M. McGandy
S. Stein
S. Jones
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
B. 2 Ridgewood Road, Cornell Heights Historic District – Proposal to Replace Three Existing
Doors
L. Truame indicated that a total of three doors are under consideration and two separate resolutions have
been drafted — one to address the replacement of the two sets of flanking doors (originally operable, but
now screwed shut) with fixed glass panels, and the other to address the replacement of the central door,
including the elimination of its original sidelights and fan light.
S. Jones asked if the two flanking doors are original, to which B. Petek replied, yes, they appear to be.
He added that one of the flanking doors is rotting significantly at the base. The operable leaves of the
central door, B. Petek noted, are replacements.
M. McGandy observed that the proposed alterations to the central door include elimination of the
sidelights and transom (i.e., the fan light), which would be regrettable.
B. Petek remarked that retaining the original fan light and replacing the doors would result in an
incongruous appearance for the overall assembly. The fan light features a semi-circle that aligns with
the existing location of the doorframe, but this relationship would be lost with the new door since the
proposal is to widen the operable area of the door by eliminating the side lights.
4 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
M. McGandy stressed that the transom is the most attractive and distinctive feature of the assembly and
every effort should be made to preserve it.
N. Brcak asked if the applicant had located any documentation of the appearance of the original central
doors, to which B. Petek replied he has not seriously searched for any. He did find some information on
the historical appearance of the building as a whole via some old yearbooks, but nothing that shed light
on the rear of the building.
B. Petek indicated the applicant had also considered putting a stained-glass panel on the inside of the
transom. N. Brcak asked if a precedent exists for using stained glass in the building, to which B. Petek
replied, not as a part of that particular transom but there is stained glass in other locations in the
building.
S. Stein asked if the applicant had explored replacing the two operable leaves of the central door with a
single door so that the sidelights and the transom could be retained. B. Petek replied that the principal
impetus behind the proposal was to insulate the library more effectively, which would include
addressing the single-pane sidelights and fan light. He reiterated that a recent energy audit determined
the library is approximately 10° colder than the rest of the building.
D. Kramer remarked it is a wonderful room and the doors appear integral to the room. He asked if the
rotting portion of the flanking doors could not simply be replaced, and a double-paned inner frame
installed. B. Petek replied that this would not sufficiently improve the energy performance of the doors.
He added that he had considered having two new door leaves constructed, but he had difficulty finding a
carpenter willing to provide a warranty for them, given that they would be exposed to the weather. By
comparison, the aluminium clad alternative he is proposing would come with a 10- or 20-year warranty.
B. Petek added that the doors had previously been stripped with a rotary sander resulting in an
unattractive appearance which would be highlighted if original material were retained adjacent to new
material. The applicant considers complete replacement of all three sets of doors to be the best option
for reasons of energy conservation and visual congruity.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing.
Steve Gibian, independent architect, agreed with the idea of replacing the two operable central door
leaves with a single new door so that the sidelights and fan light could be retained.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed on a motion by M. McGandy,
seconded by S. Jones.
M. McGandy remarked that it does in fact make sense to keep the two draft resolutions separate, given
the concerns that have been expressed about compromising the integrity of the central doors.
B. Petek remarked that additional work is being done on the library interior, which fraternity alumnus
Phil Bartels has been taking the initiative on. B. Petek assured Commission members that he and Mr.
Bartels both share considerable respect for historic preservation concerns, which is why the applicant is
proposing such attractive and high-quality replacement doors.
5 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
S. Stein reiterated her suggestion that the applicant consider installing a single operable leaf in the
central door, replacing only the non-original operable leaves, so that the original sidelights and fan light
could be retained. E. Finegan agreed, noting that the central door is very distinctive. S. Jones and N.
Brcak agreed.
B. Petek indicated he does not know how installing a single door while retaining the sidelights would
conform to the legal requirements for emergency egress. He just knows that any door would need to be
able to serve as egress for about 100 people or more, from his conversation with City Code Inspector
John Shipe.
D. Kramer indicated it definitely sounds like the building and fire code issues would need to be further
explored.
L. Truame indicated that the Commission should proceed with its decision on the proposal and that if a
revised proposal were approved by the Commission it would be reviewed by the Building Department
for code compliance prior to issuance of a permit for the work.
B. Petek remarked that he had only discussed the original project proposal with Mr. Shipe, so he is not
sure what the answer would be. B. Petek added that another complication is that there is not a lot of
room for the out-swinging operable doors to be latched open during functions in the building, as the
applicant intends. There is a bench which may be in the way.
S. Stein remarked that at this point it would make sense to table the proposal so that the applicant could
further explore the options discussed, including the possibility of installing a single operable door in the
central assembly while retaining the original sidelights and fan light, and/or installing operable doors,
rather than fixed panels, in the two flanking assemblies, to which B. Petek agreed.
C. 402 North Cayuga Street, DeWitt Park Historic District – Proposal to Replace Slate Roof
with Architectural Shingles
The applicant Brian DeYoung was not present to address the Commission.
The application consists of a proposal to replace the existing slate roof with asphalt architectural
shingles. The applicant states in the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness that repairs have
been made to the slate over the course of approximately the past ten years, but there continue to be leaks
which are now threatening the interior plaster. The applicant has stated it would be prohibitively
expensive to replace the roofing with real slate. In addition, the applicant has noted that all of the
buildings of similar size and age in the neighborhood already have asphalt shingles. The applicant
would replace the shingles with asphalt architectural shingles in the color Weathered Wood. The intent
would be to recall what may have been the original (1825) roof covering, presumed by the applicant to
have been wood shake. The application was accompanied by two photographs of missing and loose
shingles and repaired areas of the roof.
L. Truame indicated that Megan Wilson and she had attempted to contact the applicant multiple times
requesting additional information, including professional documentation of the condition of the existing
6 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
roof, but received no response from him. It would be appropriate at this time for the Commission to
consider the application as provided and to take action on it.
N. Brcak noted that although the applicant had expressed an opinion that the original (1825) roof had
been wood shake, no documentation to support that contention had been provided.
Public Hearing
On a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair S. Stein opened the public hearing. There
being no one present to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed on a motion by D.
Kramer, seconded by E. Finegan.
Special Note: An inadvertent error was made in how the Commission’s votes were recorded on the resolution below.
While Commission members voted “no” on the resolution, for the purpose of denying the Certificate of Appropriateness,
they should in fact have voted “yes” to the resolution, as it was written. The Commission subsequently reconsidered and
voted on the resolution at a 10/25/11 special meeting, denying the Certificate of Appropriateness.
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak.
WHEREAS, 402 North Cayuga Street is located in the DeWitt Park Historic District, as designated
under Sections 228-3 and 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1971, and listed
on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1971, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4(E) of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated 7/22/11, was submitted to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) by Brian DeYoung on behalf of property owner, Nancy B. Stewart,
including a Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Change(s) and the
following attachments: (1) an estimate from Excelsior Roofing, Inc. for full replacement
of the existing roof with new slate and copper flashings, and (2) two photographs of the
existing roof, the first showing areas of missing and loose slates and the second showing
a close-up of a previously repaired area; and
WHEREAS, additional application materials were submitted to the ILPC, including a sample book for
Timberline Natural Shadow architectural shingles, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for
402 North Cayuga Street, and the City of Ithaca’s DeWitt Park Historic District Summary
Statement, and
WHEREAS, the proposed project involves replacement of the existing red slate roof with Timberline
Natural Shadow asphalt architectural shingles in the color Weathered Wood, 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
7 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
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
10/11/2011, 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, 402 North
Cayuga Street was constructed circa 1825-1835 for Julius Ackley, a prominent local
businessman and member of the first Board of Trustees of the Village of Ithaca.
Originally constructed in the Federal style, in 1909 the house received additions designed
by locally prominent architect, Clinton L. Vivian, in the late Queen Anne/Neocolonial
style.
Constructed within the district’s period of significance, and being associated with locally
prominent businessman Julius Ackley and locally prominent architect Clinton L. Vivian,
and retaining sufficient integrity to reflect its historic and architectural significance, 402
North Cayuga Street is a contributing element of the DeWitt Park Historic District.
As stated in the application’s narrative Reason for Change(s), the purpose of the proposal
is to replace the deteriorated slate roof and associated flashings.
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 228-4E
(1)(a) of the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is
guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in this
case specifically the following Standard:
#2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
8 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
#4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
#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.
With respect to Standard #2, the slate roof is a historic feature that characterizes the
property.
With respect to Standard #4, it is unclear whether the existing slate roof is an original
feature of the building. Documentation contained within the New York State Building-
Structure Inventory Form states that the roof was raised as part of the 1909 remodeling
and it is possible the existing slate roof may date to that period. If not original, the
existing slate roof is a change that has acquired historic significance in its own right.
With respect to Standard #6, as stated in the Reasons for Proposed Change(s), and as
shown in the photographs provided as attachments to the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness, the severity of deterioration of the existing slate roof does not appear to
require its replacement.
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 DeWitt Park Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-4E(1)(a), and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the ILPC determines that the proposal does not meet criteria for approval under
Section 228-4E (1)(a) of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC denies the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
RECORD OF VOTE: 0-6-0
Yes
No
M. McGandy
N. Brcak
S. Stein
S. Jones
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
Abstain
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Collegetown Terrace – Review & Approval of Proposed Building #7 Sheathing Materials
Applicant Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf, PLLC, recapitulated the salient details of the project
and the purpose for the applicant’s appearance before the Commission. At its February 2011 meeting,
9 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
the Commission had approved the project, conditioned on the review and approval of the sheathing
materials for Building 7. K. Wolf added that the Planning and Development Board had approved the
details and colors for all the buildings at its 9/27/11 meeting.
A. Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects, then proceeded to walk through the colors and details of Building 7. He
displayed a site plan depicting the larger architectural context in which the building is situated, followed
by its West Elevation drawing. The building’s detailing seeks to mimic the stratified appearance of
local gorges and other similar geological features. There will be two stucco textures, one rough and one
smooth, and three separate stucco colors which represent the varied colors of the local shale. The dark
grey depicted on the elevation illustrates the lap siding that will be used to mimic rock fissures and
overhang shadows. A. Chimacoff remarked that once the trees and other plantings have grown in
somewhat, the building’s appearance should largely be subdued.
E. Finegan inquired into the purpose of the light blue composition board he observed at the mock-up on
site. A. Chimacoff replied it is a cement composition board that would appear in a band at the roofline
of all the buildings, including the north and south facades of Building 7. It is a neutral color, intended to
represent the sky, which will serve to provide a certain degree of continuity throughout the project.
N. Brcak asked A. Chimacoff to clarify whether the light blue composition board would appear on the
Building 7 façade, to which he replied, no, not on the West Elevation, which is the side that is visible
from the historic district.
D. Kramer asked for guidance on how the Commission should consider the historic appropriateness of
the building. L. Truame replied that the applicable historic preservation standards remain the same as
for any other building — the new work should be differentiated from the old, should not create a false
sense of historical authenticity, and should be compatible with adjacent buildings (i.e., Boiler Works and
Quarry Arms).
S. Jones asked if the sheathing materials used on the West façade would continue around to the South
facade, which is also somewhat visible from within the historic district, to which A. Chimacoff replied,
yes, with the exception that the light blue composition board would appear at the roofline on the South
façade.
N. Brcak remarked she is not thrilled with the lap siding; however, the stucco is acceptable. S. Stein
expressed her agreement and noted the colors are acceptable to her as well. D. Kramer agreed. E.
Finegan indicated the stucco looks like it should blend in reasonably well. S. Jones indicated that it
meets the Standards, in terms of its differentiation and compatibility.
Commission members voted unanimously to approve the proposed sheathing materials for Building 7 of
the Collegetown Terrace project.
RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
S. Jones
D. Kramer
No
Abstain
10 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
E. Finegan
S. Stein
N. Brcak
11 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
III. MINUTES
As moved by D. Kramer and seconded by E. Finegan, Commission members unanimously approved the
following meeting minutes, with no changes:
• June 14, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
• June 28, 2011 (Special Meeting)
• July 12, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
• August 16, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
• September 13, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
IV. PLEASURE OF THE CHAIR
A. Administrative Matters
Prospective Commission Members
L. Truame introduced the following two individuals who have both expressed an interest in serving
on the Commission:
• Christine O’Malley: An architectural historian, Christine received her B.A. and M.A. degrees
from Queen's University in Kingston, Canada and her M.A. and Ph.D. in architectural history
from the University of Virginia. Christine has taught at Ithaca College, Carleton College, and
St. Olaf College. Christine is being recommended to replace Nancy Brcak, who will be
leaving the Commission at the end of the year,
• Stephen Gibian: An independent local architect and Cornell University alumnus, Steve
specializes in residential renovations and additions and serves as an active member of the
Trumansburg Farmer’s Market Pavilion Design/Build Committee. Steve is being
recommended to fill the Commission’s current vacancy.
Landmarks Ordinance Revisions
L. Truame indicated the proposed Landmarks Ordinance revisions are almost complete and a final
draft will be distributed to Commission members shortly. It is anticipated the Commission could
vote on the document at its November meeting, after which it would go before the Planning and
Economic Development Committee, and then the full Common Council for approval.
M. McGandy inquired into the status of the Cascadilla Park Road survey, to which L. Truame
replied that perhaps that could be addressed during the next round of Certified Local Government
(CLG) grants.
D. Kramer remarked that the red house on the corner of Cayuga Street and Court Street is in a
severely deteriorated state (the front portion of it has actually been condemned) and he is interested
in what the Commission might be able to do about it.
12 of 13
ILPC Minutes
October 11, 2011
L. Truame responded that the revised Landmarks Ordinance draft that is being worked on does in
fact contain an affirmative maintenance section. At the current time, however, she could not say
what options may be available to the Commission. She noted, however, she would speak with the
Building Commissioner about the issue and see if she may have some guidance for the
Commission.
B. Public Comments on Matters of Interest
(None.)
C. Communications
(None.)
V. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, and as moved by M. McGandy and seconded by E. Finegan, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. by Chair S. Stein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lynn Truame, Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
13 of 13