No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2016-01-16Approved by ILPC: 02/09/16 1 of 13 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) Minutes — January 26, 2016 Present: Ed Finegan, Chair David Kramer, Vice-Chair Susan Stein Stephen Gibian Jennifer Minner Michael McGandy Katelin Olson Nancy Brcak (Alternate) Seph Murtagh (Common Council Liaison) Bryan McCracken, Staff Charles Pyott, Staff Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened a Public Hearing for discussion of the proposed Ithaca City Cemetery resolution. John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., and Planning and Development Board member, remarked that the proposed Ithaca City Cemetery resolution is a significant improvement over the initial proposal that was discussed last month. The suggestion of developing a test sample is particularly helpful. He urged the Commission to approve the resolution. There being no further public comments, the Public Comment on Matters of Interest was closed on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by D. Kramer. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 400-404 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District — Proposal to Construct Three-Story, Mixed- Use Building Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, updated the Commission on the proposal, noting the stonework has now been kept below the water table and all the trim has been made darker (grey and charcoal black). In reviewing their budget, the applicants concluded the originally-proposed zinc roof would be too expensive. They now propose a similar-looking asphalt shingle roof instead. On the north side of the building, a couple of courses of solder brick have been added to break up the flat appearance of the unadorned wall. Lighting fixtures have also been added. J. Demarest noted he also introduced some diamond-like accent features on the roof, following the shape of the shingles. He is also exploring using a ‘gingerbread’ detail on the roofing. He would be delighted, however, to consider any different or additional design elements the Commission may be interested in. J. added that the stonework would now be a coursed ashlar, rather than the originally-proposed stone (and would feature beaded joints). Due to cost considerations, the applicants decided to use simulated divided lights windows, aluminum clad on the outside, although they could certainly explore using true divided lights, if the Commission felt strongly about them. S. Gibian noted that he prefers the more formal-looking stonework, compared to the more rustic stone from the earlier proposal. He added that the simulated divided lights would allow for a slimmer muntin profile than that of the true divided lights, which typically have thicker muntin profiles to accommodate the components of the insulated glass. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 2 of 13 J. Minner noted she likes the mansard roof far better with the added styling. She encouraged the applicants to employ real stone and materials, wherever possible, to reflect the integrity of surrounding historic structures. She is not sure the ‘gingerbread’ border along the mansard roofline would be appropriate. J. Demarest agreed to eliminate it. K. Olson indicated she likes the diamond motif on the mansard. N. Brcak expressed reservations about mixing the Second Empire architectural style with the Old English style. J. Demarest replied the intent was to use the Second Empire architecture of the original building as the reference for everything above the storefront. J. Minner explained that at previous meetings the Commission had been moving in favor of mixing architectural styles, because they were reflective of different periods in history. Public Hearing On a motion by S. Stein, seconded by D. Kramer, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. Nancy Medsker, 308 N. Cayuga St. (DeWitt Park Inn), spoke in support of the project. Joel Harlan, 307 Ward Heights South, Town of Newfield, spoke in support of the project. John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Ave., and Planning and Development Board member, thanked the applicants for doing such a great job of incorporating both the Planning and Development Board’s and the Commission’s comments. The design is highly appropriate. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. B. McCracken observed he still lacks specifications for the doors. J. Demarest replied that the doors would be made of wood and appear similar to the original doors: tongue-and-groove panels with half- divided lights at the top. RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, 400-404 Stewart Ave is located in the East Hill Historic District, as designated under Section 228-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code in 1988, and as listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places in 1986, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, dated November 30, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Jason Demarest on behalf of property owner MSW Management, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2) three sheets of architectural drawings titled “Concept Perspective,” “Exterior Elevations,” and “Exterior Materials Schedule,” and ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 3 of 13 WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 400-404 Stewart Ave and the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, and WHEREAS, in April 2015, 400-404 Stewart Ave. was significantly damaged by a fired that also completely destroyed the adjacent building at 406 Stewart Ave and caused minor damage to two other structures, and WHEREAS, at their regularly scheduled meeting on August 11, 2015, the ILPC approved the demolition of the remaining fire-damaged structure at 400-404 Stewart Ave following the required public hearing, and WHEREAS, as stated in the narrative Description of Proposed Change(s) the project involves the construction of a three-story, mixed-use building with brick and stone cladding and a mansard roof, 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 January 26, 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, 400-404 Stewart Ave was constructed between 1904 and 1910 as a large brick-veneered commercial building on a primarily residential street. 400-404 Stewart Ave, known locally as the Chapter House, was completely destroyed by a fire in April 2015. The lot is currently vacant. 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. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 4 of 13 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 #3 New construction located within an historic district shall be compatible with the historic character of the district within which it is located. 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 #3 and Standard #9, the proposed three-story, mixed-use building is compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the property and its environment. The design for the new building incorporates details and materials found in the fire-damaged structure as well as an earlier design iteration of that building. The mansard roof and storefront windows reflect the style of the original building at the turn of the 20th century. Features like the red brick, slate-tile-clad, pent-roof canopy and random-ashlar, bluestone watertable reflect the design of the original building prior to the fire. As the design and materials of the new building were directly informed by the design of the original contributing historic resource, the ILPC finds that the new building is compatible with the surrounding 19th- and early-20th-century buildings. Also with respect to Standard #9, the proposed three-story, mixed-used building will be differentiated from surrounding historic structures. The ILPC notes that the proposed design draws inspiration from the original building but does not attempt to recreate it. The amalgamation of architectural styles and details, contemporary and traditional building materials, and modern building techniques will identify it as a new structure within the Historic District. Materials and details to be used include: Sierra® line asphalt shingle by GAF in Harbor Mist; Aledora Slate line simulated-slate shingles by Inspire Roofing in Coachman; red brick by Redland in Heritage SWB with raked, salmon- colored mortar; wood, divided-light transoms by LePage Millwork; aluminum-clad, wood windows by the LePage Millwork (used on the second and third stories); simulated-divided light, wood windows by LePage Millwork (used on the first story); bluestone with a random-ashlar pattern and beaded mortar joint; wood door with a glazed upper half and a beaded-panel lower half; painted TruExterior® composite, smooth-finish trim by Boral. RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the will not have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the East Hill Historic District, as set forth in Section 228-6, and be it further, ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 5 of 13 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: • Additional or changed exterior finish materials shall be submitted by the applicant to the ILPC for a staff-level review; • Specification for all exterior light, hardware and roof adornments shall be submitted by the applicant to the ILPC for a staff level review. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: J. Minner Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: J. Minner, S. Stein, M. McGandy, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 — JOINT DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD — II. OLD BUSINESS • 312 N. Cayuga St. (Old Tompkins County Public Library), DeWitt Park Historic District Present: Planning & Development Board: Garrick Blalock, Chair John Schroeder, Vice-Chair Robert Aaron Lewis Jack Elliott John Schroeder Mackenzie Jones-Rounds Lisa Nicholas, Staff JoAnn Cornish, Staff Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning D. Kramer recused himself from consideration of the proposed project, following the counsel of the City Attorney’s Office. Applicants Graham Gillespie and Tom Covell, HOLT Architects, Frost Travis, Owner, and Kim Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP, presented the Commission with the details of the proposal. L. Nicholas explained that no formal action regarding the project is being taken. The purpose of this evening’s meeting is merely for the Commission and Planning Board to have an opportunity to conduct the initial review of the project design. Neither a formal Site Plan Review Application, nor an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness has yet been received. She noted the Commission will need to review the project before the Planning Board initiates its environmental review. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 6 of 13 K. Michaels noted the applicants would like to identify an agreed-upon process and schedule with the Commission and Planning Board. The applicants would also like some initial direction from the two bodies for such rudimentary features as the footprint, massing, and building placement, before proceeding with further design work. K. Michaels described the two following design options the applicants are submitting for review. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 7 of 13 K. Michaels explained that the applicants were also asked to explore a third option that would densify the building and make it as compact as possible. The applicants, however, eventually concluded they could not propose such a design. K. Michaels noted the applicants feel strongly that “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens” is the best proposal for the site. J. Schroeder expressed concern that neither design option reflects enough of the basic typology of the DeWitt Park Historic District, in terms of the use of greenspace and building façades. For example, there is usually a narrow planting area between the sidewalk and the building in the surrounding neighborhood, including small trees, that considerably adds to the beauty and contextuality of that section of Cayuga Street. J. Schroeder noted he believes the site contains enough space to be able to do that. (There is no need for 24-foot wide sidewalk.) He also expressed concern with the building’s large massing — it needs to be broken up, especially along Court Street, with its small wood-framed buildings on the other side of the street. The applicants should seek to establish the appearance of various building masses, instead of one very large mass. Neither of the options presented would lend itself to that, although it could perhaps be done most easily with “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens.” S. Murtagh expressed a preference for “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens.” He likes the idea of putting in more greenspace and vegetation. He asked if there is a difference in the number of living units between the two design options. K. Michaels replied, no. S. Murtagh asked how much flexibility the applicants have in terms of reducing the number of units. K. Michaels replied the applicants are definitely not seeking to reduce the number of units at this time; however, the design team could certainly explore ways of addressing some of the concerns that have been expressed. G. Gillespie added that the design team is exploring how to break the massing down. Once the footprint has been established, more effort will be put into that. M. McGandy expressed a preference for the “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens.” He also likes the applicants’ use of the term “transition,” rather than “edge.” He agreed with J. Schroeder about needing to break the massing down, especially on Court Street. He noted the applicants have some flexibility with the amount of parking on the site, so he would encourage them to re-examine that issue. S. Stein agreed with the prior comments. In addition, the parking issue is critical for her — there are too many spaces. She would like to see more greenspace. The overall massing seems too ‘boxy’ to her, as well. She suggested exploring the use of balconies, along with more innovative architecture. N. Brcak noted the drawings do make the building appear incredibly ‘boxy’. She agreed there is too much hardscape; she would like to see more greenery. Furthermore, the corner looks very sharp; she suggested doing something distinctive at the corner. G. Blalock agreed with all comments made so far. M. Jones-Rounds indicated she likes “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens” the most. She would like to see fewer surface-level parking spaces. She also suggested softening the building’s appearance (e.g., rooflines, corners) and breaking it up further, along Court Street. She likes the garden space. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 8 of 13 E. Finegan agreed with J. Schroeder that there should be less massing, as well as more greenery and plantings on Court Street. He also prefers “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens.” To his mind, the Court Street façade is the principal problem area with the whole design. He suggested the applicants do something to avoid establishing a massive wall on that street (e.g., similar to what was done with the Carey Building renovation). K. Michaels responded the design team could certainly explore that. J. Elliott expressed a preference for “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens,” although he is not fond of the way it transitions down to the wall. He added that the applicants should re-use as much of the existing building structure as possible. K. Michaels responded that this proposal did not include re-using the library structure, although it would use some of the foundation. They will see what may be possible. J. Elliott remarked he is not fond of the appearance of the little wall, which seems vestigial. He suggested it should be eliminated. In terms of breaking up the massing of the Court Street side, he suggested pushing it back by revisiting the Right of Way issue. Regarding the garden itself, the circular curve in the lower right portion seems out of character with its immediate environs. The garden should be more of an extension of the geometry of the building. K. Olson agreed with prior comments that the massing is too blocky. The project would be improved by establishing a setback of some kind. The Commission has repeatedly expressed concerns with the Court Street façade. The project design should reflect the setback from the existing building’s wall on Court Street. S. Gibian also expressed a preference for “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens.” He added that he actually preferred the very first proposal that was presented to the Commission, since it had even more greenspace. It is not an L-shaped building anymore; it is not as clear and simple. S. Gibian agreed with the other comments about breaking up the Court Street façade in both scale and height. M. Darling expressed a preference for “Option 1: Streetscape & Gardens.” J. Minner agreed with many of the prior comments (e.g., breaking up the massing/scale, excessive surface-level parking). She is also unsure of how the garden area would appear and function. R. Lewis agreed with most of the prior comments (e.g., too much parking, need for improvements on the Court Street side); however, he actually preferred “Option 2: Urban Edge.” S. Murtagh noted he would be curious to confirm what the required number of parking spaces is for the site. M. Jones-Rounds agreed: it seems a little high to her. K. Michaels explained the parking spaces also account for the commercial use of the building, in addition to the parking needs for Lifelong, some of whose clients and visitors are mobility-impaired. E. Marx remarked that Tompkins County felt strongly that it would like to see the maximum number of housing units on the site, as well as the accommodation of Lifelong, which drove part of the public’s demand for sufficient parking. He stressed that Lifelong attracts people from all over the County. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 9 of 13 J. Schroeder agreed with the need to eliminate some surface-level parking. He added that, if the building is going to be set back, then the parking lot should also be set back. He also agreed with R. Lewis that there should be some more definition/separation between the garden space and DeWitt Park (e.g., beautiful trellis wall). Adjournment On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan adjourned the joint meeting to allow the Commission members to change meeting rooms. Call to Order On a motion by M. McGandy, seconded by K. Olson, Chair Finegan reconvened the meeting. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST (cont.) On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by M. McGandy, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. David Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., expressed his serious reservations about the project, noting his parents are also very concerned about this very large project, since they would be confronted with a colossus across the street. He added that no one in the neighborhood, to his knowledge, wants the building as proposed, constructed. The project would be a disaster in terms of how it fits into the neighborhood, its overall aesthetics, and its consonance with the neighborhood itself. Nancy Medsker, 308 N. Cayuga St. (DeWitt Park Inn), spoke in tentative support of the project, noting the applicants have done a very good job so far and have been sensitive to neighbor concerns; however, she is also concerned with the size of the building. The applicants need to provide more renderings and elevations for the community to determine if it is a genuinely acceptable design. Overall, she believes it is a good project. Susie Kramer, 406 N. Cayuga St., spoke in tentative opposition to the project, noting she would like to see the project improved. One way or the other, however, she would like to see some kind of project built on the site, which is an eyesore. Ellen Leventry, 601 Hector Street, and Parks Commission member, spoke regarding the proposed City Cemetery resolution, noting that bush-hammering is also form of artificial distress, so perhaps that should be clarified. Her primary concern, however, with the resolution as proposed is that it could prevent work under the purview of the Parks & Forestry Division and the Parks Commission from being done. She is concerned that Friends of the Ithaca City Cemetery volunteers would need to get approval from the Commission/staff every time they conduct clean-up activities, perform workshops, etc. They undertake many of those kinds of activities every year. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 10 of 13 C. O’Malley sympathized with E. Leventry’s concerns, but she believes any work could easily be coordinated with the Commission or Planning staff. She also suggested the Commission pursue a Memorandum of Understanding with the Board of Public Works (BPW) and any other City departments that might perform work in the Cemetery to ensure they consult with the Commission, in light of the size and age of the Cemetery and its role as a local historic resource. There being no further public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by K. Olson. III. OLD BUSINESS (cont.) • 406 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District — Early Design Review Applicant Jason Demarest, Jason Demarest Architect, updated the Commission on the proposed project, noting the following changes and points-of-interest. The project will now include: • a small front porch and adjoining archway • lapsiding on the bottom story, transitioning to shakes • additional belt line to reinforce the horizontality of the building • metal archway leading up to a covered exterior stairway — the upper portion of the stairway may be enclosed with glass • stonework will run along the bottom of the building, with stone entry pillars • a deck will extend from the lower apartment • a building materials board has been created K. Olson expressed concern with the stairway, which in appearance resembles fire escape, being on the side of the building, as opposed to the rear of the building. The Commission has routinely required applicants to install fire escapes on the rear elevation, and she expressed concerns about any precedent that might be set if the Commission allowed this fire escape to building installed on a highly visible side of the building. • Ithaca City Cemetery — Resolution RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein. WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-2B of the Municipal Code, one of the purposes of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission is to safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as reflected in buildings, structures, landscape features, archeological sites, and districts, and WHEREAS, the City-owned Ithaca City Cemetery is not a locally or nationally designated historic resource, however, it is located adjacent to the locally-designated University Hill Historic District and given its age and cultural, historic, and aesthetic significance, is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and is an important local historic resource, and ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 11 of 13 WHEREAS, the walls and three stone piers that form the entrance to the cemetery from University Avenue are estimated to have been constructed c. 1865 and are important character defining features of this historic resource, and WHEREAS, one of the piers and a section of curved wall were damaged in a vehicular accident in 2012, and WHEREAS, Ithaca Stone Setting was hired by the City to repair the damaged pier and section of wall with the understanding that the work would be in-kind, and WHEREAS, in-kind, according to The City of Ithaca Historic District and Landmark Design Guidelines, is defined as the replacement of an existing element with a new element of the same material, color, texture, and dimensions, and WHEREAS, during construction it was observed that the new stone blocks that comprise the repaired pier and section of wall did not have the same visual properties as the historic fabric, and WHEREAS, the original stones were hand-dressed with what appears to be an orthogonally bush- hammered field and chiseled margin, and the new stones are machine cut with a thermal finish. RESOLVED, that, the ILPC recommends that the new stone be dressed to replicate the appearance of the original when it was installed in c. 1865, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC recommends the Board Public Works instruct the contractor to prepare a sample block with an orthogonally bush-hammered field and a 1” thermal-finished margin, which will approximate the appearance of the original stone, and be it further RESOLVED, that the ILPC requests to review and approve the sample prior to the application of this technique to the newly repaired piers and section of wall, excluding the caps coped portions of the piers, and be it further RESOLVED, that, the new stone should not be otherwise artificially distressed or stained to make it appear old, and be it further RESOLVED, the ILPC requests that all future projects, excluding routine maintenance, at the Ithaca City Cemetery, regardless of size, scale or urgency, be developed with guidance from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and input from the City’s Historic Preservation Planner and/or the ILPC. RECORD OF VOTE: Moved by: K. Olson Seconded by: S. Stein In Favor: K. Olson, S. Stein, S. Gibian, E. Finegan, D. Kramer, M. McGandy, J. Minner Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Vacancies: 0 ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 12 of 13 • 102 E. Court St., DeWitt Park Historic District — Update B. McCracken reported the completion of the repairs to the building is imminent; and most of the work has been reviewed and approved. IV. NEW BUSINESS • 210 Stewart Ave., East Hill Historic District — Update B. McCracken reported that the property owner has replaced all the windows with vinyl windows. He attempted to contact the property owner three times, but without any response whatsoever — until the City Attorney’s Office became involved. The property owner will be submitting an application for retroactive Commission approval of the work shortly. • DeWitt Park Lighting B. McCracken reported that the previously discussed problem with people using the Boardman House property and immediate environs as a public restroom has been slightly alleviated through select pruning of the vegetation in DeWitt Park and the Boardman House property. The City Forester has also proposed installing some additional lamp posts between the Boardman House and the Park; and he has the information she provided him with. The City Forester wanted to know if the Commission would be comfortable having that additional lighting approved at staff-level. All Commission members were in favor of approving the request at the staff level. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES As moved by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Stein, Commission members approved the following meeting minutes, with one minor modification to the December 8, 2015 minutes. • November 10, 2015 (Regular Meeting) • December 8, 2015 (Regular Meeting) VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS • Historic Preservation Funding Opportunity — Discussion B. McCracken reported that the City and Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) have some Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that could be used for historic preservation- related projects. He would welcome any ideas from Commission members along those lines. Any proposal, however, should ideally include a combination of low-income housing and historic preservation, to have the best chance of being funded. • Election of Chair, Vice Chair, & Second Vice Chair D. Kramer nominated E. Finegan for another term as Chair. There were no objections. K. Olson nominated D. Kramer for another term as Vice Chair. There were no objections. ILPC Minutes January 26, 2016 13 of 13 B. McCracken observed that Chair Finegan may need to recuse himself from consideration of the DeWitt House project, in which case the Commission would be left without a Chair. As nominated by S. Gibian, and seconded by K. Olson, Commission members unanimously voted to designate M. McGandy as Second Vice Chair. • ILPC Annual Report to the Mayor & Common Council B. McCracken asked Commission members for information regarding any training and educational opportunities they participated in, for inclusion in the annual report. • NYS Historic Homeowner Tax Credit Program Presentation — Historic Ithaca B. McCracken informed the Commission of an upcoming NYS Historic Homeowner Tax Credit Program Presentation, conducted by Historic Ithaca. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:25 p.m. by Chair Finegan. Respectfully Submitted, Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission