HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-ILPC-2015-03-10Approved by ILPC: 04-14-2015
1 of 12
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Minutes – March 10, 2015
Present:
Ed Finegan, Chair
David Kramer, Vice-Chair
Katelin Olson
Stephen Gibian
Jennifer Minner
S. Stein
Bryan McCracken, Staff
Charles Pyott, Staff
Chair Finegan called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. B. McCracken indicated that one agenda item
originally scheduled for later in the meeting (“Discussion: Collegetown Parking Overlay”) would be
discussed first.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
• Discussion: Collegetown Parking Overlay
Senior Planner Megan Wilson presented a brief overview of the proposal to repeal the Collegetown
Parking Overlay Zone (CPOZ). CPOZ was originally enacted in 2000 to establish stricter parking
requirements in the Collegetown area ― however, since the enactment of the Collegetown Area Form
Districts (CAFD) rezoning legislation, which changed the parking requirements, CPOZ no longer
applies. Currently, about 145 parcels (most of which are in the East Hill Historic District) lie in the
CPOZ zone and remain subject to those requirements. The purpose of the proposed repeal is to: (1)
correct the conflicts between the two zoning frameworks; and (2) correct the Zoning Ordinance so it is
consistent throughout the City. M. Wilson noted the parking requirement would change a little from one
property to the next; and some of them would remain unchanged. M. Wilson explained that the
proposed repeal was conceived partly in response to numerous demands to preserve as much greenspace
within the historic district as possible.
D. Kramer asked if any of the affected properties would see an increased parking requirement. M.
Wilson replied, no.
S. Stein responded that the proposal sounds reasonable. No other questions or concerns were raised by
the Commission.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 218-220 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Bluestone Sidewalks
City Sidewalk Program Manager Eric Hathaway presented an overview of the proposal, noting that there
are 105 linear feet of sidewalk on Eddy Street in bad condition. The principal issue is that many of the
stone slabs are raised in relation to one another, creating tripping hazards and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility problems. After receiving some price quotes for bluestone, the City
decided it would prefer to perform the work in concrete, since the cost difference is over $12,000. With
those savings, the City would be able to replace another 160 linear feet of sidewalk somewhere else in
the city.
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
2 of 12
E. Hathaway further noted that using meshed concrete would also help prevent the heaving from
happening again so soon. There is the added consideration that more property development may likely
be taking place in that area of Collegetown, at some point in the near to medium future, which would
mean the work would need to be redone. E. Hathaway also noted the bluestone does not support the
weight of motor vehicles as well as the concrete, and there is a driveway in the area in question. Since it
is generally better to use only one material consistently throughout, it would make sense to do the
driveway in concrete.
S. Stein responded that the sidewalks have been there for 120 years ― and they are in comparatively
better condition than many other sidewalks in the city. In her opinion, it seems to be a problem that
could be fixed without resorting to the concrete. It should be replaced with something similar to what is
already there. She asked if anyone present happened to have any expertise on how slate is generally
repaired. E. Hathaway responded that Assistant Civil Engineer Lynne Yost indicated she did not know
of any instance of that having successfully been done.
E. Finegan asked if it would not be possible to raise the slate. E. Hathaway replied, no. It would not
hold up as well as concrete for the mudjacking process (the process through which a sunken slab is lifted
by pumping grout in under the slab to lift it up).
S. Stein asked if the City could install a concrete apron just for the driveway portion of the sidewalk and
preserve the remainder of the sidewalk. She remarked that there does not seem to be much difference in
how the slate has heaved. E. Hathaway replied the City would really like to address the heaving
problem.
D. Kramer recalled that the Commission actually considered similar work on that site a year ago and it
was denied. S. Gibian agreed that was also his recollection. E. Hathaway remarked that was only for
the sidewalk in front of 220 Eddy Street.
K. Olson expressed sympathy with the City’s budget considerations; however, many private property
owners are being held to the standard of replacing their sidewalks in-kind, so she would be very
reluctant to approve this application for that reason.
D. Kramer noted another issue the Commission should consider is the precedent it would establish if it
approved the concrete. There must be a way to identify another solution. Perhaps the City could simply
attempt to level the slate sidewalk as best it can and then re-assess the situation in a few years. E.
Hathaway responded he would not be opposed to that idea, although he noted that the City’s
construction consultant does not believe leveling would solve the problem.
K. Olson asked how thick the slate slabs are. E. Hathaway replied that he is not sure.
B. McCracken observed that some of the heaving may very well be the result of the extremely cold
weather the city has experienced, in which case the problem would diminish in the warmer months.
S. Gibian remarked the sidewalks are actually composed of Devonian sandstone, not slate. He noted
maintenance is a critical part of preserving the stone (e.g., the lack of snow removal may have
contributed to the heaving, which is the property owner's responsibility). He recalled that when the
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
3 of 12
Commission met with Lynne Yost, she suggested various techniques that could be used to repair
different slabs of stone.
E. Finegan observed there are numerous stone sidewalks in the Historic Districts, so this issue will come
up again. He suggested perhaps E. Hathaway could investigate some options for retaining as much of
the stone as possible.
J. Minner suggested there may be different seals that could be used to address some of these kinds of
issues and the City could identify some proven best practices. E. Hathaway responded he has never
heard of using that approach for stone. J. Minner suggested perhaps the City could focus on only
replacing the portions that demonstrably do not meet ADA requirements.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
E. Finegan suggested the Commission consider tabling the application.
J. Minner asked if the applicant would have more information to provide the Commission, if it tabled it.
E. Hathaway responded that the City will be moving forward with 2015 construction projects. If the
issue is not resolved by a certain time, it would not be addressed this year. He is not entirely sure if he
could get all the information the Commission needs by its next meeting.
S. Stein recommended the City factor in how long the proposed concrete would last, compared to the
stone, which can last as long as 120 years.
B. McCracken asked if the City could simply revisit the issue in 2016. E. Hathaway replied he would
ideally prefer not to perform work on another sidewalk that was identified as a lower priority, but it is
certainly possible. B. McCracken asked the applicant if he would prefer the issue be tabled, or if he
would rather have a decision this evening. E. Hathaway replied he would certainly be willing to
perform some more research and see what kind of options could be identified.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
B. 102 W. State St., Clinton Block Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Doors
B. McCracken indicated the discussion this evening will only focus on the doors themselves, since the
public notice sign was not posted on the property in time for the Public Hearing.
Applicants Elly O'Brien, Handwork Cooperative Craft Store, and Tom Fritz, Fritz Contracting, LLC,
presented an overview of the proposal. T. Fritz explained that the doorway comprises two 20” doors
that are in a serious state of disrepair. They sit in a masonry alcove, so the opening size cannot be
altered. The doors are difficult to open, close, and secure. The applicants propose replacing the double
doors with a single door that would mimic the appearance of the double door.
S. Gibian asked which way the proposed door would swing. T. Fritz replied it would open out. S.
Gibian then asked if it would include the panic door hardware. T. Fritz replied, yes, as required by
Building Code.
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
4 of 12
S. Stein asked if it would be a custom-made door. T. Fritz replied, yes.
S. Stein asked if anyone can walk into the building from the street during business hours. E. O’Brien
replied, yes.
J. Minner asked if the Commission should consider the existing doors a character-defining feature of the
building. B. McCracken replied that they are the type of doors that were common in commercial
buildings at the turn of the twentieth century; and they have largel y disappeared. They are defined as
character-defining feature of the building; and there is no indication they are not original.
T. Fritz remarked that the doors have been subject to a series of poor repairs over the years, and both the
glass and hardware are not original.
B. McCracken asked if the applicant could not fuse the existing doors into a single door to achieve the
same goal. T. Fritz replied he does not think it would be worth the time or money.
K. Olson asked what efforts have been made to waterproof the doors or improve them in any way. E.
O’Brien replied, she does not know, although she could certainly find out.
K. Olson asked what, beside the glass, is structurally deficient in the doors. T. Fritz replied, the
hardware. In addition, the width of each door is only 20 inches, which is very narrow. The existing
push bar also does not meet current Fire Code.
E. O’Brien remarked there is only so much space for people to navigate in and out through the doors;
and the doors generally do not fit well into the space. Some tenants regularly carry large items in and
out of the building, which is definitely a struggle for them. She has received many complaints.
S. Gibian expressed concern with how the proposed new 40-inch door would operate ― it would need to
open up almost 90 degrees before being passable. He added there are some details in the submitted
specifications he was having a little trouble understanding, along with some inconsistencies between the
specifications and the drawings.
D. Kramer observed that it seems that for the same amount of money the applicants could simply
recondition the doors. T. Fritz replied he does not believe that would be cost effective, and the
reconditioned doors would still not function as well as new ones.
K. Olson suggested installing a latching mechanism so people could prop the door open to unload and
load large items. T. Fritz noted that would certainly be possible.
J. Minner noted if the applicants genuinely need to replace the doors, the Commission would have some
flexibility in approving it ― as long as they appear compatible.
K. Olson remarked that, given the uniqueness of the existing doors, it would be helpful if the applicants
could demonstrate to the Commission that all other alternatives have been exhausted.
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
5 of 12
B. McCracken suggested the applicants explore adding a new set of doors to serve as the new exterior
doors, in order to preserve the existing doors.
K. Olson asked the applicants to put a bid together to show what the cost would be for converting the
two doors to a single door.
― The application was TABLED until the next meeting. ―
C. Olin Library, Arts Quad Historic District ― Proposal to Replace Roof
Applicant Darlene Hackworth, Cornell University, presented an overview of the proposal. She
explained that a study was conducted several years ago that concluded the roof needed to be replaced. It
would be replaced in-kind with some additional insulation. The color would remain the same. There
would be no significant visual change to the building.
B. McCracken explained that he included the application on this evening’s agenda, because it is such a
large building on the Arts Quad and he also wanted to make sure the Commission felt the proposed
materials and color are appropriate. If the Commission is amenable, he would certainly be willing to
approve it himself on a staff-level basis.
Public Hearing
On a motion by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein, Chair Finegan opened the Public Hearing. There being
no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed on a motion by D. Kramer, seconded by S. Gibian.
D. Kramer proposed that, since it is an in-kind replacement on a non-contributing building, it should be
delegated to the staff-level. S. Stein agreed. No objections were raised.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS OF INTEREST
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy St., spoke regarding the proposed 210 Eddy Street project, noting she opposes
the retaining wall. She is very concerned the reconfiguration of the topography would generate
significant run-off into her basement, possibly damaging the stone foundation.
III. OLD BUSINESS
• 707 E. Seneca St., East Hill Historic District ― Review Site Plan
(pursuant to January 13, 2015 Certificate of Appropriateness condition)
Applicants Tom Schickel and Noah Demarest briefly described the status of the proposed project. T.
Schickel noted that Demarest was retained per the requirements of the Planning Board to help address
the landscaping issues associated with the project. The project has received both Site Plan Approval and
a Zoning Variance. He noted there was one minor design change to the building itself: the addition of
some basement windows to break up the massing of the wall. Since the last time the applicants
appeared before the Commission, they investigated constructing an embankment; however, given the
steepness of the slope they chose to pursue another approach.
N. Demarest explained that they added a second tier lower-level retaining wall (3-feet tall), as well as
another bank along the planting bed, thereby reducing the height of the principal retaining wall from 10
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
6 of 12
feet to approximately 4 feet. This also provided an opportunity for planting the retaining wall with some
Virginia Creeper, which would grow over both retaining walls. At the top of the concrete wall, they
would place a low barrier rail.
S. Gibian asked if the owner planned to buy the adjacent property as originally mentioned. T. Schickel
replied, no.
RESOLUTION: Moved by J. Minner, seconded by K. Olson.
WHEREAS, 707 E. Seneca 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 228-6 of the Municipal Code, an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, dated January 25, 2015 was submitted for review to the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Thomas Schickel, architect, on behalf of property
owner 707 E. Seneca Street, LLC, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); (2)three photographs
of existing conditions on adjacent sites; and (3) seven sheets of drawings depicting the
proposed retaining wall, guardrail, landscape plantings and basement windows, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 707
E. Seneca 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 retaining walls, a guardrail and landscape plantings associated with the
construction of five exterior parking spaces, and the addition of eight windows in the
basement of the three-story, multi-family apartment building to be constructed on the vacant
lot at 707 E. Seneca St., and
WHEREAS, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued at the January 13, 2015 regular ILPC meeting for
the construction of a three-story, multi-unit apartment building and five exterior parking
spaces and associated drive with the condition that the applicant would return to the ILPC
for final approval of the landscape features or site modifications associated with the exterior
parking spaces, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board at its regular meeting on January 27, 2015 required the
applicant to incorporate basement windows into the design to admit light into the internal
parking area, 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
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
7 of 12
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the original Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
January 13, 2015 now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932.
The East Hill Historic District comprises 264 contributing elements, and contains some of
the finest examples of 19th and early 20th century architecture in the City of Ithaca. The
district’s architecture reflects the City’s growth from a small industrial community to an
influential and prominent educational center, a result of the founding of Cornell University
and the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
The East Hill Historic District retains a high level of integrity.
707 E. Seneca St. is a vacant lot.
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 228-5 of
the Municipal Code. In making this determination, the Commission is guided by
the principles set forth in Section 228-5B of the Municipal Code, as further
elaborated in Section 228-5C, 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 retaining wall, guardrail and
landscape plantings are compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic
District, and more specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and landscape features of the
property and its environment. The proposed two tier retaining wall will minimize the visual
impact of this large landscape feature on surrounding properties and the district. The impact
will be further minimized through the use of landscape materials, including Virginia Creeper,
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
8 of 12
Forsythia, and Lily of the Valley, that will grow around and on the retaining walls and
obscure these hardscape features.
Also with respect to the Standard #9, the proposed retaining walls and guardrail will be
differentiated from surrounding historic structures through the combined use of
contemporary and historic materials and construction techniques. The upper retaining wall
will be constructed of rebar-reinforced concrete. The lower retaining wall will be dry-laid
quarry-block limestone and the low guardrail will be wood.
Also with respect to Principle #3 and Standard #9, the proposed basement windows are
compatible with the historic character of the East Hill Historic District, and more
specifically, with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of other properties within
the district. The placement of the basement windows directly below the first-story windows
is consistent with the fenestration of other properties within the district. The proposed
windows will be fiberglass Anderson A-Series units in Sandstone.
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 East Hill Historic
District, as set forth in Section 228-5, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that the proposal meets
criteria for approval under Section 228-5 of the Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the original condition placed on the project’s Certificate of Appropriateness has been
satisfied.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: J. Minner
Seconded by: K. Olson
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, S. Stein, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M. McGandy
Vacancies: 0
• 210 Eddy St., East Hill Historic District ― Review Parking Space Details & Retaining Wall Material
(pursuant to November 18, 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness condition)
Applicant Brian Buttner presented an overview of the proposed project. In response to the public
comment earlier in the meeting, he noted that if one examines the site plan one can see the contouring
away from the adjoining property, which terminates with swale which is where the run-off would be
discharged. He added he would not be raising the driveway significantly (except the curbline to protect
the stoop area). The applicants chose to install the retaining wall over the curvature of the driveway so
that they could retain most of the existing flagstone walkway running through the garden. There would
also be an evergreen hedgerow to obscure the vehicles from the garden area.
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
9 of 12
B. Buttner concluded he believes the applicants have followed the spirit of what the Commission
requested, reducing the project impact to just one additional parking space. He stressed there would be
no additional run-off resulting from the project. While he did not have opportunity to bring the stone
material with him, the owners indicated they would be willing to use Llenroc stone, limestone, or
Colonial riverstone. It would be a flat dry-laid stone, stabilized with an epoxy-like material.
S. Gibian observed that drawing B-100 depicts a modular stone retaining wall. B. Buttner replied that
was left over from the prior drawing. S. Gibian asked the applicant to confirm that a natural stone
would be used. B. Buttner confirmed that is the case.
S. Gibian stressed that regular maintenance will be critical to reducing the project impact (e.g., snow
shoveling, mowing). He agreed that the retaining wall does not appear too tall.
RESOLUTION: Moved by K. Olson, seconded by S. Stein.
WHEREAS, 210 Eddy Street 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 February 16, 2015, was submitted for review to the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) by Brian Buttner on behalf of property owners
Greg and Matoula Halkiopoulos, including the following: (1) two narratives respectively
titled Description of Proposed Change(s) and Reasons for Changes(s); and (2) a section
drawing depicting the proposed changes, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form for 210
Eddy Street, 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 an 16” retaining wall and landscape plantings associated with the creation of
one additional parking space on the property, and
WHEREAS, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the creation of one additional parking space
at the November 18, 2014 regular ILPC meeting with the condition that the applicant would
return to the ILPC for final approval of the retaining wall, other hardscape elements, and the
vegetative buffer along Eddy Street associated with its installation, 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 original Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on
November 18, 2014, now therefore be it
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
10 of 12
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the
proposal:
As identified in the City of Ithaca’s East Hill Historic District Summary Statement, the
period of significance for the area now known as the East Hill Historic District is 1830-1932.
As indicated in the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, 210 Eddy Street was
constructed between 1872 and 1874. It is a modest mid-19th century house, extensively
remodeled in 1912.
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.
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 #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize
a property will be avoided.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
11 of 12
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
With respect to Principle #2, Standard #2, and Standard #9, the installation of the proposed
retaining wall and plantings will not remove distinctive materials and will not alter features
and spaces that characterize the property.
Also with respect to Principle #2, Principle #3, and Standard #9, with the addition of the
proposed retaining wall and plantings is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features of the property and its environment. The retaining wall will be
constructed of a dry-laid natural stone in a random-bond pattern.
With respect to Standard #10, the proposed retaining wall can be removed in the future
without impairment of the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the proposal will not have a substantial adverse
effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance of the property 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 original condition placed on the project’s Certificate of Appropriateness has been
satisfied.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: E. Finegan, S. Gibian, K. Olson, J. Minner, S. Stein, D. Kramer
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: M. McGandy
Vacancies: 0
IV. NEW BUSINESS
(Previously discussed.)
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
As moved by J. Minner, and seconded by D. Kramer, Commission members approved the following
meeting minutes, with one minor modification.
• February 10, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
ILPC Minutes
March 10, 2015
12 of 12
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:36 p.m. by Chair Finegan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission