HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2017-12-19 Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
December 19, 2017
Board Members Attending: Garrick Blalock, Chair; Matthew Johnston;
McKenzie Jones-Rounds; Robert Aaron Lewis;
John Schroeder
Board Members Absent: Jack Elliott
Board Vacancies: One
Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner,
Division of Planning and Economic Development;
Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator,
Division of Zoning;
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant,
Division of Planning and Economic Development
(arrived c. 8:00 p.m.)
Others Attending: Theresa Deschanes,
Member of Board of Zoning Appeals;
Steven Beer,
Chair of Board of Zoning Appeals,
Applicants Attending: 111-115 The Knoll (Chesterson and Sophia House)
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Kate Kruger, STREAM Collaborative;
Karl Johnson, Executive Director of Chesterson House
Townhomes &Apartments
at 119-121 & 125 College Avenue
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects;
Arvind Tikku, ikon.5 architects;
John Novarr, Owner;
Phil Proujansky, Owner
Rowhouse Apartments at 238 Linden Avenue
Alan Chimacoff, ikon.5 architects;
Arvind Tikku, i.kon5 Architects;
1
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels, LLP;
John Novarr, Owner;
Phil Prouj ansky, Owner
Stewart Park Inclusive Playground (Sketch Plan)
Rick Manning, Friends of Stewart Park;
Diana Riesman, Friends of Stewart Park
Waterfront Project(Sketch Plan)
Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative;
Lincoln Morse, Project Consultant;
Nick Lambrou, Project Sponsor;
Jody Edger, Project Sponsor
Chair Blalock called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
1. Agenda Review
Nicholas stated that the project team for 119-125 College Avenue will also be presenting
minor changes to its project at 238 Linden Avenue.
2. Special Order of Business:
Mini Training & Discussion—Variances
Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator; Theresa Deschanes, Member of Board of Zoning
Appeals; and Steven Beer, Chair of Board of Zoning Appeals presented.
Leonardi gave an overview of BZA procedures. Beer and Deschanes discussed types of
variances, the criteria for granting them and the role of public testimony, among other things.
They asked the Board to provide more detailed information in its recommendations,
particularly if the Board has suggested the variance in the first place. They said this detail
would greatly assist the BZA in building defensible cases for granting variances.
3. Privilege of the Floor
Michael Ryzewic, 306 Ithaca Road, requested that the draft Parks and Recreation Master
Plan be amended to remove language about decommissioning parks.
Adam Jacobiste, Clover Lane, spoke against removing park status from Strawberry Fields
and asked that it remain"wild."
Teresa Lescko, 316 Ithaca Road, stated that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan should
support small parks such as Maple Grove Park and other pocket parks.
2
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Elizabeth Martyn, 306 Ithaca Road, stated that the aforementioned Plan should consider
small non-waterfront parks and requested that it be amended to remove language about
decommissioning parks.
4. Site Plan Review
A. Chesterton and Sophia House (Building Addition, Parking and Landscape
Improvements), 111-115 The Knoll, by Karl Johnston for Chesterson House,Inc.
Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing and Determination of Environmental
Significance. The applicant is proposing to expand and convert a single family home into
a congregate living facility for up to 16 individuals. The expansion will involve the
demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two-story addition containing 4
bedrooms. Site modifications include expansion of the existing parking area to connect it
to the parking area on the adjacent 115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a
terrace and patio,bike racks and lighting. Site development will include the removal of
eleven mature trees. The project requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 The Knoll. The
project is in the R-U Zoning district and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has
received ILPC review and approval. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 B.(1)(h)[4] and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(9) and is subject to
environmental review.
Architect Noah Demarest and Project Manager Kate Krueger of STREAM Collaborative
updated the Board on the project, including presenting the news that the ILPC had—just
this evening granted the project a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Demarest and Krueger confirmed that that the parcels would be consolidated, that wheel
stops would be added to the parking area, and that the addition's roofing material would
be architectural shingles providing shadow lines. In response to a question about exterior
lighting, Demarest showed the Board a detail sheet(one it had not previously received)
depicting the proposed lighting fixtures; he confirmed that the LEDs would be warm in
tone.
Nicholas asked about removal of the large spruces. Demarest responded that the applicant
wants to remove them to connect the two properties and to open up views to the lake.
Adopted Resolution for Lead Agency
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Jones-Rounds:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR,Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and
Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review,require that a Lead
Agency be established for conducting Environmental Review of projects in accordance
with local and state environmental law,and
WHEREAS. State Law specifies that,for actions governed by local environmental
3
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
review,the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action,and
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a building addition and landscape
improvements at 111-115 The Knoll by Karl Johnson for Chesterton House Inc., and
WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to expand and convert a single family home into a
congregate living facility for up to 16 individuals. The expansion will involve the
demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two-story addition containing 4
bedrooms. Site modifications include expansion of the existing parking area to connect it
to the parking area on the adjacent 115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a
terrace and patio,bike racks and lighting. Site development will include the removal of
eleven mature trees. The project requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 The Knoll. The
project is in the R-U Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has
received ILPC review and approval, and
WHEREAS:because the project is within the Cornell Heights Historic District, it is a
Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO"), §176-1 B. (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA"), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review,now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board,being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, is by way of this
resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed
project.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
Public Hearing
On a motion by Lewis, seconded by Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock
opened the Public Hearing.
John Novarr, adjacent property owner, stated that access to this adjacent property to the
south is through applicant's property. He hopes this access will be maintained to avoid
the need for building a new road.
Elizabeth Ambrose,neighboring property owner, spoke in favor of the project.
There being no further public comments, on a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by
Johnston, and approved unanimously, Chair Blalock closed the Public Hearing.
4
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Demarest said that the existing access to Novarr's property would be maintained, even
though there is—to his knowledge—no easement requiring that such access be
maintained.
Adopted Resolution for City Environmental Quality Review:
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Lewis:
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a building addition and landscape
improvements at 111-115 The Knoll by Karl Johnson for Chesterton House Inc., and
WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to expand and convert a single family home into a
congregate living facility for up to 16 individuals. The expansion will involve the
demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two-story addition containing 4
bedrooms. Site modifications include expansion of the existing parking area to connect it
to the parking area on the adjacent 115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a
terrace and patio,bike racks and lighting. Site development will include the removal of
eleven mature trees. The project requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 The Knoll. The
project is in the R-U Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has
received ILPC review and approval, and
WHEREAS:because the project is within the Cornell Heights Historic District, it is a
Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO"), §176-1 B. (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA"), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board,being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,has on December 19,
2017 declared itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS:this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review,has on
December 19,2017 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental
Assessment Form(FEAF),Part 1, submitted by the applicant,Part 2 prepared by
Planning staff; drawings titled"Boundary and Topographic Map No. 111-115 The Knoll,
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York"dated 11/1/17 and prepared by Darrin A.
Brock L.S., "Site Demo Plan(L100)", "Layout Plan(L101)","Planting Plan(L102)"and
"Elevations(A201 &A202),dated 11/14/17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative; and
other application materials,and
WHEREAS:the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,Tompkins County
Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED:that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the
proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a
Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
5
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Review Act.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
B. 119-125 College Avenue—Update
Applicant Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, LLP;
architect Alan Chimacoff of ikon.5 architects; and owners John Novarr and Phil
Proujansky presented proposed modifications to their previously approved site plan for
the townhouse project at 119-125 College Avenue. Wolf noted that fire code regulations,
as now understood, regarding overhead utility wires require that they modify the building
designs so that the wires do not interfere with fire department ladder truck access.
She expressed her opinion that the modifications have resulted in a better design, a"safer
building"that now meets the re-understood code. She said the program is the same,but
the project has gained one bed, going from 87 to 88. The target market, short-term
faculty, she added, also remains the same.
Novarr noted that the redesigned buildings are of a higher building type (in terms of fire
resistance), and that there are now two not three buildings planned for the site.
Chimacoff explained that the buildings are virtually the same in style, character, detail
and building materials as in the original designs, but that the opening through the center
has been widened into a paved courtyard to permit fire truck access. He explained that the
applicants' long-term plan is to transform this central courtyard area into a green space
with substantial plantings once the current street-side overhead power lines are buried
and the fire trucks no longer require access there. Chimacoff also noted that the
applicants are waiting for finalized streetscape design guidelines from the City before
completing their designs for the streetscape (street trees, curb location, etc.).
He then reviewed the modifications to the previously approved building designs.
The applicants are requesting that the Board review the proposed modifications in
advance of their submitting an application for Modified Site Plan Review(which will
include a Public Hearing). They intend to present a case for not re-opening the CEQR
process, because they believe the impacts of the project(traffic, etc.) are arguably
comparable to the original.
Lewis criticized the revised design, saying that the project no longer reads like eight row
houses,but instead like two identical apartment buildings right next door to each other.
He said that the loss of clear row-house repetition hurts the rhythm along the street.
6
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Chimacoff replied that it seems like introducing the appearance of row houses into the
zoning requirements was done in anticipation of a significant future change in context, in
that the zoning is encouraging larger buildings that more fully fill the sites (e.g., a zero lot
line requirement on the edges), with a 100-foot limit on building length, and a maximum
of 25 feet on subdivisions. He maintained that the revised designs as submitted are about
as clear and accurate a response to the zoning requirements that you could possibly have.
After further discussion and input from the Board, however, the applicants agreed to
make some modifications (e.g., adding missing stoop stairs on the right-hand units and
differentiating the two buildings, so that they are, as Schroeder stated, "fraternal twins,
rather than identical twins"). Applicants will also return for Modified Site Plan Review
with drawings showing the project rendered from different perspectives.
Chair Blalock asked if the applicants intended to have a Public Hearing and seek
Preliminary and Final Approval at the next meeting, and when they responded in the
affirmative, Blalock reminded them that if they received a lot of public comments, the
approval process would likely be delayed until the February meeting to allow the Board
time to consider those comments.
C. 238 Linden Avenue—Update
Chimacoff explained that the applicants had discovered that there's a utility easement
along the south side of the property, which necessitated that they move the building
slightly to the north, slightly narrow its north-south dimension, and widen its east-west
dimension. He said that this results in a slight increase in the green space on the lot.
Schroeder asked if the front setbacks are the same.
Chimacoff responded that setbacks in the new drawings appear very similar to those in
the original plans, though they might have moved by a foot or so.
Schroeder asked if the original front-yard setback was deeper than required (by 5 feet),
and Chimacoff confirmed that this setback was, indeed, greater than required.
Schroeder responded favorably to the revisions, saying that the proportions seemed to
relate to those of the Johnson School next door better than the first design.
Chair Blalock asked if the new design included a few more windows.
Chimacoff answered in the affirmative.
Chair Blalock asked about the procedure to approve the modifications.
Nicholas said that the changes had been reviewed by staff, and that staff felt comfortable
with it being a staff level approval, but that since the applicants were coming to the
7
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
meeting anyway they thought it a good idea to alert the Board to the changes. She asked
if the Board was comfortable with accepting the staff level approval of the modifications.
Chair Blalock took a straw poll, and the Board expressed unanimous support. Schroeder
asked that the Board be e-mailed a copy of the revised drawings.
D. Stewart Park Inclusive Playground— Sketch Plan
Landscape architect Rick Manning and Diana Riesman of Friends of Stewart Park
appeared in front of the Board.
Manning presented plans for a combined update and redesign of the playground and
spray pad at Stewart Park, with particular emphasis on the ways that new surfaces and
play structures would be accessible to all children. They also discussed ways that the
updates fit into broader park improvements slated to coincide with the centennial of the
park in 2021.
Manning and Riesman described the numerous proposed improvements, including plans
to modify the adjacent loop road(creating a neck-down at its south end where someday,
but not as part of this project, a new section of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail will cross it).
They said this neck-down will calm traffic and facilitate the creation of more parking
spaces long this road,just west of the playground.
Schroeder asked if the applicants had considered putting in some tree islands to the north
of the new parking spaces here to break up the expanse of pavement. Manning agreed this
would be an improvement.
Jones-Rounds asked about drainage, and the possibility of including features to
encourage water infiltration(bio-swales, for example). The applicants responded
positively to this suggestion, noting that the proposed recycled rubber accessible surface
is permeable and that T.G. Miller is doing a storm water report (which should be ready
next month) that will help determine drainage needs for the site.
Riesman discussed the process the Friends of Stewart Park had gone through to secure
funding for the park revitalization, saying they had worked with Assemblywoman
Barbara Lifton for over a year to secure a$1 million grant to fund the playground project.
Riesman explained that the project has a budget of$1.68 million, of which the Friends
have raised$300,000 (meaning they have yet to raise the last $380,000).
The applicants asked for any additional input on the proposed designs prior to their Site
Plan Review at next month's meeting.
Schroeder suggested the applicants make sure that the future path(at east edge of
playground) that would replicate a 1930s diagonal path is drawn at the correct angle, in
the right location, that it's symmetrical with regard to the flagpole compared with its
matching diagonal, etc. This will ensure that the new shelter with restrooms is correctly
8
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
oriented. Applicants acknowledged this.
Lewis asked about the useful life of the rubber surface and how it degrades, and what it
looks like after 20 to 30 years. Manning said that Play by Design will appear at next
month's meeting and that the latter can answer these questions. He added that Play by
Design has used this material on a big project in Binghamton, and that product specs can
be provided.
Johnston asked about the width of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail extension(should that
eventually be built). Manning answered that the current trail is 12 feet wide, and that the
loop might be 10 feet, adding that whether it's asphalt or stone dust is still to be
determined.
Johnston asked about the paths in the play areas. Manning said that they are 6 feet wide,
mostly stone dust, though some are concrete.
Jones-Rounds suggested adding a bike rack at the point where one of the playground
paths meets the new roadside parking spaces.
Schroeder asked about plantings. Manning answered that all trees shown on the plans
currently exist, and that new plantings will be decided upon after seeing how the
playground is used. He noted that City Forester Jeanne Grace has commented that the
tree protections currently proposed are inadequate and will need to be strengthened.
Blalock asked about geese deterrents. Manning responded that the accessible surface
itself may act as a deterrent, since geese prefer grass.
A brief discussion regarding overall park revitalization plans followed.
The Board recessed for five minutes. Chair Blalock called the meeting back to order
again at 8:44 p.m.
E. Waterfront Project—Sketch Plans
Project sponsors Nick Lambrou and Jody Edger; Noah Demarest of STREAM
Collaborative; and others presented sketch plans for the development of two waterfront
properties, one at 750 and 770 Cascadilla Street, and the other at the Johnson Boatyard
along Pier Road and Willow Avenue.
The former involves relocating the GreenStar Co-Op to the former Cornell Press
Building, and the latter constructing a Guthrie Medical office building, apartments,
marina and a yet-to-be-determined event facility(hotel/restaurant) along Pier Road and
Willow Avenue. Preliminary sketch plans were presented to the Board, and a question
and answer session followed.
9
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
Schroeder said the new GreenStar would be much more pedestrian-friendly if it were
located in the building fronting Cascadilla Street(and hence standing right on the
traditional City street grid), rather than in the building further north from that street(and
therefore requiring pedestrians to walk through a parking lot to reach it.)
Several Board members said that the Pier Road/Willow Avenue project site plan was
less well-organized and gave much more emphasis to surface-level parking than the
previous plan for the site proposed by another developer; the latter project had obtained
Preliminary(but not Final) Site Plan Approval. Schroeder welcomed the return of
doctors' offices to the City, but suggested reorganizing the site plan so that a building,
rather than a large parking lot, fronts the middle section of Willow Avenue.
5. Old/New Business
A. Planning Board Recommendation to Council Regarding the Proposed
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Planner Megan Wilson described the development of the draft Parks and Recreation
Master Plan in conjunction with PROS Consulting, and the process by which it will be
considered for adoption by Common Council, following a formal recommendation from
the Planning Board. She went on to summarize some of the findings of this Plan, and
discussed the recommendation to divest four of the smaller neighborhood parks.
The Board discussed at length the recommendation to remove park status from these four
parks and made some broad observations about the Plan as well. Schroeder emphasized
the need to identify replacement parcels of park land to replace any park land that would
be declassified, before making any decision to remove the latter's park status, especially
given that the four parks in question are located in areas already underserved by the parks
system.
Jones-Rounds expressed concern regarding environmental, social and intangible benefits
of parkland that will be lost if the parks are decommissioned, although she said that she
was also sensitive to the economic concerns factoring into the recommendation. Lewis
said that he appreciated the emphasis on demographics but that he would like to see
information relating to access to parks as it relates to income.
Elliott, though not in attendance, submitted comments in writing and observed that the
Plan did not discuss the environmental impacts of parklands at all. Several Board
members commented that Elliott's thoughts were well-considered and well-articulated,
and that excerpts could be included in the final Board recommendation. Elliott stated, in
part:
This master plan is for a part of the city's infrastructure: its green infrastructure. It is
not just about grassy areas with a few benches. I see a lot of effort has been put into
the human demographics but there is no mention of the biophysical conditions of the
various sites.Nothing on steep sites, geo/biological qualities unique to Ithaca. It
10
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
seems to me to be too technical;too managerial. There is no vision statement.
Ithaca's parks could be part of a strategy to maximize the ecological services such as
reducing heat island effects, lessening stormwater surges and improving the flow of
wildlife through the city through interconnected corridors. Using native plantings and
some creative design, 21 st century open space planning can integrate the demands of
parking,water management, and energy demands within pedestrian-oriented
development by responding to our innate biophyllic predilections for green space
[...I Urban wilding initiatives are springing up everywhere such as Toronto, Oslo,
Melbourne, cities widely regarded as being the most desirable places to live.
This master plan should be part of a livable cities initiative,to introduce nature into
the places where most of the people live.Not only do these types of spaces improve
the urban condition,if properly designed,they are less expensive to maintain while
improving urban resiliency, in the face of the challenges of climate change. How is
the city planning to respond to drought,to storm events,to invasive species? I
believe this report is thorough within the boundaries it has set for itself but I find the
boundaries too restrictive. Ithaca can do better than this. In my opinion, it has to.
Ideas for potential inclusion in the Planning Board recommendation follow:
• Discuss the ecological value of parkland to the community and the environment
(see Elliott's comments above).
• Revise the section on underutilized neighborhood parks (Page 66)by adding a
discussion of the:
i. Challenges presented by the noted parks;
ii. Justification for the recommendation to declassify them;
iii. Further analysis that is needed before a park is declassified, including the
urbanistic rationale, the intended alternative use, the park's environmental
value and park usage;
iv. Need to identify substitute parkland before a decision is made to
declassify a park; and
V. Exact process required to removing park status and find substitute
parkland, including opportunities for public input.
• Address the inconsistency between the recommendation for Strawberry Fields
between the text of the plan (Page 66) and the action plan at the end of the
document.
• Provide a geographic analysis of park access and income as part of the level of
service mapping.
• Include a description of the City's existing Adopt-a-Park program and information
on how neighborhood residents can apply to adopt a park. Note that the program
could be a good way to involve residents in park maintenance and upkeep before
11
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
considering declassification of a park.
The Board discussed at length its process for finalizing its recommendation to Common
Council regarding the Plan. It was decided that the Board will make its final
recommendation to Council in January.
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Blalock reported to the Board on the December 11 Board of Public Works meeting he
and Schroeder attended. He said that they made the BPW aware of the Planning Board's
recommendation regarding narrowing the curb-to-curb width of the 100 block of E.
Seneca St. to match the curb-to-curb width of W. Seneca Street in order to widen the
sidewalk and provide a continuous row of street trees on the east side of the former,
including in front of the new Tompkins Financial Headquarters Building. Blalock noted,
however, that any such street improvement will not be completed as soon as they had
hoped(to coincide with the end of the current construction project on that building).
BPW members felt that this project would have to be formally added to one of its annual
work programs, and that it indeed merited such inclusion. But these members felt that
other priorities might preclude its inclusion on the 2018 work program.
Blalock said that if the Board has pressing concerns in the future they need to send Board
members to the BPW meeting to articulate them. He also reported that while he was at
the meeting, he reminded the BPW that the mayor needs to appoint a liaison to the
Planning Board(a position which has been vacant for almost a year.)
A discussion ensued regarding general reappointments of Board members by the Mayor.
Without official reappointments, as of January 1, five of the six active Board members
(specifically, all except Johnston)will be without a current appointment. These five are
all willing to continue to serve.
There was unanimous support for Blalock sending an e-mail to the Mayor requesting that
these reappointments be made.
B. Director of Planning and Economic Development
No report.
C. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report(liaison position vacant).
7. Approval of Minutes
12
Approved by the Planning Board January 23, 2018
On a motion by Schroeder, seconded by Jones-Rounds, the revised draft November 28, 2017
meeting minutes as edited by Schroeder were approved, with no modifications.
In Favor: Blalock, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Absent: Elliott
Vacancies: One
8. Adjournment
On a motion by Jones-Rounds, seconded by Johnston, and unanimously approved, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
13