HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1990-06-26 Approved as amended - 8/28/90
Amended 9/25/90
MINUTES
Planning and Development Board
June 26, 1990
PRESENT: S. Adams, R. Berg, S. Blumenthal (Chair) , T.
Cookingham, J. Schroeder, A. Yale. Staff: J. Meigs, P. Weed,
D. Foster, B. Carey. Also - Applicants, Other Interested
Parties, Media, City Attorney C. Guttman, BZA Chair M. Tomlan.
1. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. Privilege of the Floor: No requests made.
3. Public Hearing - Final Subdivision Approval
a) Spencer Road/Weisburd. Chair opened the Public Hearing. No
one appeared to speak. Chair closed the Public Hearing. Meigs
reported that the applicant had submitted a description of the
driveway easement, which was requested at the last meeting.
Meigs had discussed with the applicant an enhancement of the
easement to cover the off-street parking area at the foot of the
drive. He expressed the view that the subdivision does not
comply with the zoning ordinance requirement for the grade of
driveway; the Building Commissioner interpreted the grade
requirement to cover individual properties with facilities for
four or more cars, which is not the case with this application.
The Fire Department has not completed their review. Weisburd
expressed the hope that any negative comments be referenced to
specific code requirements. The Board was somewhat concerned
about taking action without comment from the Fire Department.
Chair suggested that the Board give Final Approval contingent on
the approval of the Fire Department. Berg questioned why the
Fire Department was so slow to review the application, and asked
that the Board communicate their dissatisfaction to the Fire
Department. Yale moved to grant Final Subdivision Approval
contingent on the approval of the Fire Department within five
days. The motion was seconded by Schroeder. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. Site Development Plan Review
a) Preliminary review of West Campus Forest Park Lane
Improvements, Cornell University, SDPR 90-05. Yale asked how
handicapped parking was being considered in the plans. Weed
reported that one handicapped spot was planned in front of Psi
Upsilon, but that no spots were planned for Sigma Phi. Applicant
said that, when necessary, a spot would be designated and
appropriately marked, but that it was not a requirement for a
private residence. Yale said that he would appreciate the
applicant designating a handicapped spot in front of Sigma Phi.
Weed indicated a change in the plan, involving the
installation of a patio in front of Sigma Phi. Schroeder
Planning and Development Board -2-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
commented approvingly on the redesign of many aspects of the
plan. Weed reported that Applicant intended to place new 15'
lights around the parking lot; they will be one of the standard
decorative styles used on campus. Regarding pedestrian access,
Blumenthal pointed out that a path ended in a parking space, and
asked if the space could be widened accordingly. Applicant said
that they were trying to get as many spaces as possible in a
limited area, and that the space could not be widened.
Blumenthal felt that the new plan was greatly improved. Ms.
Darlington reported that the CAC was happy with the new plan as
well . Schroeder, seconded by Cookingham, moved Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact, and the motion was passed
unanimously.
Weed offered conditions on the Board's approval: Applicant
shall submit for review and approval by the Department a single
site plan set consolidating all information shown by the plan set
received 3/13/90, the plan set received 6/4/90, and the plan
received 6/25/90 and demonstrating that all required SDPR
Technical Information is adequately described; the approved site
plan shall show only very minor adjustments to the plan received
6/25/90, and shall maintain the open space between Campus Road
and the southernmost parking edge, as shown by that plan. Ms.
Darlington asked if the curb height could be such as to
discourage driving onto the lawn. Applicant responded that
standard curb height was six inches.
Cookingham, seconded by Schroeder, moved to grant
Preliminary Approval , Considered Final, subject to the
aforementioned conditions. Yale offered an amendment that a
handicapped parking place be designated by Sigma Phi. Schroeder
felt that, considering the private nature of the building, and
the ease of identifying potential handicapped users, designation
of the spot when needed would be appropriate. Cookingham said
that, since parking was limited, it would be wasteful to leave a
space unoccupied. Applicant said that it was not an uncommon
practice for Cornell to designate handicapped parking on an as-
needed basis around student residences. Weed suggested that
Applicant show on the plan their intentions regarding handicapped
parking by Sigma Phi. The Board voted down Yale's amendment,
Yale, Adams and Berg voting for and Schroeder, Cookingham and
Blumenthal voting against. The Board agreed to two more
conditions, that the Applicant indicate on the plans their method
for providing handicapped spaces on a temporary basis (on motion
by Yale, seconded by Adams, passed 5-1) , and that the curb height
be 7 inches (at direction of the Chair) . The Board unanimously
approved the amended motion. Applicant expressed his gratitude
to the Board for their attention and suggestions which resulted
in a plan with which all concerned were satisfied.
b) Resubmittal of Stewart-Edgemoor Neighborhood Parking Lot,
Cornell University, SDPR 89-10 - report. This project was
Planning and Development Board -3-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
originally approved in October of 1989, with conditions. The
applicant then submitted two plans with different parking
arrangements. The Board considered this a modification of the
original approved plan, and required resubmission of the plan for
further binding review. The applicant subsequently returned to
their original plan, and have satisfied all of the original
conditions. Weed recommended that the Board grant the Applicant
the Approved Site Plan notice. Schroeder said that he concurred
with Weed that approval should be given, since the plan had
already passed the Board, although he felt that the plans did not
evince enough concern for maintaining open green space around
residences. Applicant explained that the parking lot was
proposed in part to regain the parking that was lost by the
construction of the Performing Arts Center and the Law School
extension.
5. Preliminary Site Development Plan Review and Public Hearings
a) Zikakis Shopping Center, 381 and 401 Elmira Road, SDPR 90-06.
Weed described the project, involving the rehabilitation of the
former car dealership sites and their conversion to a shopping
center, with provision for a second phase of expansion at each
address. He stated that the sites had previously been poorly
planned, with regard to siting of buildings and run-off onto
Elmira Road. Weed said that much effort has been put into
addressing these problems within the developer's budget and
without redoing the entire sites: he described proposed green
strips which would alleviate drainage and better integrate the
structures on the site. He stated that although the CAC
recommends a Positive Declaration, he recommended a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact, indicating that increased
traffic was possibly an issue. He said that the current peak
volume on Elmira Road from the City line to Clinton Street was
2, 000 cars per hour, with a level of service rating B or C.
Based on an analysis by Trowbridge, parking for the mall would
increase traffic flow by 128 vehicles per hour. Cookingham
interjected that the service rating was a qualitative rather than
a quantitative rating, which considers driving conditions, not
merely traffic volume.
Berg asked if there would be sidewalks on the street.
Applicant responded that the developer intended to install
sidewalks, if they prove feasible financially. Applicant
indicated that they had contacted both Tomtran and Ithaca Transit
regarding bus service, and both had suggested locations for stops
on Elmira Road and Spencer Road, respectively. Applicant
indicated that no tenants had as yet been identified, that they
had hoped to put in a bank drive-thru, but that the bank option
was not likely, although the developer was considering other
drive-thru businesses. Blumenthal asked why two different stops
for different services were indicated, rather than one for both.
Applicant responded that this was the recommendation of the
Planning and Development Board -4-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
County Transportation Planner. Schroeder expressed the desire
that transportation services be consolidated into one stop.
Weed indicated that the applicant voluntarily produced
information and studies of petroleum spillage on the site, and
has agreed with DEC on a program for the removal and continued
monitoring of that material. Asbestos-laden material has already
been properly removed and disposed of.
With regard to the traffic issue, Weed pointed out that the
projected increase is over the traffic generated by the vacant
lot, rather than compared to the traffic generated by the prior
use, and that 128 vehicles per hour is hardly enough to begin to
affect level of service. Weed indicated also that the traffic on
Spencer Road should be considered, and that, given the proximity
to Buttermilk and the City Line, the Town, County and State Park
should be consulted.
The Board asked about the building materials, and Weed
explained that the existing roofing of 381 Elmira Rd. would be
removed, and new metal roofing will be installed. The brick
facing would be removed and replaced with Dryvit and concrete
block, with some ceramic facing, and white aluminum fenestration.
Materials used on 401 will be similar, if not the same; and will
be similar colors so as to link the sites visually.
Chair opened the Public Hearing. Barbara Blanchard, First
Ward Alderperson, expressed her support for the project. She
pointed out the economic impact of increased sales tax which
would go to the City, as opposed to the previous automobile sales
tax, which went to the buyer's community. With regard to
traffic, Blanchard felt that this project would lead to a re-
timing of the traffic light on Elmira Road which could help
alleviate some traffic problems on Spencer Road. She also
expressed her disappointment with the CAC's recommendation for a
Positive Declaration of environmental impact and indicated that
the environmental review process often unnecessarily obstructs
projects. No one else appeared to speak. Chair closed the
Public Hearing.
Ms. Darlington then reported that the CAC was supportive of
the rehabilitative efforts on the site. They were concerned,
however, that the traffic impact had not been adequately studied.
She felt that the site plans looked promising, although she
encouraged more use of larger shade trees. Adams suggested that,
by serving consumers coming from the South, the project might
keep traffic from proceeding through the City. Applicant said
that the project was conceived in part to keep traffic from
coming all the way into the City by providing convenience and
service oriented stores on the edge of the City: their targeted
customers would be residents of the south side of Town. He also
indicated that, when there was a car dealership there, the peak
traffic hours were between 4: 00 and 6:00, including people
picking up their serviced cars after work. Applicant also
indicated that they were hesitant to reduce visibility by placing
Planning and Development Board -5-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
additional large trees in front of the buildings, but they had
included some large trees and were not planning on removing any
existing trees, except a few trees internal to the site. Yale
felt that the traffic impact on Elmira Road would not be
significant, but expressed concern about the impact on Spencer
Road. Schroeder also felt that the traffic conditions would not
be unreasonable, and that there might even be some improvements
over the conditions which existed under the car dealership.
Yale moved Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,
seconded by Schroeder. Berg, whose business rents from Zikakis,
removed himself from the deliberations due to the possible
appearance of a conflict of interest.
Yale, responding to earlier comments by Alderperson
Blanchard, said that environmental review must be recognized as a
very important process which has made valuable contributions to
the betterment of projects around town.
Weed then reviewed his recommendations for Preliminary
Approval in Concept and for conditions on the Board's approval,
as follows:
1. The foregoing site plan approval applies to each distinct
property parcel, as separate approvals for each distinct
site plan.
2. For 381 Elmira Road (and subsequently for 401 Elmira Rd. )
a. In consideration of the Phase I project only, that the
Preliminary Site Development Plan is approved in
concept, with modifications in the form of conditions,
and that the applicant must submit to the Board a Final
Site Development Plan which incorporates information
that will address the conditions specified.
3. Conditions:
a. Clarify all technical information as required by SDPR.
b. Show proposed restoration for on-site wooded areas, as
may be disturbed, and describe other corrective
maintenance for existing wooded areas, as may be
necessary.
C. Show, where feasible, any plans to save and transplant
existing plant materials.
d. Finalize the planting plan, demonstrating adequate
consideration for the need to integrate this parcel
with the environs and maximizing the use of large shade
trees in the planting plan, as is consistent with the
development program.
e. Show as a note on the plans, the proposed
responsibilities of a professional landscape architect
through the construction phase, in recognition of the
need to react to unforeseen conditions during the site
rehabilitation.
f. Coordinate with the Town of Ithaca, the Finger Lakes
State Parks , and the Tompkins County Planning
Department, as to the proposed development and the
Planning and Development Board -6-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
projected increases in traffic volume.
g. Estimate the traffic impacts on Spencer Road which will
be a result of this project and proposed mitigating
measures for the impacts that are identified.
h. Refine the proposed detail for the "Typical Island
Section" and other landscape catchments to optimize
provisions for storm water interdiction and
infiltration and in consideration of healthy growing
conditions for the proposed plantings.
i. Refine and finalize the design for proposed curb
openings in consideration of smooth access and egress
for vehicles.
j . Coordinate and show the completed planning for the
proposed future sidewalks in the right-of-way.
k. Concurrently, coordinate and show the completed
planning for the proposed bus stops at Elmira Road and
at Spencer Road, to include considerations for a bus
turn-in and considerations for a single bus stop only.
1. Insure that all asphalt pavements that are currently
within the city right-of-way will be removed and that
the areas disturbed will be adequately sodded.
The Board then voted for a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, 4-0-2, with Berg and Adams abstaining.
Chair asked Applicant if she had reviewed the above
conditions, and Applicant expressed confidence that all the
conditions could be worked out. Applicant requested that the
Board consider granting Final Approval with conditions so that
the developer could proceed with obtaining lease agreements.
Weed observed that, although many of the conditions could be
worked out by the Department, granting of Final Approval would
not allow the Board to consider the comments of the other
concerned agencies. Schroeder concurred that he would not want
to grant Final Approval without hearing the comments of the other
agencies.
Chair moved to grant Preliminary Approval considered Final
with the above outlined conditions. No one seconded the motion.
Schroeder moved to grant Preliminary Approval in Concept, with
the above outlined conditions, and was seconded by Yale. The
motion was passed 4-1-1 by the Board, with Blumenthal voting
against and Berg abstaining.
b) Alterations to Ithaca Bakery, 408 North Meadow Street, SDPR
90-07. Chair opened the Public Hearing. No one appeared to
speak, and Chair closed the Public Hearing. Weed explained that
the Applicant made site improvements in November without
submitting to Site Plan Review or obtaining a Building Permit.
Subsequently the Applicant applied for a Building Permit for
interior and exterior improvements, and was referred for Site
Plan Review. Following a Site Plan Conference and an early
review of the application materials, the Applicant forwarded some
j}
Planning and Development Board G�,�i/`" C -7-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
additional information to the !Department. Staff=�v4-� of this
information indicated that the 'information was not fully complete
and that site plan issues were unresolved. The Codes and
Administration Committee of ;the Board reviewed the project and
suggested to the Applicant and�,the Owner that the Board would be
willing to consider Preliminary? Review at its next meeting if the
outstanding site plan issues - ould be resolved with the Planning
staff. Two days before the monthly Board meeting, the Applicant
informed the Department that`the project was not subject to Site
Plan Review and that they were withdrawing from the process and
would not be attending the June meeting of the Board. Weed
responded with a letter saying that the project had been
referred to the Department by the Building Department, but that
the Planning Department could not proceed without the
cooperation of the Applicant. Weed indicated that the Building
Department had granted the Applicant a permit for interior work,
but that no permit for exterior work would be granted without
review by the Planning and Development Board, nor would a
Certificate of Occupancy be issued. Weed gave his opinion that
the Applicant intended to proceed without a permit. The Board
felt strongly that the actions of the Applicant compromised the
authority of the Board and the integrity of Site Plan Review, and
that the City should be prepared to immediately issue a Cease and
Desist Order if the Applicant begins with modifications. Chair
stated that the discussion relative to the Bakery should be
considered fully a part of the public record and the Board
members concurred. Action on this matter will await further
developments.
6. New Business
a) Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding variances and special
permits. Chair referred to Assistant City Attorney Kennedy's
memo concerning proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance which
would add to the number of factors that the Board of Zoning
Appeals may consider when considering appeals. City Attorney
Chuck Guttman observed that case law did not clearly delineate
the factors which the BZA should consider in granting area
variances. The proposed amendment would give the BZA as much
discretion as possible while giving them a set of standards by
which to evaluate cases. Guttman reviewed the criteria in the
proposed amendment, stressing that the criteria would not be
requirements, but guidelines to be applied at the BZA's
discretion. Berg asked BZA Chair Michael Tomlan to comment on
the proposed amendment. Tomlan responded that the members of the
BZA had not yet reviewed the proposal, but that his initial
reaction was favorable. Berg said that his first impression was
also positive, and that it would seem to provide the proper
context for reaching reasonable decision. Blumenthal asked
Guttman what legal protection the amendment would provide the
Planning and Development Board -8-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
City. Guttman replied that there was no legal consensus on
whether such guidelines could be legislated. He felt, however,
that he could legally defend the articulation of zoning
standards. Tomlan commented that the proposed standards were in
keeping with factors normally considered by the BZA, with the
exception of the "specifically identified community aesthetic, "
which he felt could not be adequately defined. Cookingham
agreed that this was not a good term to include, but that
otherwise the proposal was positive. Schroeder felt that the
Board ought to have some time to consider the proposal before
discussing changes in the wording. Blumenthal suggested that the
proposed Guide to Zoning Ordinance Amendments be followed in
considering the proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Tomlan
asked that a copy of the Guide be provided to the BZA along with
the proposed version.
b) Inlet Island Alienation regarding Parcels l - 4. Chair
introduced new staff Planner Doug Foster to the Board. Foster
explained that alienation is the term used for any change to non-
park use of land in state, city, or private parks. Alienation
has to be approved by the State legislature. Alienation of land
in parks where federal funding has been involved is called a
conversion, and must be approved at the federal level. Foster
continued explaining that a 6(f) conversion is one initiated by
the municipality, and applies to Parcels 2, 4 and 5, which aren't
involved in the Route 96 project. A 4(f) conversion is one
initiated by the State DoT for highway projects, here involving
Parcels 1 and 3, and can proceed without the State legislative
approval, which is required ' for a 6F conversion. Schroeder
explained that the Planning and Development Committee unanimously
recommended alienation of all four parcels (this occurred before.
Parcel 5 was separated from Parcel 3) , since .parcels 2 and 4 were
not being used as parkland for the City, and because of a feeling
that there was a place for some well-planned waterfront
development. At the May Common Council meeting, there was
discussion about separating alienation action for the highway
parcels from action on the others, although the Council did then
vote to alienate all 4 parcels without separating them. The
Interim Parks Commission and Conservation Advisory Commission
then complained that they were not consulted, and the Council in
June rescinded its action and submitted the issue to the IIPC,
CAC and Planning and Development Board.
Berg asked what process would be used to determine future
use of the alienated parcels. Guttman responded that the
alienation and conversion process concerned removing the
requirement that the parcels be used as parkland, and acquiring
substitute parkland; determining future use of the land would be
a separate process wherein Council would decide what to do with
the land. Adams, who had attended the joint meeting of the CAC
and IIPC, felt that people were concerned mainly that the
Planning and Development Board -9-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
substitute land be identified, and the acquisition process be
defined, prior to alienation, and that they were not so concerned
with the specific use of the alienated land within a considered
development plan for the area. Guttman further explained the.
steps in the 6 (f) process: the City decides that it is
interested in alienation and conversion, then informally selects
(in consultation with Finger Lakes State Parks) what substitute
land it thinks would be appropriate, then Finger Lakes meets
informally with the Department of Interior to see whether
Interior would consider the land a potentially appropriate
substitute of equal recreational and monetary value, the land is
then professionally surveyed and appraised, after which Finger
Lakes determines whether it is of equal monetary and
recreational value. Finger Lakes then proceeds to the
legislature for their approval, and then returns to the
Department of Interior for their final approval. Guttman
indicated that the substitute land being considered by Parks and
Recreation is the Finger Lakes Trail bikeway from Inlet Island to
the south end of the City. The nature of the bikeway is such
that it is difficult to survey and appraise. Another
complication concerns the fact the City owns part of this land
and leases it to industrial park users. Guttman believes that
the appraisals will be paid for by DoT. He said that he expects
that the value of Parcels 1 and 3 will be such that only part of
the bikeway will be used as substitute land for these parcels,
and the hope is therefore that the rest can be used as part of
the substitute land for Parcels 2 and 4. Guttman gave his
opinion that, since the City has leased its ownership rights to
the land with an option for the lessee to buy at a small price,
that it could be considered as potential substitute land.
Cookingham commented on the clarity of the City Attorney's
summary, and requested that Guttman write down the alienation
process and distribute it to the Board.
Schroeder said that Parcels 2 and 4 were not being used as
parkland, and that with the conditions that there be an approved
master plan, environmental review, and identification of
substitute lands, he would vote to begin the process of
alienation. Guttman was asked whether the City needed to act on
Parcels 1 and 3, and he responded that the DoT had indicated that
they would not proceed without the City supporting the alienation
of Parcels 1 and 3.
Yale said that, based on the information from Guttman, he
felt that the Board should recommend that the City proceed with
the alienation process. Schroeder agreed, with the provisions
that, prior to the City disposing of Parcels 2 and 4, a master
plan be in place, an environmental review be done, and
substitute lands be identified. The motion was seconded by
Adams, and passed unanimously by the Board.
7. Old Business
Planning and Development Board -10-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
a) Guide for Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Chair reported that
the Planning and Development Committee had approved the Guide.
She observed that it was unclear whether the Board could direct
the Department staff to develop a memorandum explaining the
concept. The Chair and other Board members felt that they had
not had sufficient time to review the current version of the
Guide; it was suggested that a flow chart be prepared to
graphically represent the proposed process. It was then agreed
that the action on the issue be postponed, and that the Zoning
Amendment Revisions regarding variances and special permits be
used as a test case and put through the process. Yale pointed
out the difficulties caused by the Board meeting after the
Planning and Development Committee, therefore not being able to
comment on decisions until they had already been made. Chair
stated that it was the position of the Department that, given
the inter-related nature of the various Boards and Committees, it
would be difficult at this time to change the date of the
Planning and Development Board meeting. Yale offered to meet
with the Director to attempt to rectify the scheduling problem.
8. Zoning Appeals Report
Meigs reported that all of the appeals but one dealt with decks,
and that the Committee recommended passage with no comment.
Yale, seconded by Berg, so moved, and the motion was passed
unanimously by the Board.
9. Reports
a) Committees of the Board
Transportation and Economic Development Yale reported that the
Committee met with Bernie Carpenter on June 14, and developed
three preliminary recommendations: more money should be
allocated to marketing the transit system; the City should
consider adopting a transit incentive program similar to
Cornell's; and the City should encourage and work with other
major employers in the area to pursue public transit incentive
programs.
b) Chair: Chair reported that Recreational River Designation
for Ithaca Falls and Stewart Park had been passed by the Assembly
and the Senate. The question remains as to who should review
permits for this area, and the responsibility may fall to the
Planning and Development Board; no member expressed serious
objection.
Chair directed the Board's attention to the fact that Site
Development Plan Review of the Joint Transit Maintenance Facility
is deferred. She noted that the Deputy Director position is
opening, and urged the Codes and Administration committee to
review and update the job description as appropriate. Cookingham
suggested that the Board draft a resolution of appreciation for
Mr. Mazzarella's service, to be presented at the July meeting.
Planning and Development Board -11-
Minutes - June 26, 1990
This prompted discussion of the July meeting date and members'
vacations: at least four will have to be present, in addition to
Berg, who intends to abstain, to vote on final approval for the
Zikakis project; and only four, including Berg, plan to be in
town the regular meeting date. A determination will be made on
the date or dates later, when the Chair has had time to consider
options.
Chair asked the Board whether they wanted to proceed with
their intended review of the Site Plan Review Process. Weed had
previously given her a summary of the cases on which he has
worked. Some discussion ensued as to what criteria would be
used to evaluate the process, including the following: to what
degree does the process pay for itself; savings in maintenance
and drainage due to better-planned projects; comments and
reactions from applicants. Chair asked Weed to distribute his
summary to the Board, and asked the Board to consider questions
to ask of participants in the process.
c) Board of Public Works: Berg reported that the Board of
Public Works approved a new market on Saturdays in DeWitt Park.
The BPW is continuing to have 24 hour paid parking at the Dryden
Road Parking Garage, with the exception of 9:00 a.m. - 1: 00 p.m.
Sunday mornings. The County Recycling Center is now open only on
Saturdays, until the City and County agree on staffing and
funding.
d) Planning and Development Committee: Schroeder reported that
Dick Booth has suggested drafting a proposal to control
conversion of yards into parking lots, which is becoming an
increasing problem. The Committee discussed at length the
parking study. Schroeder and First Ward Alderperson Blanchard,
after inspecting conditions on the Commons, are sponsoring a
Capital Improvement project request for major repairs.
10. Schroeder moved to amend the discussion of parking in the May
minutes as follows: on p. 2, add Center Ithaca and the Mental
Health Building to the list of traffic generators, and in the
resolution concerning CBD parking to remove the words "strongly"
and "final" from the fifth paragraph, and to add the words "in
cooperation with downtown merchants" to the seventh paragraph.
He was seconded by Berg, and the motion passed unanimously.
Approval of the Minutes from the May 22 meeting was postponed,
however, due to question about wording of the zoning appeals
discussion.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
b:pdb.626