HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_P&Z_12.07.2010
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 1 of 11
City of Georgetown, Texas
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers
101 E. Seventh Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Commissioners: Don Padfield, Chair; Porter Cochran, Vice Chair; Annette Montgomery,
Secretary; Brandon Collier, Gregory A. Austin, Gene Facey
Commissioner(s) Absent: Pat Armour
Commissioners in Training: Ercel Brashear, Sally Pell
Commissioner(s) in Training Absent: N/A
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; David Munk, City
Engineer; Stephanie McNickle, Recording Secretary; Avery Craft, Recording Secretary
Chair Padfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Padfield stated the order of the meeting and that those who speak must turn in a speaker
form to the recording secretary before the item that they wish to address begins. Each speaker will
be permitted to address the Commission once for each item, for a maximum of three (3) minutes,
unless otherwise agreed to before the meeting begins.
1. Action from Executive Session. There was no Executive Session.
Consent Agenda
2. The Consent Agenda includes non-controversial and routine items that the Commission may
act on with one single vote. A Commissioner or any member of the public may request that
any item from the Consent Agenda be pulled in order that the Commission discuss and act
upon it individually as part of the Regular Agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission's
approval of an item on the Consent Agenda will be consistent with the staff recommendation
described in the report, unless otherwise noted.
Motion by Facey to approve Consent Agenda. Second by Austin. Approved. (6-0)
3. Consideration of the Minutes of the November 2, 2010, meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Motion by Facey to approve the November 2, 2010 minutes. Second by Austin. Approved. (6-0)
4. Consideration and Possible Action on a Preliminary Plat for Katy Crossing Section 6-B,
located at River Bluff Circle. PP-2010-008 (CB)
Motion by Facey to approve. Second by Austin. Approved. (6-0)
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 2 of 11
Regular Agenda
5. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Quail Meadow,
Unit III, Block 9, Lots 3 - 6, located at 2703 Mesquite Lane, 600 River Bend Drive, 602 River
Bend Drive and 604 River Bend Drive. Staff report given by Valerie Kreger. Kreger stated
that the property owners are requesting a Resubdivision to allow for the realignment of
existing residential lot lines for four (4) residential lots to address existing encroachments
into setbacks and easements. All lots are currently developed with single-family residential
structures, accessory buildings and uses. The original plat provided utility easements on
street frontages and internal property lines. There are residential and accessory structures
that have been in place for many years but are encroaching into setbacks and easements.
This plat is to relocate common lot lines and to address existing encroachments. The
relocation of property lines will provide for correction of some of the existing circumstances.
Additionally, the applicant has requested that the current setbacks in the UDC be applicable
to these lots with the caveat that any new structures will meet any greater setbacks in order
to meet the intent of the development standards of the original plat and therefore have no
impact on other property owners within the subdivision. Staff supports the Final Plat of a
Resubdivision of Quail Meadow, Unit III, Block 9, Lots 3-6, to address existing circumstances
and bring the lots into conformance with current standards while maintaining the original
intent of the subdivision.
Padfield invited the applicant to speak.
Applicant Michael Meador stated that they want to move the property lines to the existing fence
lines that have been there, in some cases, since the 1980’s. The property was not surveyed when
the houses were built, which created setback and encroachment of easement issues.
Padfield opened the public hearing at 6:05. No one came forward to speak.
Padfield closed the public hearing at 6:06.
Motion by Austin to approve a Final Plat of a Resubdivision of Quail Meadow, Unit III, Block 9,
Lots 3 - 6, located at 2703 Mesquite Lane, 600 River Bend Drive, 602 River Bend Drive and 604
River Bend Drive. Second by Facey. Approved. (6-0)
6. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a Special Use Permit for Block L of the South San
Gabriel Urban Renewal, being the Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center - Meals on Wheels,
to allow the expansion of a Senior Activity Center, located at 803 W. 8th Street. Staff report
given by Valerie Kreger. Kreger stated that the applicant has requested a Special Use Permit
to allow for the expansion of the Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center – Meals on Wheels
facility. The intent is to expand the current facility by approximately 1,400 square feet to
enlarge the dining area and kitchen as well as an overall reco nfiguration of the offices,
bathrooms and storage area to provide for a more functional design. A total of 29 notices
were sent out to the property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. Public notice
was posted in the Sun newspaper on November 21st, 2010. There has been one comment
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 3 of 11
received from the surrounding property owners in support of the use and expansion with
concern for on-street parking.
Padfield asked if there will be additional parking. Kreger confirmed that there will be
additional parking on site.
Collier asked staff how much closer to the intersection is the entrance to the parking lot of
the facility then what would normally be allowed. David Munk stated that for a normal
commercial parking lot it would have to be 200 feet. On a residential, it could be as low as 50
feet.
Padfield asked if the applicant is present. Applicant was not in attendance.
Padfield opened the public hearing at 6:11. No one came forward to speak. Padfield closed the
public hearing at 6:12.
Motion by Cochran to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for Block L of the South
San Gabriel Urban Renewal, being the Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center - Meals on
Wheels, to allow the expansion of a Senior Activity Center, located at 803 W. 8th Street. Second
by Facey. Approved. (6-0).
7. Public Hearing and Possible Action on the Fifth Round of the 2008-2009 Annual Unified
Development Code (UDC) Amendments. Staff report given by Elizabeth Cook. Cook stated
that in 2008, the City Council approved a revised process for the annual review and
amendment of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The process involves citizen
participation in the form of a UDC Task Force, which is comprised of self appointed
members, the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and final decision
by the City Council. This is the 5th round in a series of amendments started in late 2008. The
following is an overview of the amendments presented by Cook:
Residential Additions and Infill within the Old Town Overlay District (Exhibit 2)
This proposed text amendment addresses the UDC List item intended to keep new
residential construction in the Old Town Overlay in scale with the existing historic
character of the area. The proposed UDC amendment would set limitations beyond
those of the underlying zoning district (generally RS) for all single and two family
residential additions or new home construction in the Old Town Overlay District.
These limitations could not be exceeded without approval of a Certification of Design
Compliance (CDC) by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC).
Variance approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) would still be required,
in addition to the HARC approval, for any proposed construction that would also
exceed the underlying zoning district requirements. The proposed limitations are
summarized below.
1. Additions will not be made to the street facing façade of an existing single or two
family dwelling. (RS district establishes a minimum front setback of 20 feet.)
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 4 of 11
2. Single and two family structures will be limited to 30 feet in height. (RS district
establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet.)
3. Upper stories are subject to a ten (10) foot side setback and a 15‐foot rear setback.
(RS district setbacks are six (6) and ten (10) feet respectively.)
4. The square footage of additions to existing homes may not exceed 30% of the
square footage of the existing structure. (Building setbacks and maximum
impervious coverage are the only requirements currently limiting size.)
5. The total floor‐to‐area ratio (FAR) of a residential parcel shall not exceed 0.65
where new construction or an addition is proposed. (FAR is currently not
addressed in UDC.) This would mean that the total square footage of the structure
could not exceed 65% of the square footage of the property.
Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition of Historic Structures (Exhibit 3)
The changes to Section 3.13 amend HARC’s current CDC review process for requests
to demolish or relocate historic properties or properties located within the historic
overlay districts. This proposed amendment is in response to the UDC List item to
have more stringent protection of historic homes. The amendment is intended to
further protect historic resources by giving the HARC the ability to extend delay
periods to allow more time to seek alternatives to demolition and increasing the
justification information provided by the applicant. As proposed, there would be
additional submission requirements for demolition or relocation CDC applications
depending on the basis for the requested removal. If HARC were not to approve a
demolition request at the initial public hearing, a delay period would automatically
commence. During the delay period, which varies depending on specified criteria, an
applicant may need to provide additional information, work toward finding potential
buyers, complete additional research and/or similar activities to justify the proposed
removal. In addition, if an applicant makes an argument for demolition or relocation
based on no economically viable use of the property the request would be reviewed
by an economic review panel. This review panel would analyze the financial
documentation presented by the applicant that justifies the economic necessity of the
proposed removal, and then make a recommendation to HARC.
Sidewalks (Exhibit 4)
As proposed, the changes to Chapter 12 and 13 would allow an alternative sidewalk
plan for sites with unique and extraordinary conditions. If a site qualifies for this
alternative option, the replacement could be provided in the form of an alternate
route, payments‐in‐lieu or a delay in the installation of the sidewalk due to road
construction. In addition, the changes clarify that residential sidewalks are to be
installed at the time of subdivision site improvements. However, a provision is
included that allows the installation to be deferred for each residential lot until the
construction of each individual residential unit. If that option is selected, there would
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 5 of 11
be a required payment of 20% of the cost to construct these sidewalks into a fund that
would be used by the City to construct any missing pieces of sidewalk after a five (5)
year period.
Home‐Based Business Limitations (Exhibit 5)
New UDC language was proposed for Home Occupations during the last round of
amendments with the Chapter 5 revisions. Staff initiated these changes due to several
calls regarding the current language, which does not allow any on‐site retail sales or
services and therefore disallowed services such as tutoring and music lessons. At the
City Council meeting regarding the Round 4 amendments, there was concern
expressed that the Task Force had not had enough input into the proposal. So, staff
reconvened with the group to develop new language.
The new proposal not only changes the name from Home Occupation to Home‐Based
Business, but also provides several options for consideration, based on input from the
Task Force. Overall, the proposals are grouped into two major options. The first
overall option, which includes some internal options, is based on the existing
language. If this option is selected by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) as
the one to be recommended for Council approval, P&Z will need to also decide on
items 5.03.020.E.2.e, h, and i. Item “e” addresses signage and whether a small sign
would be allowed or not. Item “h” addresses parking for the home‐based business.
Finally, item “i” clarifies whether on‐site services would be allowed. In the first option
“i”, services are not allowed, which is the existing language. In second option “i”,
services are still not allowed, although a series of limited, small scale service‐type uses
would not be considered “services” and therefore would be permitted as a
home‐based business. Also under this option, retail sales would be allowed with no
store‐front and would be limited to incidental sales of merchandise related to the
service provided; direct sales product distribution (Avon, etc.); sales by phone,
internet or mail; and sales of custom products created by the business.
The second overall option for the P&Z’s consideration would create a separate set of
criteria for home‐based businesses located in the Old Town Overlay District and have
the first option apply to the balance of the City. This option creates two (2) classes of
home businesses, those with on‐site clients or customers (Class II) and those without
(Class I). There are a several standards similar to the first option, but with more
specificity and there is a list of prohibited uses. Within the second option there are two
(2) choices related to approval of the Class II home businesses: one would require a
Special Use Permit, approved by City Council after a recommendation from P&Z and
the second would require approval of a Home‐Based Business Permit approved by
P&Z. The Home‐Based Business Permit would be a new process and there is
companion language to create that process. As envisioned by the proposal, this new
permit would be a single public hearing at P&Z with a $100 permit fee. As noted for
the first option, if P&Z recommends approval of the second option, there are still
details that will need to be recommended within each option. Finally, there was a
group of Task Force members who believed that there should not be separate criteria
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 6 of 11
for different sections of the City, and recommended that whichever option was chosen
apply to all of Georgetown. The complaints related to code enforcement of the current
regulations have been directed at those type of businesses that not only are currently
not allowed as a home business, but would also not be allowed as a home business
under any of the options proposed. Therefore, staff is in support of the first overall
option (5.03.020.E) applying to the entire City with sub‐item “e” option 1 to allow a
small sign; sub‐item “h” option 3 to allow utilization of on‐street parking and existing
on‐site parking; and sub‐item “i” option 2 to allow limited on‐site services and
non‐store front retail.
Miscellaneous Text Amendments (Exhibit 6)
There are several minor amendments contained in Exhibit 6, which include the
following:
1. Chapter 3 changes relate to articulating the subdivision replat process that follows
the procedures and requirements identified in the Texas Local Government Code.
Today, the UDC is silent on the replat process.
2. Chapter 4 changes include:
Clarifying that the City (versus a specific department) will maintain the Official
Zoning Map and that digital mapping may represent the most accurate and up -
to‐date information between Zoning Map printings. These are just clarifications
of existing practice.
The Williams Drive Special Area is being modified to allow Public Emergency
Services Stations as a permitted use.
3. Chapter 5 is being revised:
To remove the limitation that does not allow columbaria associated with
religious assembly facilities to be located within the front yard.
To allow an Integrated Office Center use by right in the Industrial District
rather than requiring a Special Use Permit. There is a companion definition
change in Chapter 16 to have multiple buildings or a site to be an Integrated
Office Center
4. Chapters 6 and 7 are being revised to clarify that no buildings are allowed in the
required setback or yard; to include the word “street” next to the words “front
setback” in the Lot and Dimensional Chart in Chapter 7; and to clarify setback and
street setback limitations in Chapter 7.
5. Chapter 11 stormwater management system design requirements are being
updated to reflect Gateway Overlay changes made in prior amendments. These
items refer to the appearance of stormwater facilities in the Gateways.
The exemptions section of Chapter 14 is being amended to allow site plans that
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 7 of 11
have been approved, but not constructed, to be completed even if a UDC change
has been made that would make the site nonconforming if constructed as
approved.
There are some revisions to the recently adopted Chapter 16, either to modify an
existing definition, to include definitions needed as companions to other
amendments or to address missing definitions.
Board discussed how to move forward with the public hearing, considering there are
numerous amendments. Austin suggested having a discussion and a vote for each of the
amendments in the order in which Cook presented them.
Padfield opened the public hearing for Residential Additions and Infill within the Old Town
Overlay District (Exhibit 2) at 6:52.
Renee Hansen of 1252 S. Austin Avenue stated that she has noticed at least four homes in the
Historic District that are not abiding by proper standards. Renee is in support of the
ordinance.
Richard Cutts of 1312 Elm Street stated that he is in favor of the change to the ordinance. It is
important because it will preserve the historic assets of Georgetown.
Ellen Davis of 405 E. 10th Street stated that she proposed this amendment to the UDC about 2
years ago and is very happy that it is finally being discussed. Davis is in favor of this
ordinance.
Padfield closed the public hearing for Residential Additions and Infill within the Old Town
Overlay District (Exhibit 2) at 7:00.
Motion by Facy to recommend approval to City Council for the proposed amendment
related to Residential Additions and Infill within the Old Town Overlay District (Exhibit 2).
Second by Montgomery. Approved. (5-1; Austin opposed)
Padfield opened the public hearing for Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition of
Historic Structures (Exhibit 3) at 7:14.
Peter Dana of 1101 Walnut Street stated that he supports as much regulation as possible.
Ellen Davis of 405 E. 10th Street wants to make it harder for people to demolish historic
structures. Davis also supports the significant penalties that have been put into place for
people who demolish their homes.
Richard Cutts of 1312 Elm Street stated that he thinks that this type of an ordinance is similar
to the City of Galveston’s ordinance, which has been working very well.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 8 of 11
Renee Hansen of 1252 S. Austin Avenue stated that she is in favor of the ordinance.
Robert Phipps of 1404 Elm Street stated that he is in agreement with Richard Cutts and
Renee Hansen.
Barbara Meyer of 705 E. 3rd Street stated that she is in favor of the ordinance.
Chris Damon of 1408 Olive Street stated that the Old Town residents are all in agreement
that this ordinance should be passed in order to preserve the historic feel.
Padfield closed the public hearing for Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition of
Historic Structures (Exhibit 3) at 7:26.
Motion by Facey to recommend approval to City Council for the proposed amendment
related to Certificate of Design Compliance for Demolition of Historic Structures (Exhibit 3).
Second by Austin. Approved. (5-1; Collier opposed)
Padfield opened the public hearing at 7:44 for Sidewalks (Exhibit 4). No one came forward to
speak.
Padfield closed the public hearing at 7:45.
Motion by Facey to recommend approval to City Council for the proposed Sidewalks (Exhibit
4) amendment. Second by Montgomery. Approved. (6-0).
Padfield opened discussion on the Home‐Based Business Limitations (Exhibit 5) amendment
to staff and Board members.
Facey asked staff what the thought of Old Town is versus the entire city. Cook states that lot of
subdivisions have home owners associations that might have restrictions that Old Town does
not have. Home owners associations, beyond what the city might require, limit what someone
might or might not do from their home.
Cochran inquired about the language of Special Use Permit and Home Based business and
what is the difference. Cook states that a Special Use Permit is a type of zoning overlay and in
order to obtain one, someone must obtain special approval and participate in a public hearing
process in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning
Commission will then make their recommendations on the case to City Council. Home Based
Business would be discussed in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but will not
necessarily go to City Council.
Padfield opened the public hearing for the Home‐Based Business Limitations (Exhibit 5)
amendment at 7:57.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 9 of 11
Robert McMurrer of 1403 S. College Street is in agreement of preserving heritage. He pointed
out that the heritage has always provided home based businesses that have contributed to the
economic viability, social cohesiveness and charm of the various neighborhoods. McMurrer
agreed that there should be one standard for the city and believes that creating more limitations
will create a burden for city staff and City Council. McMurrer is not in favor of the restrictive
ordinance.
Chris Harrison of 424 Champions Drive explained that his wife has been an orchestra teacher
for several years and it has been a surprise to them that they may not be in compliance with city
standards at this time. Harrison is not in favor of the restrictive ordinance.
Tracy Gilliam of P.O. Box 1866 was told two years ago by the city that she was allowed to have
a home based business. Gilliam is concerned that her ability to work from her home as a
massage therapist will be taken away from her. Gilliam believes that it is unfair that home
based business owners will have to go through this time consuming process, given that there
have not been any complaints. Gilliam is not in favor of the restrictive ordinance and prefers
Option 1.
Rene Piotrowski of 2801 Gabriel View is a music teacher in her home. Piotrowski agreed with
the past two speakers and encouraged the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow home
based businesses. Piotrowski is not in favor of the restrictive ordinance.
Brad Mason of 811 Elm Street agreed that home based businesses should be allowed and is not
in favor of the restrictive ordinance.
Ross Hunter of 908 S. Walnut Street pointed out that Old Town relies on city laws and that there
is no home owners association. Hunter believes that the protection for the homeowners of Old
Town is compromised by the potential traffic of customers visiting home based businesses in
the area. Hunter is in favor of the more restrictive ordinance.
Dr. Tamara McReynolds of 916 Walnut Street expressed how she served in the United States
Army for 11 years and upon completing her service in Iraq, returned to Georgetown for the
following three reasons: freedom, flexibility and friendliness. Dr. McReynolds started a home
based business and was told recently that this was a problem. While recognizing that Old Town
should be preserved as it is, there are home based business throughout the entire city and there
should be one standard. Dr. McReynolds believes that home based businesses should be
allowed in Old Town and is not in favor of the restrictive ordinance.
Doug Bryce stated that he supports home based business in Old Town. From the day
Georgetown was founded, there have been home based businesses. Bryce is not in favor of the
restrictive ordinance.
Richard Risener of 114 Parque Vista Drive has owned and operated a gun repair shop in
Georgetown since 1997 with the blessings of the city. It is a surprise that he is no longer legally
running his business by city standards. Risener is not in favor of the restrictive ordinance.
Renee Hansen of 1252 S. Austin Avenue believes that people who purchase historic homes
should be notified if neighbors living within 200 feet are planning on starting a home based
business. Hansen proposes that Special Use Permits be only taken to the Planning and Zoning
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 10 of 11
Commission for review (not City Council) and that the permit would be a lesser fee of $100 as
opposed to $500. Hansen is in favor of the more restrictive ordinance.
Chris Damon of 1408 Olive Street strongly expressed that he is not in agreement with the
restrictive ordinance.
Barbara Meyer of 705 E. 3rd Street states that she experienced a noise ordinance issue with
one of her neighbors in the past due to a home based business. Meyer is in agreement with
the more restrictive ordinance.
Robert Phipps of 1404 Elm Street stated that there are a lot of differences between Old Town
and New Town and they can not be treated the same. If there are going to be changes made
to the law, there should be many protections provided to the neighborhood. Phipps is in
agreement with the more restrictive ordinance.
Richard Cutts of 1312 Elm Street is in agreement with the more restrictive ordinance.
Peter Dana of 1101 Walnut Street wants to restrict home based business in Old Town as it
impacts the neighbors and neighborhood. Dana stated that he lives in a residential
neighborhood, not a mixed-use neighborhood and wants to keep it that way. Dana is in
agreement with the more restrictive ordinance.
Rick Williamson of 204 Holly Street believes that there should be a freedom to own a home
based business with limitations.
Padfield closed the public hearing for the Home‐Based Business Limitations (Exhibit 5)
amendment at 8:45.
Motion by Cochran to recommend to City Council to apply the same rules for Home‐Based
Business Limitations (Exhibit 5) to the entire city. Second by Facey. Approved. (6-0).
Motion by Facey to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed Home‐Based
Business Limitations (Exhibit 5) amendment to the UDC related to 5.03.020.E as overall Option
1. Second by Montgomery. Approved. (6-0).
Motion by Facey to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed Home‐Based
Business Limitations (Exhibit 5) amendment to the UDC related to 5.03.020.E.2.e (signage) as
overall Option 1. Second by Collier. Approved. (5-1; Austin opposed).
Motion by Facey to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed Home‐Based
Business Limitations (Exhibit 5) amendment to the UDC; item H, Option 3, stating the
following: On‐street parking utilized by the business shall only be allowed along the
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes / December 7, 2010 Page 11 of 11
property line of the home‐based business residence and as allowed by current City code.
Off‐street parking is limited to existing paved areas and the business shall not result in the
increase of on‐site parking areas. Second by Cochran. Approved. (5-1; Austin opposed).
Motion by Facey to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed Home‐Based
Business Limitations (Exhibit 5) amendment to the UDC; item i, Option 2, stating the
following: The home‐based business shall involve no on‐site services. However, if the
activity is kept at a small scale (meaning generally one or two people conducting the
business or meeting with clients) and the business remains compliant with the limitations of
this Chapter, the following shall not be considered services: (1) individual academic, music,
dance, photography, art, hobby or similar instruction or studio, (2) seamstress or tailor, (3)
barber or beauty salon (one (1) chair),(4) financial/investment counseling, accounting,
bookkeeping, real estate office, or similar office, (5) individual massage, natural therapy or
similar services, (6) counseling in an office setting, and (7) other similar low impact uses as
determined by the Director. Second by Cochran. Approved. (5-1; Austin opposed).
Padfield stated that City Council will review and discuss all of the options that were voted
on.
Padfield opened the public hearing on Miscellaneous Amendments section of Exhibit 6 at
9:01. No one came forward to speak.
Padfield closed the public hearing at 9:02.
Board and staff discuss the Miscellaneous Amendments section of Exhibit 6.
Motion by Facey to (1) recommend the City Council approval to the proposed amendments
to the UDC related to Miscellaneous Amendments presented in Exhibit 6, (2) add Zoning
maps to section 4.02.020 and (3) add the words “of the official zoning map” to the end of the
paragraph in section 4.02.020. Second by Austin. Approved. (6-0).
8. Reminder of the January 4, 2010, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
9. Motion to Adjourn 9:18.
______________________________ _______________________________
Approved, Don Padfield, Chair Attested, Annette Montgomery, Secretary