DRAFT
March 22, 2004Special MeetingMINUTES CALL TO ORDER: John Richardson, ChairmanRickert was present. Don de Reynier was absent with notice. Also present was township attorney, Doug Miller.
MINUTES: There was a motion by Matt Evans to approve the minutes of March 08, 2004. There was a 2nd by Scott Evans. Roll Call - Matt Evans-Yes, S. Evans-Yes, J. Richardson-Yes, R. Giesse-Abstained, John Rickert-Yes The motion was approved. Zoning Text Amendment Staff Report Tim Hershner said the Deerfield Township Trustees had initiated a text amendment for the Deerfield Township Zoning Code, per Resolution 2004-09, recommended by the Warren County Executive Committee. This suggests that Deerfield Township consider to include in our current zone code that we accept restrictions, covenants, agreements, easements or any other conditions which were placed on any parcels in Deerfield Township when the township zoning was under the jurisdiction of Warren County. Mayank Kumar had an example he showed on Power Point at Landen Shores, regarding this issue. Mr. Kumar gave an example of a Resolution approved in 1974. Mr. Kumar asked how would these conditions be carried forward in Deerfield Township? Tim said staff would assume if under county zoning, the Warren County Commissions would make the decision, and would that would transfer over to the Trustees as a Township Trustees decision to make. Similarly, if it were Regional Planning Commission decision it would carry over to the Zoning Commission. If it were executive director of the planning commission it would carry over to the zoning administrator or myself as Community Development Director. Do we need specific wording for this? Doug said under a PUD they would have to come back here anyway and he said he didn’t see this as a problem. Doug said if there is any change is this PUD, they must come back to the commissioners. Doug said he thinks this is a procedural type thing and we should have the procedure set up to handle that. Doug said we are not adopting their procedure. We are adopting their conditions. John Richardson asked Doug if the wording is correct. John Rickert asked Mayank if he still has a concern. Mayank said no. John Richardson asked for public comments. Julie Jamieson, Woodfield Subdivision, asked Mayank the location of this property he was talking about. Mayank said it is Landen Shores but it was just an example. Doug said we are just saying that those conditions that came through on any PUD, or variance, or conditional use or whatever would still apply on that property. Matt Evans asked if after this is approved, will there be a clause in our new code to match the same statement. Mayank said yes. Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to accept the proposed text amendment. There was a 2nd by John Rickert. CASE 2004-050 1.0806 Acres, 8872 Columbia Road, Zone Change from R-SF to N-B PUD Mayank Kumar said the board reviewed this case at the last meeting. He described the location of the 1.0806 acres plat. Mayank said he has a copy of the 20 Mile Plaza PUD Staff Report conditions under Warren County jurisdiction, previous to township zoning, in the board’s packets but there was nothing in them which applied to the 1 acre parcel north of Hardees. John Richardson talked to Doug Miller and since the “public portion” of this case was opened, discussed, and closed at the previous meeting and there was no new information, the board was in agreement to go directly to board discussion. Matt Evans asked since the new building is going to be both in the old PUD and on the vacant parcel, are we adding this space into the existing PUD or modifying the existing PUD to exclude that land and create a new PUD. Doug said he didn’t know how it was applied for. Mayank said it was applied for rezoning for 1 acre parcel, not the Hardees site. Tim said the existing Neighborhood Business PUD where Hardees is would then be redeveloped under the Stage 2 process, simultaneous with the new PUD that you are considering. Doug said if this is not an application to combine them at this point in time, you would think that would need to be done because the building is going to sit on both parcels. Tim said in the sketch plan that they have submitted, suggests that it is being developed with the existing Hardees site, so that ties it together. Matt Evans said it is all one PUD. Doug Miller said you need the Stage 2 on the vacant parcel plus an amendment to the development plan on the Hardees parcel. John Rickert said that area would work better with this type of development and he likes the wooded area there to be a buffer for the residential area on Locust. John Richardson said by approving the zone change, we are approving the zone change that we are in essence saying we would approve a Stage 2 when they bring it back. John Richardson said the owner of the wooded area has never responded in any way or come to a meeting regarding this case. Tim said the balance of the that wooded triangle could be used for a more transitional use instead of more Residential Single Family such as office condos. Robert Giesse asked about the newly formed storm water committee would get involved in this development. John Ricker said wetness back there is certainly an issue and in the future we can work with that when they come back with more details. Mr. Giesse said this would be a good case for this committee to look at. Matt Evans said one of the restrictions which was put on the first PUD, was a privacy fence on the property line. Tim said the board could consider that as part of the buffering. Scott Evans asked about the phone substation. Mayank said it is owned by the applicant but the phone company leases it. Doug Miller said the applicant must realize that more stringent guidelinesregarding water retention, buffers and landscaping will be in affect. John Richardson said the new requirements are in place. Sam Boulemetis, Architect, 644 Linn Street, Suite 1212, Cinti., OH 45203, said that he understands that. John Richardson asked There was a motion by Matt Evans to approve the zone change. There was a 2nd by John Rickert. Ruth Eldridge, 8821 Columbia Road, said that she lives across the street from that and she came here tonight to speak about that. John Richardson asked her if she spoke at the last meeting and she said that she did but said she wants to talk again tonight about how it might affect her property values. John Richardson said she did speak and the board heard her talk at the last meeting. Claudia York, 3406 Wildwood Drive, said she came to voice her opinion tonight and that she wanted to voice her opposition to the development. She said the agenda says, “concerned citizens” and she said she is a concerned citizen. Doug Miller said we had the hearing and the notices went out. Doug said “Well, if they are under the impression that they should speak, I guess they probably should.” John Richardson said he would withdraw the motion and allow the public to speak. Doug Miller told them they need to be sworn in if they are going to speak. Doug Miller swore them in. Concerned Citizens Ruth Eldridge, 8821 Columbia Road, said that very often people pull in her driveway and realize they are in the wrong place and turn around. She said she gets “lawn jobs” from them. She said her front yard is quite large. She doesn’t like the lights from the businesses near her. She asked about the drive through. She was told there is a drive up window planned for the pharmacy on the back side of the building. She said she doesn’t like a commercial venture being expanded into Landen. John Rickert said the people on this board are citizens just like she is and he asked her what the board could do about people turning around in her driveway. She said she hadn’t thought about that. Matt Evans said all the comments people are making now can be heard by the developer right now and hopefully he will incorporate these suggestions into his plan when he comes back for the Stage 2 meeting. Theresa Wilson, 8963 Columbia Road, said she doesn’t want this zone change near Wildwood Drive and the residential area. She said she does not want more commercial development. Julie Jamison, Woodfield Subdivision, said this development would not directly affect her but it will affect Mrs. Eldridge. She said commercial development is “junkie” and they don’t give anything to the community such as sponsoring children’s teams. She said they take from the community and don’t give anything back. Claudia York, 3406 Wildwood Drive, asked who was notified. Mayank Kumar said that all residents within 500 feet were notified. She asked if we are not able to stop this development. John Richardson said if they came in with a plan we would have to look at it. Scott Evans said if they came in with Residential Single Family we wouldn’t look at it. They could just go ahead. Jeff Roller, 9155 Knightsridge Ln., Squiresgate Sub, asked if this proposal is in the best interest of the community, and asked if the board would explain that. John Richardson said the board would discuss that later. Marsha Sullivan, 3651 Stoneboat Drive, said she is an 19 year resident of Landen and said she wants retail districts limited. She said she doesn’t want “spot rezoning.” She said the previous and latest zoning boards and trustees have allowed this. She said a PUD is the same thing as “spot rezoning.” She said she is concerned about property values. She said this affects her because of the traffic. She told this board they should be stronger when these developers come in. She asked Mr. Kumar if he only notified 8 persons. Mr. Kumar said he thought it was around 25-30 persons. Doug Miller said this township takes the extra step and notifies persons within 500 feet which is beyond the requirement of the State of Ohio. Marsha Sullivan asked how many were notified. Mr. Kumar said we use the tax addresses of those 500 feet from the property and we mail the notice to them. She said the small sign on the property to be rezoned is too small. She told this board they are appointed by the trustees and this board should be listening to the residents. She said this is “spot rezoning” and she objects. She said they have a land use plan and they need to stick to it. John Richardson asked Mayank what does the land use plan show for this area. Mayank said it shows Residential Single Family. John Richardson closed the public portion. Doug Miller suggested John ask the applicant for a response. Sam Boulemetis, Architect, 644 Linn Street, Suite 1212, Cinti., OH 45203, said the land is less than 1 acre and he said they are in the process of cleaning up that corner. He said the new requirements of Deerfield Township is greenery and water detention. He said there is a possibility that the detention area may be near the Phone Company building. He said this owner pays $60,000 per year in taxes for the 20 Mile Shopping Center. He said Deerfield Township pushed the distance to 500 feet and there weremore than 30 notifications. He said he believes they can’t do anything but improve that corner by cleaning it up. John Richardson asked for questions from the board. Robert Giesse asked them how they will be able to handle the loss of parking spaces due to the widening of Montgomery Road. Mr. Boulemetis said they are working with the state to find out how much parking they will loose. Tim said on the old PUD parking is allowed to go right next to the property line but on the new PUD which will be coming in under Stage 2, that will be different. Mr. Giesse said he is concerned about commercial development creeping down Columbia Road and how to stop it. Robert Giesse said this is the best time, during zone change, to try to get office condos or a better use there. Scott Evans asked about the phone building and what is the easement for that driveway? Mr. Boulemitis wasn’t sure. Mayank said it is about 50 feet. Since that was a utility, there was no permit process for that building. Matt Evans said he is concerned also about the creep and growth. Mr. Evans said having a PUD there will give the board some opportunities to work with the applicant to make it better. Doug Miller said from a legal standpoint it is complicated because the lots don’t line up across the street from each other and the corner is not a 90 degree turn. Mr. Miller said what if later on Mrs. Eldridge decides to sell then the retail could go down Columbia farther. Matt Evans but with the PUD instead of straight zoning, the board could stipulate how much green space is wanted there. John Rickert said he agrees with many of the board members, but he shares the concerns with the residents. Mr. Rickert said with Stage 2 and the PUD overlay they can control the buffers, to improve the retention, to eliminate the Hardees, and get something in there that would be value enhancing instead of value detracting. John Richardson said if the developer comes in here with anything beyond the line opposite Mrs. Eldridge, which isn’t green space, he won’t approve. Doug Miller said that may not be this board’s call. He said that may be some judge’s call. Matt Evans said since it abuts to the north the residential zone, can’t we specify the buffer yard that is requested of that area. John Richardson said that still doesn’t stop the property to the north from coming in for a zone change. Doug Miller said it is not so much the property to the north, but the property across the street. Doug said it could go commercial. Matt asked if with a PUD the board would have more control. Tim said under straight zoning, the minimum buffer from commercial to residential would be a 70 feet minimum of buffer. John Richardson said when this PUD is applied for there is a minimum of 90 feet to the north. Doug Miller said 90 feet from where? Tim said this would be under straight zoning and a PUD should be better. Sam Boulemetis, Architect, 644 Linn Street, Suite 1212, Cinti., OH 45203, said that he has had some discussions with Tim about putting more of a buffer, greenery, and detention and he already has that in his plans. He asked that the board gives them the opportunity to present a plan. He said on the Warren County Zoning map, Mrs. Eldridge’s property is zoned commercial. Mayank said on the Deerfield Township Map it is Residential. Scott Evans suggested that all 9 conditions be read by Mayank. Mayank displayed the 9 conditions on Power Point. John Richardson said he wants to make sure the buffer yard to the north be a minimum of 90 feet. Doug Miller said you could say 90 feet but you should say “The buffer yard on the north side of the property shall be in compliance with the Deerfield Township Zoning.” John Richardson said it should say, “The minimum buffer yard for the portion of property bordering the Residential Single Family shall be a minimum of 90 feet.” John Kanelos, Property Owner, said you might as well say we can’t build anything there. He said he would be wasting a lot of land. He said they pay $60,000 per year in taxes. Matt Evans asked if detention can be considered buffer yard. Mayank said if there are plantings it can be considered a buffer yard. John Rickert said if there are issues with the 90 feet we could give the applicant more time to see if they could research and see if they can meet the buffer requirement. John Richardson asked for the board’s opinion of the 90 feet. Robert Giesse said he would hold to it for the residential area. Matt said there has been development to a fence line on the northern most property of this original PUD on that side and he said he didn’t think we need to hold the 90 feet on the eastern most on the residential side. John Rickert said we need to approve or deny and make those decisions on the Stage 2. Doug Miller said we are basing our decision on a sketch plan. Mayank said along Columbia and Montgomery Road the buffer yard would have to be about 90 feet. Doug Miller said the paper street behind this property is considered public-right-of-way and 90 feet set back is not required there. Scott Evans said on Condition #5 he said we should mention compliance with the Simpson Creek Water Shed Study. The conditions were as follows: 1. mean approval of the rezoning (Stage 1) and shall not include approval of site plans, as this is a matter of Stage 2 (Site Plan Approval Process) and Stage 3 (Final Detailed Plan Approval). 2. Mr. John Kanelos shall be the spokesperson for the PUD in all dealings with Deerfield Township, regardless of the number of landowners within the project. Mr. Kanelos may delegate his role as spokesperson to another individual, subject to notification of the Deerfield Township Zoning Administrator. In any event, only a single spokesperson shall be recognized by the Deerfield Township as representing the PUD. 3. Compliance with all conditions and requirements that may be set forth by the Deerfield Township Trustees in their resolution granting a PUD overlay and compliance with Chapter 19 (Planned Unit Development Regulations) of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution. 4. Approval of Stage 2, Site Plan, in accordance with Section 19.06 and approval of Stage 3, Final Detailed Plan, in accordance with Section 19.07 of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution. 5. Prior to approval of the final Detailed Plan, the developer shall expand and/or upgrade the water system, water treatment and storage facilities, sanitary sewers and wastewater treatment facilities necessary to serve the development, as determined by the Warren County Sanitary Engineer and shall be approved by Henderson & Bodwell in compliance with the Simpson Creek Water Shed Model. 6. Specific land uses, as determined by the Deerfield Township Trustees, inclusive of whether a drive-thru window may be permitted. 7. Sidewalks shall be provided along Montgomery Road and Columbia Road in compliance with the proposed pathway plan. The width of the sidewalk shall be determined by the Warren County Engineer’s Office in compliance with the Warren County Thoroughfare Plan, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Montgomery Road improvement plan and shall be approved by Deerfield Township Zoning Commission and Deerfield Township Trustees. 8. The proposed building as shown in the conceptual site plan shall include at least two front elevations. The building elevation shall be upscale and shall have a residential character rather than a typical big box. The building elevation shall also take into account the presence of the historic site (20 Mile Restaurant) to the south. 9. The Stage 2, Preliminary Site Plan review for the proposed development shall be in compliance with the sections of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution and that the minimum buffer yard to the Residential Single Family to the north shall be a minimum of 90 feet. Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to approve Case 2004-050 with Condition 1 through 9 with modifications as noted. There was a 2nd by John Rickert. Randy Mielnik, Poggemeyer Design Group, Zoning Code Update Randy Mielnik went over the history of meetings that have occurred to get to this point. He said on March 9th Poggemeyer came up with 200 pages on the web. He said they also put together a 14 page document which will highlight some of the additional changes. He said they covered outdoor advertisements, corridor overlay districts, and issues on PUD’s. He pointed out some specific areas where there was some confusion such as spacing of buildings, conservation features, and steep slopes. He said the one on steep slopes was one of the larger areas. He said they looked at Cincinnati’s code. John Richardson asked him how ours compares with the Cincinnati code. He said small buildings should not be a conditional use. He said Cincinnati has a lot of problems with steep slopes. John Richardson asked for questions. Randy Kuvin asked for a copy of the summary sheet and asked Mr. Mielnik to use code numbers when referring to something. John Richardson asked the board for questions. Scott Evans said he would like to see a definition for “general welfare.” Mr. Richardson asked Tim Hershner for comments. Tim suggested discussing Section 12.04 B which is minimum development area. Tim said a lot of codes the PUD is not used on smaller parcels. Tim asked why we can’t have a PUD on the smaller lots? John Richardson asked what is the advantage to limiting it to 4 acres or more? Why would we want to limit it? Tim said most developers don’t’ want to do it just because of the time it takes. John Richardson asked the board for more questions. Doug Miller said he would have procedural comments after the public comments. Matt Evans said a PUD is typically a larger development. Mr. Evans said it gives us the flexibility to control what happens in a smaller development. Mr. Evans said since we allow PUD’s on small sites, it allows people to make zone changes. Tim said the PUD allows us to consider general welfare. Mr. Hershner said sometimes issues on landscaping are not enforceable and with a PUD it is more flexible. Matt Evans said what is considered general welfare and what is not. Mr. Evans said they could always come back and say that is not general welfare. Doug Miller said there are perimeters that you won’t deal with at all if you don’t have general welfare such as landscaping, buffering, aesthetics, those sorts of issues. Doug said there is a bill before the legislature that does put general welfare in township zoning but it is being opposed by the home builders association in southwest Ohio. Matt Evans said he understood a PUD to incorporate some mixed uses and park space but we have the ability to do more in the PUD but often we don’t enforce it. Tim said every case is unique. Mayank said when it is a PUD in Stage 1 we can encourage the mixed use such as designating the percentage of each use. Doug said if you wouldn’t vote for a zone change in straight zoning, why would you allow it if it is a PUD. Doug Miller said the board should vote against it if they don’t like it. Doug said unless the PUD adds something special, vote against it. John Richardson said he is against the 4 acre minimum for the PUD. Tim asked the board if that is their consensus, that they don’t want a 4 acre minimum. The board seemed to agree. John Richardson told the audience that the public comments should be limited to 5 minutes. Robb Olsen, 3704 Charleston Woods, distributed some paper work. John Richardson asked him if he has been meeting with the township staff. Mr. Olsen said he met with Poggemeyer and the township staff today. He said he has 8 priority areas and that he has analyzed the township zoning code. He suggested changes to open space and setback requirements. He said in the current code parking and driveways can be counted as open space. He said that is not open space. He said open space should be for enjoyment. He suggested methods of reducing density such are requiring larger building lots such as ½ acre lots. Mr. Olsen said Warren County has changed their code to ½ acre lot size already. He said section 11.01 regarding density should be changed. He said this reduction in density would help schools and traffic. Mr. Olsen said we should move from 1/3 acre lot to ½ acre. He said there should be an analysis of what exists today in the township so we could set a target to reduce density. John Rickert said he appreciates Mr. Olsen’s testimony. John Rickert can we look at the amount of roof area or impervious areas, how can we bring those amounts down over time. Tim Hershner said one way it to take some current projects, as examples, on a new open space requirement, most projects meet our code. Tim said as they suggest not including impervious surfaces. Tim said what is a reasonable open space? Tim said on some of the PUD applications, we look at the detention basin at the Deerfield Towne Center, but we can be creative and make it work as open space. Tim said we did bring the density issue before this board and the trustees a year ago. That continues to be a concern. The county went to a larger lot. Tim said maybe we should re-define our open space definition. Scott Evans said the way this reads, you couldn’t have a Landen or a Heritage Green Development with cluster homes and green space up front. Scott Evans now R-SF would be 1/3 acre, 14,000 square feet minus the 20%. Tim said if we do what this proposes, your net density does drop. You could do a Heritage Green but the number of overall lots or units would be decreased and the open space would increase. Randy Mielnik said the problem is hard to determine what is open space and the 20%, is that something you want to do. Randy said if you are interested in lowering the intensity of development is not to try to dictate how much open space but looking at the amount of building coverage and looking a impervious areas. John Richardson said we are not going to solve this tonight. Robb Olsen said he left the 20% in there so as to reduce density throughout the township. Mr. Olsen suggested limits on heights because this is largely a residential community. He went over suggestions for setback in Office Warehouse. He suggested providing pedestrian paths in the zoning code. He suggested that businesses not be located close to other businesses of the same type. Matt Evans said he didn’t think this board would be allowed to deny because someone thinks there is not a need. John Richardson said anyone could make a study to say what he wants it to say. John Rickert said this board shouldn’t be there to deny use even if it puts a “mom and pop” company out of business. Mr. Olsen suggested this would help with the problem of vacant buildings. Doug Miller said he didn’t think you would want a study on every single project that would want to come into the township. Doug said we could look at our land use plan and if there is a need to change because we may be getting too much of a concentration of one type of development in one area. Bob Giesse said you can’t ask one applicant to do a study and not the other. Mayank said he didn’t think we could regulate the competition between businesses but they should have these studies to prove a benefit to the community if there was a zone change. John Richardson asked Robb to finish up his portion of the meeting. Robb Olsen said he addressed the most important thing, the density. He said a retail accessory use which would be small such as a coffee shop in an office building should be allowed. He said his goal is to prevent those large accessory uses in Office Warehouse. Mr. Olsen mentioned impervious parking area, Page 105 parking. He said we do not address off site advertising signage in the code. He said he read through the Ohio Valley Conference’s suggestions but said he agreed with Poggemeyer’s suggestions. Tonya Hines, 9041 Fields Drive, asked the board if they want to expand the traffic impact study area? She also asked who has the authority to request this? She asked if this board wants to request an expanded traffic impact study? Matt Evans said he thought this board is allowed to request this. She said Neil Tunnison can look at this but does this board have the authority to ask for this? Mayank said if any additional studies are requested, this should be done at the Stage 1 level. Doug Miller said sometimes we try to require things over which the developer may have no control. Doug said some improvements could be made on the developer’s property. Matt Evans said we could have a study done, for Phase 1, for example the Walmart case and 7 or 8 years go by and that study could be totally inconclusive and we have approved it. Doug Miller said you can’t approve the project then do a study. Doug Miller said if you want a study done, wait until the study is done, then do the project. Doug Miller said bare in mind that you can’t use traffic alone to deny a project. Ms. Hines said we can ask the developer to make road improvements. She said that language that we use regarding expanded traffic impact here should be adopted along the highway corridor overlay. She said you are talking about building along Mason-Montgomery Road or Montgomery Road which are our main arterials for the entire township. John Richardson said thank you for staying within your 5 minutes. Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, instructed the board to go to a very helpful website, CDF, Inc. She said this is a good site for storm water management. She asked that a soil erosion plan be put in place at the Stage 1 level of the zoning hearing process. She said the Warren County Water and Soil management system is not quite specific enough when it comes to this area. She said at the state level they are currently passing a bill to put controls on smaller lots. She said for example the property on Irwin-Simpson Road is under 5 acres and there are no silt fences. She sited Chapter 18 page 182. Ms. Halligan said Warren County has a formula in place which is based on a watershed basis, instead of being based on a site plan basis. She gave some examples of rules for setback and buffers from rivers in other places in Ohio. Ms. Halligan said Simpson Creek is not the only creek in the township where we should be concerned about how development impacts those water sheds. She said to have stricter regulations than Warren County requires, put a chapter on storm water management in the township code book. John Lateulere, Ohio Valley Development Council, introduced other developers in attendance with him. Density - He said there are concerns from the development community on lowering density. He said they are in opposition to the minimum 4 acre area for PUD. He said there is an issue with perimeter setbacks. He is concerned with 50 feet setback being problematic for setback in the 4 acre PUD. He asked why the single family home in a PUD must be setback farther than if the home was in regular single family zoning. Open Space - He said on open space the developers always want less and zoning always wants more. He said the 25% minimum open space seem restrictive. He said they would like 10 -15% open space. He said there are not dimensional requirements in the PUD but the other restrictions in there make it very difficult such as the building separation requirements. He said the implemental thing is the problem. John Richardson asked him why he is upset with ½ acre lot size if Warren County has gone to that. He said Warren County will still allow 1/3 acre if they are a cluster development. He said there is affordability issues and maintenance issues. Mr. Lateulere said a 20,000 square foot lot costs more to the community. Traffic - John Richardson said there is a trade off in traffic so the impact is less. Mr. Lateulere said there are trade offs because you need more cars to get money from the state to fix the roads. Mr. Lateulere said they are more receptive to 14,000 square foot lots. He said once you reach build out there are vacancy issues. He thinks 20,000 square foot lots will cause the car problem to be people “driving through” this township to other developments so the car problem won’t go away. He said the larger lots will push growth farther out so the number of cars won’t be less. PUD Formula - He did not like the PUD formula for the number of units, Poggemeyer’s method for driving the density. He said this method should be simplified. He said other communities use other methods and theirs is simpler to calculate. He said he likes Hamilton County’s method. He said there are conservation PUD’s and other types of PUD’s. These seem to be conservation PUD’s. A PUD which would accomodate other kinds of development such as “new urbanist” or “neo-traditional” types of developments likely wouldn’t fit under this. It would be difficult to accommodate both. Richardson. Roll Call John Rickert-Yes, S. Evans-Yes, J. Richardson-Yes, R. Giesse-Yes, Matthew Evans-Yes The motion was approved. |
|