Minutes - Planning Board - 1/8/2009 CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
January 8, 2009
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: httn://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
KC Becker
Bill Holicky
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson
Phil Shull, Chair
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Shoemaker
Adrian Sopher
STAFF PRESENT:
David Driskell, Deputy Executive Director of Community Planning
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Karl Guiler, Planner II
Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Chris Hagland, Senior Transportation Planner with GoBoulder
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III
i. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one from the public addressed the board.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up: Boulder Creek Trail Bridge Replacement Floodplain Development Permit
(LUR2008-00104). No action was taken on this item.
Disposition: 1559 Orchard Ave. Lot line elimination to reconnect outlot to main property.
No action was taken on this item.
1
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review and Use Review application #LUR2008-
00083 for the Washington Village II project located at 1215 Cedar Avenue. The
proposal includes redevelopment of the existing Washington Elementary School site as a
mixed-use co-housing community consisting of 33 dwelling units, approximately 2,950
square feet ofcommercial/office space, and accessory co-housing facilities on the three-acre
site zoned both Residential High Density Two (RH-2) and Residential Low Density One
(RL-1 The applicant also requests vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981.
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
The board introduced themselves and reviewed the rules of the meeting.
Staff Presentation
R. N1cHeyser introduced the item and highlighted the process and purpose of the review.
K. Guiler, C. Hagland and A. Guthrie presented the item to the board.
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Jim leach, Wonderland Hill Development Company, and Steve Vosper, ARCH Inc., presented
the item to the board.
Public Hearing
John Decker, 3435 17`x' Street, spoke in support.
Bette Hadler, 104 Model T Road, spoke in support.
Bill Butler, 3232 6`h Street, spoke in support.
Diane Dvorin, 3232 6`h Street, spoke in support.
Carl Worthington, 3773 Wonderland Hill Avenue, spoke in support.
Nancy Blackwood, 1065 9'h Street, spoke in support.
Arthur Oknel, 1622 Yellow Pine Avenue, spoke in support.
Carole Lindroos, 2525 Arapahoe Avenue #E4, spoke in support.
Ron Geary, 1742 Garland Lane, spoke in opposition.
Stephanie Ridgway, 1134 Maxwell Avenue #1, spoke in support.
Geof Cahoon, 1420 Elder Avenue, spoke in opposition.
Mary Young, 1420 Alpine Avenue, spoke in support (with several conditions).
Michael Hibner, 2950 Washington Street (pooled time with Fran Brown) spoke in opposition.
Korkut Onaran, 3000 Broadway, spoke in support.
Paul Heller, 1321 Cedar Avenue, asked for more analysis on parking.
Libby Brown, 2951 14`~ Street, spoke in opposition.
John Huyler, 1674 Yellow Pine Avenue, spoke in support.
Anne Carson, 3085 6`" Street, spoke in support.
Barbara Koser, 1614 Zamia (pooled time with Linda Spiegler), spoke in support.
David Carson, 3085 6`~' Street, spoke in support.
Fred Rubin, 1329 Cedar Avenue, spoke in opposition.
Bob Poeshl, 2950 Broadway, asked for a redesign of the project before it is approved.
Henry Kroll, 1662 Yellow Pine Avenue, (pooled time with Jean Kroll), spoke in support.
Christopher Shears, 365 Quail Circle, spoke in support. .
2
Annie Russell, 1634 Yellow Pine Avenue, spoke in support.
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey, (pooled time with Margaret Massey) spoke in opposition.
Stan and Holly Kyed, 2945 13`" Street, spoke in opposition.
Elizabeth Payton, 2605 5`h Street, spoke in opposition.
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, spoke in opposition.
Chris Halteman, 1331 Cedar Avenue, spoke in opposition.
Ryan Farmer2907 Shadow Creek Avenue, spoke in support.
Mary Willix, 596 Wild Ridge Lane, Lafayette, spoke in support.
Board Discussion
P. Shull asked staff to comment on the detention pond, height of the building and parking
reduction.
R. McHeyser said the applicant does not agree with staffs recommendation to spread the
detention pond on other pads, which would require removal of at least one building. The large
issue with the detention pond on the site is with the grades and the potential for it to be filled
with water, which would render the open space unusable. There maybe other alternatives in
terms of spreading the detention elsewhere on the site; however, staff made their
recommendation on the most feasible possibility.
K. Guiler said the 41 foot building height recommendation was based on the approval of the
previous plans and its height being proportional to other buildings in the area.
Detention Pond
B. Holicky asked how liability is factored in for public access to Holiday Park in north Boulder,
where the partial outlot is used for detention and partially used for the public park but
maintained, managed and owned by the HOA (Home Owners Association).
R. McHeyser said the city would not be responsible for the detention in that case because it is
owned by the HOA.
D. Gehr clarified that Holiday Park public access would be an issue for the owning HOA, which
is the case with private land.
K. Becker asked staff to respond to the applicant's suggestion in separating the detention area.
K. Guiler replied that staff has evaluated the functionality of the detention area from an
engineering and useable open space perspective. Although, there are a variety of ways to make it
function for drainage purposes, the general functionality of the open space is staff s principle
concern.
W. Johnson asked staff to respond to the applicant's assertion that it would not work to have the
detention on the proposed areas due to the fact that the lowest point on the site is at that corner
(visually pointing to the site plan).
S. Buckbee said the bottom of the pond must gravity feed out to Cedar and the applicant is
trying to get the outfall of the detention pond to the lowest point on the site, which is towards the
SE corner. One way around that is to pipe the outlet structure through the park, which effectively
moves the detention pond from the park using a buried pipe and flat grade. Staff is okay with the
buried pipe but not okay with the water quality facility in that position.
W. Johnson asked if Parks and Recreation would approve the buried pipe.
3
S. Buckbee stated that he has not had a discussion with Parks and Recreation specific to this site.
He noted that other parks around the city have buried pipes, which are considered a part of the
city's storm infrastructure and are maintained by utilities and parks.
P. Shull asked what engineering technology would be available to help solve this situation.
S. Buckbee said potential options include: considering green roofs, doing the access lane in
porous pavers to shrink the size of the pond and get it out of the park, or allowing underground
detention using large underground concrete vaults that contain the water. He added that the water
quality treatment is more difficult underground. He said the city has to use storm scepters which
spins the water in a circle and separates the solids. As far as getting the water quality treatment
of grass landscape structures, a filter system work wells but is costly to install and maintain.
B. Holicky asked about reducing the run off using pervious pavement.
S. Buckbee said a lot of volume in the pond is driven by the water quality requirement (2/3 to
70-80%) and based on the site being over an acre. The pond is about 4,400 cubic feet. Piping to
Goose Greek using a 100-year pipe to reduce the runoff would only offset 20% of the pond
volume and the pond would still encroach into the park.
B. Holicky asked, potentially, how many days a year could there be buildup of water in a
detention pond.
S. Buckbee stated on an average, six times a summer to roughly 20 times in a wet year.
P. Shull asked for the number and location of the detention ponds on the site.
Dave Heinrich, JVA, replied two ponds on site, one near the SW comer and the other to the SE
comer.
Park
B. Holicky stated that it appears the city does not wish to maintain a pond above ground. He
suggested that the property be owned and maintained by the applicant and that the public have
access to the property.
D. Gehr said the board should consider this land as open space and not a park. Staff is reviewing
this site as usable open space for the development per the Site Review Criteria. If it is to be a
park, then Parks and Recreation staff and City Council will make that determination later.
B. Holicky said if the applicant cannot have the detention pond on a city park, the question
becomes whether that open space is dedicated as a park is paramount in the decision.
D. Gehr said if there is detention on the space then Parks and Recreation does not want the space
as a park, but the space could still be open space.
K. Becker did not support the condition that the applicant would have to have the detention pond
at the south carnage house or single family building unit. She could support other methods of
storm water management consistent with the Design and Constmction Standards. She could also
support splitting the site with the park space and the detention area separate.
P. Shull suggested minimizing the detention on this site through collaboration with the city and
technical innovation and suggested moving it onto one of the other two lots. He further stated
that a three and one-half foot slope is not considered flat. He also felt there could be an
interesting usable landscaped amenity for the neighborhood.
B. Holicky did not like the design of the eastern side of the site. He was specifically concerned
with the three houses turned away from 13`x' Street that cluster around an open space, single
family lots one and two that face the side of single family building four, and the back-ends of
lots one, two and three facing the northern neighbors. He said aside from the open space, the
previous site plan that had the houses facing the street, was a better design. He further stated that
4
there will not be active recreation on this impaired space but nearby parks are available for
recreational use. He was not opposed to the retention in the pond and suggested that a
requirement be added to minimize and improve it to the best extent possible.
K. Becker said the pocket park has value given its size.
D. Gehr said the applicant has stated their willingness to make this a park site with respect to
earlier conversations with the Attorney's Office and applicant outside the context of tonight's
hearing.
P. Shull suggested that the applicant minimize the detention facilities such that it has a usable
quality. He said another option is to compartmentalize about 10,000 feet of usable space and
3,000 feet of detention where we go to an outlet condition to see if we can satisfy parks. He
summarized the two options as 1) being a disbursement theory where grade be gradual over the
entire site or 2) having a noticeable detention on the SE corner.
R. McHeyser said if the drainage is over the whole site there would be liability issues and would
not be publicly accessible. However, the second option would allow for a separate outlet where
the city could take ownership.
P. Shull supported making this area a park and not a detention area.
W. Johnson supported that this be a public park.
Building HeiEht
P. Shull supported the roofline structure and said the 41 foot flat roof would feel taller.
E. Jones asked if it is possible to lower the building and keep the roof form.
K. Becker liked the new roof form but wondered if it would have to be 46 feet in height.
W. Johnson also liked the roof form. She said the can-ent height is being dictated to create
wheelchair accessibility of the connection to the school building.
Dave Heinrich, JVA, stated the height was dictated by the connection to the school and the
drive way.
B. Holicky asked where the mechanical units are located.
Steve Vosper, ARCH Inc., said the roof cuts down on the back side to create a flat space for the
mechanical units. He added that the units do not protrude on the west side.
E. Jones asked what would happen to the building if it were lowered five feet, but maintained
the hip roofline.
B. Holicky asked if the applicant has given any thought to taking the center out of the roof to
lower the roofline.
Steve Vosper, ARCH Inc., said they did look at that and it looked out of proportion.
Commercial Space
W. Johnson supported the commercial space in the proximity to Broadway.
P. Shull said his concern with commercial space is parking demands. He would however
consider a parking reduction.
W. Johnson said street life is better with commercial but only with the right amount of traffic.
She was open to a discussion about converting the space to residential.
B. Holicky noted that the applicant stated that this development is maxed on residential space
allowance due to the RH-2 zoning.
K. Becker said removing the commercial space would require redesigning the entire building.
B. Holicky approved the commercial space because additional residential is not an option.
However, commercial space requires parking spaces. Since there are only nine parking spaces, it
5
is more likely to be leased as office space. He suggested that the nine commercial parking
spaces be open parking from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM.
P. Shull asked if uses other than commercial were considered on this site.
K. Guiler said if the commercial was switched from an office type it could generate the need for
more parking.
W. Johnson supported retaining the commercial area and said it would bring a more viable street
life to the community. She also liked the building design.
K. Becker was fine with the commercial use and did not find the third floor to be a problem.
E. Jones could easily get rid of the commercial due to the building height and would prefer a
shorter building. In addition, this would help with concerns with parking implications to the
community.
B. Holicky said the three story building is appropriate on this site and is appropriate in relation to
other three story buildings on Broadway. He also stated the building is compliant with the
zoning.
B. Holicky preferred the flat roof at 41 feet over the hipped roof at 46 feet.
K. Becker preferred the hipped roof over the flat roof.
E. Jones stated she would not be opposed to changing the roof to a flat roof in order to get to 41
feet.
B. Holicky would also support the hip roof.
Parkins and Transportation
W. Johnson said this is one of the best transit oriented sites in Boulder and would agree to a
parking reduction. She supported the staff recommendation of requiring three extra parking
spaces or the applicant's proposal of the deferred spaced. She said the neighbor's
recommendation that there be a car dedicated space makes sense. She also suggested changing
the proposed use review condition that instead of the offices being closed from 6:00 PM to 8:00
AM that their parking spaces be available to residential from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM
B. Holicky suggested applying the RTD EcoPass requirement to the commercial space for a
period of longer than three years.
P. Shull noted that the applicant indicated they would be able to find the three parking spaces
that staff recommended.
W. Johnson was in favor of defemng the parking spaces.
E. Jones did not have concerns about parking but preferred to get rid of the commercial parking
spaces if the board wanted to make changes.
B. Holicky also supported deferring the parking spaces.
D. Gehr noted that the code requires an applicant that has a defer-ed parking requirement to
build it within 30 days of the request of the City Manager.
Sinsle Family
W. Johnson supported the size of the single family unit.
B. Holicky inquired if the compatibility development rules apply to this project if approved.
D. Gehr replied, yes.
W. Johnson said the intent is that the project would be compatible with the code regardless if
that was an FAR tool or another tool.
6
D. Gehr stated that there are a lot of different tools being applied to these dwelling units. He said
there is a 2,500 square foot house size limitation coupled with a 500 foot allowable garage space
and additional 350 square feet for a studio.
K. Becker said she would consider revising the site to change the FAR.
K. Guiler said the FAR is calculated by the total square footage of the entire land area within
RL-1. The changing factor is the open space park that may be carved away if donated to the city,
which would change the FAR calculation.
B. Holicky asked what would be the incentive to donate the land for a park to the city.
K. Guiler indicated that if the park area was donated, single family floor area would still comply
with proposed 0.5 FAR.
NE Buffer
W. Johnson indicated there is quite a bit of buffer. She added that a three foot buffer to
accommodate the drip line of the tree in an effort to preserve the tree would be a compromise.
K. Becker liked the applicant's suggestion of landscape buffering.
K. Guiler stated that the furthest east tree on the north property line is a Siberian Elm and is in
poor health. The arborist is recommending removal of the tree. The next tree is the Crab Apple to
the north of the fence, which is in good health.
E. Jones asked what the minimum buffer would be to protect the Crab Apple tree.
K. Guiler said typically the preservation of a tree is not build within the drip line; in this case ten
feet. One note that factored into the proposed five foot buffer was based our landscape architect's
suggestion for four feet to have viable plantings.
E. Jones asked if it would be viable to suggest permeable pavement.
K. Guiler replied, yes.
Dave Heinrich, JVA, said the reason not to use permeable pavement is due to the fact that you
need to dig deeper, which disrupts the roots. This is why they went with blacktop as opposed to
concrete giving an 8" disburse.
P. Shull did not feel there is a need for the additional requested buffer in order to preserve the
trees. He was not willing to demand the five feet.
E. Jones suggested a condition that increases the affected buffering through enhanced
landscaping.
W. Johnson supported enhancing the buffer and preserving the trees.
Motion
On a motion by W Johnson, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board approved (4-1, E. Jones
opposed, A. Sopher recused, A. Shoemaker absent) Site review and Use review application
LUR 2008-00083 for the Washington Village II protect located at 1215 Cedar Ave. incorporating
the memorandum and the attached Site Review and Use Review criteria dated Jan. 8, 2009 as
findings of fact, subtect to the following conditions of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans entitled Washington Village II dated November 17,
2008 and January 8, 2009 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except
as maybe modified by this approval.
7
2. The portion of the site that is zoned RH-2 shall be operated as a co-housing community
consistent with the Applicant's written statement dated September 12, 2008 on file with
the City of Boulder Planning Department.
3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit Technical
Document Review applications for the following items, subject to the approval of
the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division:
a) A final site development plan for the entire site that is consistent with the
approved site development plan with the following revisions:
i) Benches shall be added to the perimeter of the southeastern open space.
ii) A landscaped buffer between the existing chain link fence location and the
north property line shall be planted with additional shrubs and small to
medium sized trees to increase compatibility and buffering between the
subject site and the single family residence to the immediate north. The
existing chain link fence maybe improved or replaced afrer consultation with
the property owner to the north to ensure that the property is adequately
buffered from the development's noise and vehicular impacts associated with
the access drive.
iii) The detention area and stormwater quality facility on the southeastern
open space area shall be reduced in size to the extent practical through the use
of alternative methods of detention and treatment. Such facilities shall be
designed and constructed in a manner that maximizes the useable open space
in the southeastern open space area that will not be used for stormwater
detention and treatment. The method of stormwater management shall meet
the requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards
and shall avoid any significant changes to building footprints or the general
site design.
b) A detailed landscape and tree protection plan, including size, quantity, and
type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality ofnon-living landscaping
materials; any site grading proposed; and the proposed irrigation system, to insure
compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The plans
must conform to the preliminary Tree Preservation Plan and arborist assessment
attached to the approved plans. Any construction that affects the existing trees,
including but not limited to foundations, grading, impervious surfaces, and the
erection of walls within the vicinity of trees to be preserved that result in
unanticipated damage to existing trees, shall require mitigation pursuant to the
detailed landscape and tree protection plan.
c) A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination
units, showing compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C. ]981.
8
d) A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and
type of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or
reserved for deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and
Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981. This plan shall accommodate three additional
deferred parking spaces on the RL-1 portion of the lot. The three spaces, when
constructed, shall be signed appropriately to designate for multi-family residents
or guests, shall not require the removal of any trees, and shall be surfaced with
permeable pavement and/or pavers consistent with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
e) A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar access
requirements of Section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 198].
f) Final Storm Water Plans and Report meeting the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
g) Final Utility Plans and Report meeting the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards. The revisions required to the preliminary utility report
maybe completed as part of the Final Utility Report. The revisions to the report
require elimination of the proposed water main along the north side of the site and
an upgrade of the existing water main in Cedar Avenue from a 6" main to an 8"
main.
h) Final transportation engineering plans meeting the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards for all transportation improvements.
4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no
cost, the following as part of Technical Document Review applications, subject to the
approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division:
a) 20 foot easement for emergency and shared access along the northerly edges of
the portion of the site zoned RL-1 in the location of the shared access drive;
b) 25 foot easement for utilities, emergency and shared access along the westerly of
the portion of the site zoned RL-1 in the location of the shared access drive;
c) A 25 foot wide utility easement along the northern portion of the site extending
from the emergency and shared access easement to Broadway;
d) Utility easements as necessary for the proposed fire hydrants and water meters;
e) A public access easement 1 foot beyond the edge of the transit shelter pad on
Broadway; and
f) A public access easement 1 foot beyond the sidewalk limits along Broadway and
13`x' Street.
5. Prior to abuilding-permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2, the
Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval
of the Planning Director, for the following items:
9
a) Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance
with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the historic school and
surrounding area and including the following revision:
1. The final architectural plans and elevations shall include revisions that
modify the fagade of the west elevation of the south carriage house (if
retained) to ensure that the building presents an attractive streetscape
appropriate to the pedestrian scale.
6. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2, the
Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form and amount acceptable to the
Director of Public Works, to guarantee those items proposed in the Applicant's
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, including transit passes.
7. The applicant shall provide EcoPasses to employees that work in the commercial
office space. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee for a period of three years
after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the tenant finish of the commercial
space in an amount to guarantee the distribution of EcoPasses.
8. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2 and is
part of the proposed individual landmark site, the Applicant shall apply to landmark the
historic school building and secure a landmark alteration certificate required by
Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981.
9. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned RL-1, the
Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval
of the Planning Director, for final architectural plans that demonstrate compliance with
approved design guidelines prepared by the Applicant and include the following
limitations:
a) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the single-family homes shall be 0.5: l
averaged across the land area included within the RL-1 portion and within the
confines of the project, or the underlying RL-1 FAR limit at time of building
permit, if less than 0.5:1.
b) The principal dwelling on each lot shall not exceed a floor area of 2,500 square
feet, the garage shall not exceed 500 square feet, and any studio space above the
garage may not exceed 350 square feet.
c) The second level of the principal structure shall not exceed 75% of the ground
level floor area of said structure.
d) To ensure appropriate massing and architectural compatibility, the majority of
each single family roof forms shall be gable and/or hip roofs with the uppermost
portion of the roofs having a roof pitch no less than 5:12.
]0
e) The single family dwellings shall present attractive street faces to the southeastern
open space and all streetscapes to ensure that the buildings present an attractive
streetscape appropriate to the pedestrian scale. Attractive street faces may include
any combination of porches, detailing, and appropriate fenestration.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL -USE REVIEW
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans entitled Washington Village II dated November 17,
2008 and January 8, 2009 and the written statement dated September 12, 2008, on file
in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by this approval.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to
Subsection 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981.
3. The Applicant shall ensure that the approved office uses are operated in compliance with
the written statement dated September 12, 2008, pursuant to the following restrictions:
a) Professional and Technical Offices are approved in the non-residential space
along Broadway not to exceed 2,950 square feet.
b) Nine (9) parking spaces shall be designated within the Broadway Building for the
office uses during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and shall otherwise be
available for residential uses outside these hours.
Statements of Opposition
E. Jones recognized that the project has a lot of merit and said this is the right location for a
co-housing project. However, she did not support the proposed height of the Broadway
building and how the building overly dominates the school building, which is the heart and
soul of this property. She also did not support plans for the eastern side of the property.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
R. McHeyser introduced D. Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning, to the
board.
R. McHeyser distributed the January 13 Junior Academy packet to the board.
R. McHeyser said council requested that a Planning Board member be available at
upcoming council meetings to represent the board's position on the Walgreen's and
Rob's Music call-up items.
R. McHeyser reviewed the Planning Board calendar.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
There was no discussion.
11
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m.
APPROVED BY
C~~""f~
Board Cha r
~ ~ (9~7
DATE
12