Session 08-01, a Regular Meeting of the Homer Advisory Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kranich at 7:02 p.m. on January 2, 2008 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska

PRESENT: COMMISSIONER HESS, HOWARD, KRANICH, MCNARY, MINSCH

ABSENT: COMMISSIONER FOSTER, ZAK (Both excused)

STAFF: CITY PLANNER MCKIBBEN

DEPUTY CITY CLERK JACOBSEN

AGENDA APPROVAL

HESS I MOVE THAT WE DELETE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES THAT WERE PROVIDED AS A LAYDOWN, NOVEMBER 7 AND DECEMBER 20 AND MOVE THEM TO OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOR ADOPTION.

There was no discussion or objection.

Motion carried.

The agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT

The Public may speak to the Planning Commission regarding matters not scheduled for public hearing. (3 minute time limit) Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Chesley commented regarding Staff Report PL 08-03 on the Planning Commission determination on Wind Generators as an allowable exception to the height regulations. He advised the Commission that the Council adopted the Climate Action Plan from the Global Warming Task Force at the December 10 meeting. The Council now has a series of meeting scheduled to work on specific items in the plan, starting with a special meeting on January 14 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. He encouraged the Commission not to take a final action on this staff report tonight. As the City begins to look at setting standard of what they want to do for alternative energy development, it may be premature to take an action now to limit tower heights. Councilmember Chesley invited the Commission to provide comments to the Council regarding this issue.

RECONSIDERATION

1. Staff Report PL 08-10, Reconsideration of Staff Report PL07-103, CUP 07-14, 3851 Homer Spit Road, Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture Association.

HOWARD/HESS I MOVE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORT PL 08-10 RECONSIDERATION OF STAFF REPORT PL 07-103, PL07-119 SUB CUP 07-14 FOR THE KACHEMAK SHELLFISH MARICULTURE ASSOCIATION.

Commissioner Howard commented that she requested reconsideration so she could further study the parking issues and would like to have more discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA

All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial by the Planning Commission and are approved in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a Planning Commissioner or someone from the Public, in which case the item will be moved to the regular agenda and considered in normal sequence.

1. Approval of the Minutes of November 7, 2007, December 5 and December 20, 2007

2. Time Extension Requests

3. Approval of City of Homer Projects under HCC 1.76.030 g

4. KPB Coastal Management Program

5. Commissioner Excused Absences

Chair Kranich noted that the November 7 and December 20 meeting minutes were removed during agenda approval. He also noted that he had some typographical amendments he would provide to the Clerk regarding the December 5 minutes.

The amended consent agenda was approved by consensus of the Commission.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentations approved by the Planning Director, the Chair, or the Planning Commission. A Public Works representative may address the Planning Commission.

There were no presentations.

REPORTS

A. Borough Report

There was no borough report.

B. Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission Report

There was no KBAPC Report

C. Planning Director’s Report

City Planner McKibben reported that the Policy/Procedure and Bylaw Committee meets next Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee had their last meeting with the Consultants. The Committee will be meeting to determine how they want to bring the plan to the Committee for its next stage of work.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Commission conducts Public Hearings by hearing a staff report, hearing public testimony and the acting on the Public Hearing items. (3 minute time limit) The commission may question the public. Once the public hearing is closed the Commission cannot hear additional comments on the topic.

A. Staff Report PL 08-01, Rezone from Conservation to Rural Residential within the Bridge Creek Water Protection District, 188 and 192 Skyline Drive/Water Treatment Facility.

City Planner McKibben reviewed the staff report.

There were no applicant comments. Chair Kranich opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.

MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-01, REZONE FROM CONSERVATION TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the attached rezone ordinance and make the following findings:

1. There is public need and justification for this rezone. Public need is demonstrated by the necessity of continued affordable, safe drinking water. The zoning change will allow the water treatment facilities to continue operations when the property lines change in the next year, and allow for the future expansion of public water facilities.
2. The zoning change will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. The zoning change will match the existing adjacent zoning, and will not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare.
3. The zoning change will not have a detrimental effect on the district and surrounding property. The proposed zoning change will result in the subject properties having the zoning as surrounding properties. A continuation of the existing land use is not detrimental to the district or surrounding property.
4. The zoning change meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of zoning regulations. It is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of zoning to provide safe drinking water to the citizens of Homer as part of the basic health, safety and welfare services the city provides. The zoning change will ensure future development of these sites can continue in a manner that adheres to Homer City Code.

Commissioner McNary questioned if any of the noticed property owners had commented regarding this action. City Planner McKibben said they received no comments.

Commissioner Hess commented his understanding that this rezone is in no way related to the potential CUP that may come before the Commission regarding the expansion of the water treatment facility and disclosed that he has full intentions in bidding on the project. He doesn’t feel he has a conflict in dealing with the rezone.

Commissioner Hess stated that he agrees with the concept behind the rezone. As a Commissioner he is supposed to be following the Code and said because this was an annexed property and rezoned after annexation those properties would come before the commission for non conforming status. The non conforming section of the Code allows for expansion of the facilities on those lots and there is nothing in Code that would not allow the continued operation of the water treatment facilities, so he can’t agree with the statement in the staff report that the public need and rezone is justified because these facilities are necessary for continued operation of the water treatment facility. It would presently be allowed to expand if the City requests a non conforming status.

Commissioner Minsch commented regarding comment in the application on page 28 that should the lot lines change the water treatment facility will likely lose a non conforming status. Such a change in the lot lines has already been approved to accommodate the construction of the Treatment Plant. She understands that is what Commissioner Hess is saying would happen, and it already has.

There was discussion for clarification regarding the replat that is in process.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 08-07, Sign Code Amendments

City Planner McKibben read the staff report.

Chair Kranich opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and Chair Kranich closed the public hearing.

MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-07 SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Staff Recommendation:

Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, and recommend the City Council approve the proposed ordinance.

MCNARY/MINSCH MOVED TO AMEND THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TABLE 2 PART A FIRST SENTENCE THAT READS “THE MAXIMUM COMBINED TOTAL AREA OF ALL SIGNS IN SQUARE FEET CONTINUED,” THAT TABLE 2 PART B WORDING BE IDENTICAL TO THAT SO IT ALSO READS THE MAXIMUM COMBINED TOTAL AREA OF ALL SIGNS IN SQUARE FEET.

Table 2 Part B

In all other districts (CBD, GBD, GC1, GC2, MC, MI and all others) the maximum combined total sign area of all signs, in square feet,…

There was brief discussion.

VOTE(Primary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

MCNARY/MINSCH I MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BELOW TABLE TWO PART B THAT BEGINS “ALL DISTRICTS COVERED BY TABLE TWO PART B FOURTH SENTENCE DOWN TABLE 2 PART B BY 20%.” EXCLUDE THE WORD BUT AND ADD CAPITAL T AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT SENTENCE.

In all districts covered by Table 2 Part B, on any lot with multiple principal buildings or with multiple independent businesses or occupancies in one or more buildings, the total allowed sign area may be increased beyond the maximum allowed signage as shown in Table 2 Part B by 20%, but t . This additional sign area can only be used to promote or identify the building or complex of buildings.

There was no discussion.

VOTE (Primary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

There was no further discussion on the main motion as amended.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

PLAT CONSIDERATION

The Commission hears a staff report, testimony from applicants and the public, The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants and the public, The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant.

There were no plats for consideration.

PENDING BUSINESS

A. Staff Report PL 08-10, Reconsideration of Staff Report PL07-103, CUP 07-14, 3851 Homer Spit Road, Kachemak Shellfish Mariculture Association.

MINSCH/HESS I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 07-103, CUP 07-14 FOR THE KACHEMAK SHELLFISH MARICULTURE ASSOCIATION WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.

Amended as follows at the Dec. 20 meeting:

MCNARY/FOSTER-MOVED TO AMEND STAFF REPORT 07-103 DELETE REQUIREMENT TO lease five NON-designated parking spaces from the City AND RECOMMEND REPLACing ACCEPTANCE OF THE PARKING PLAN SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT ON PAGE 15 OF DECEMBER 20, 2007 PACKET.

MCNARY/FOSTER - MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAGE 13 TO STATE CONCURRENTLY THAT THE PARKING PLAN ON PAGE 15 WILL BE UTILIZED INSTEAD OF NONDESIGNATED PARKING SPACES.

MCNARY/MINSCH -MOVE TO PLACE A CONDITION ON APPLICANT TO ABIDE BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PARKING PERMIT PROCEDURE.

FOSTER/ MCNARY - MOVED TO LIMIT FIXED SEATING TO FORTY (40) FOR THE RESTAURANT.

Commissioner Howard expressed concern about the additional conditions placed on the project and the practical viability and ultimate success due to the proximity of the off site parking. She noted that the staff report identifies several CUP’s on the spit which have on site parking and that this project has historically been plagued with parking difficulties. She asked for clarification on measuring for off site parking in HCC 7.12.040 (c). She believes the distance from the off site parking exceeds 300 feet due to the location of the cross walk and it fails to adequately provide a safe practical egress and ingress for public use and convenience. Commissioner Howard asked if it would be appropriate to reject the parking plan but still keep the project intact, but parking could come back for further review. Otherwise she suggested the applicant could request a continuance until there is a full Commission.

City Planner McKibben reviewed HCC 7.12.145 regarding parking plans and HCC 7.12.020 regarding appeal procedures for parking plan. She confirmed that HCC 21.61.040(c) allows for extension of the 45 day CUP approval timeframe by the applicant.

There was discussion regarding the location of the crosswalks. City Planner McKibben referred to staff report PL 07-103 and said the proximity of the proposed off site parking is across the street. The pedestrian crosswalk is approximately 300 feet to the north. When considering the off-site parking staff referred section 7.12.144 offsite multiple use parking. Ms. McKibben said they did not refer back to the mainland section that Commissioner Howard referred to, which requires the proximity to the crosswalk. On the spit the Code is less specific. HCC 7.12.144 says the parking will be located so it will adequately serve the use for which it is intended, it doesn’t specify the distance or how the distance is measured.

Commissioner Hess stated that he supports the goals of KSMA, but the Commission is dealing with the zoning issues and problems. He reiterated his suggestion from a previous meeting that this parking issue should go to the Council for a determination. Chair Kranich noted that there is a determination from the City Attorney that the Commission is empowered to make determinations on Code matters they have the authority to deal with and parking is one of them. Mr. Hess argued that he doesn’t agree that they need to make the interpretation if the Code is unclear.

Commissioner Hess further commented regarding the appropriateness of using a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for relief from the setback. He noted that there have been two or three other PUD’s, including Land’s End, and in each of the instances the main justification for a PUD was the allowed use situation regarding the developments. He questions if the Commission wants to go down the road of allowing a PUD process to allow relaxation of other zoning codes. It seems to be a slippery slope to get into because taking this section of the code literally, it would allow anything to go on that is restricted in other parts of the zoning code.

City Planner McKibben said the purpose HCC 21.61.060(a) is a device which allows a development to be planned and built as a unit, or as a phased development, and which, as a result, permits flexibility and variation in many of the traditional controls related to density, land use, setback, open space and other design elements, and the timing and sequencing of the development. PUDs are allowed as a conditional use within certain zoning districts and are applicable to either residential, commercial, noncommercial or industrial uses or a combination thereof. The purpose allows for flexibility in a setback requirement. The Planning Commission may make a determination whether the use of a PUD is appropriate. Staff felt was appropriate in the case of KSMA in considering the unique circumstances of this lot and the health, safety, and welfare of allowing the encroachment into the setback.

Commissioner Hess reiterated his concern of putting too broad of a standard on when an applicant is applying for a PUD.

Marie Bader, applicant, requested an opportunity to speak to the Commission. There was no objection.

Ms. Bader thanked the Commission for their consideration of this matter. She knows they are putting their minds to it and trying to come up with some doable alternatives. She noted her letter dated December 31 that was provided to the Commission and said this project has been in the City’s periscope for over four years. Several members of the group have met with the last two Mayors and City Manager on how to go about this. If parking issues were going to be a stumbling block, there have been four years to sort out the code. KSMA has complied with a whole bunch of agencies, bureaus, managements, willingly jumping through many hoops for the last three years. As it is today, they do comply with the Code, even if the Code is confusing or hard to understand. It is very probable that their whole project will be downscaled. What they are trying to get approved right now is the maximum that it could be. This is a 23 year old platform that was built according to the Code at that time. It consists of 49 pilings with each piling being driven 40 feet +/- into the ground. To move that structure will not be easy. She asked if we as the City want to see it be a derelict platform for another couple decades until Codes get ironed out and uses are identified. Ms. Bader said every month that ticks by KSMA is losing their grant. The builder is ready to start pounding nails tomorrow, but they keep saying they have one more hoop to jump through to get their permits. He is being very patient, but the buying power of their grant is going down. If the grant goes away not only will they not have this project, but will have to repay money that has already been spent on the project because of a parking code uncertainty. She questioned if the City would help repay some of the funds. She pointed out that KSMA has to locate their facility on the spit. They wanted to look in Homer proper where there is more availability, less coastal management, et cetera; however Homer City Code requires that any seafood processing be done on the spit. They were bound by Code to go out to the spit to find property to build this building on. They did find a derelict platform with a willing seller who assured them that it conformed to City, Borough and State stuff. If they have any questions she is happy to answer them.

Commissioner Hess asked about the State DOT requirements for parking, he asked if she is aware if DOT would not grant KSMA continued use of the parking, that the use would not be allowed anymore and the facility could not operate without the continued approval. Ms. Bader said they have received no indication from DOT that they would not extend parking there. KSMA has been in contact with them, but they are waiting for the City to move. It has come down to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Hess asked if they are aware that if the scope of their project changes the way she is suggesting it may, then the permit is no longer valid and they may have to go through another permit process for that. City Planner McKibben clarified that generally if a CUP is approved and the project remains the same but is reduced in scale, they approve it. If the types of uses substantially change from what was approved or if it is substantially larger, it would be required to come back. Mr. Hess and Ms. McKibben discussed that point.

Commissioner Hess reiterated his concern regarding the PUD.

Commissioner McNary commented that they are given the leeway to make to decisions by looking at each case and its merits individually and make a call. Being consistent implies that each case is the same, and they are not. It appears that the PUD allows for relief from the setback.

There was discussion regarding procedure with regard to the call for the question and discussion with the applicant to postpone. Commissioner Hess suggested they ask the applicant if they want to postpone.

Chair Kranich called for a break at 8:26 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:32 p.m.

Marie Bader asked for clarification that they need five yes votes to pass. Ms. Bader commented that they are minute by minute making decisions on what to do because every day that they can’t employ the contractor is very important. If they have the vote tonight and it doesn’t pass, they would have to appeal, which would be more time and she understands it can be lengthy and expensive in the event they have to get a lawyer. She feels they need to ask for postponement until February when the Commission will have a full slate of Commissioners.

MCNARY/HOWARD SO MOVED TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT FULL COMMISSION ATTENDANCE MEETING.

City Planner McKibben anticipates February 20^th. There was brief discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission hears a report from staff. Commission business includes resolutions, ordinances, zoning issues, requests for reconsideration and other issues as needed. The Commission may ask questions of staff, applicants, and the public. Any items brought before the Commission for discussion are on the floor for discussion following introduction of the item. The Commission will accept testimony or a presentation on agenda items that involve an applicant (such as acceptance of a non conformity).

A. Staff Report PL 08-03, Planning Commission determination on wind generators as an allowable exception to the height regulations in 21.60.210

MINSCH/MCNARY MOVED TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A TIME AFTER COUNCIL CAN ADDRESS IT.

There was no discussion.

VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

B. Staff Report PL 08-02, Town Center Zone

City Planner reviewed the staff report.

MINSCH/HESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF REPORT PL 08-02 TOWN CENTER ZONE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Discussion ensued, points included:

· Concern about the potential to impact the ISO rating of the community by the 35 foot building height change.

· There may be an opinion regarding ISO ratings as there are cities that build building that are 1000 feet tall and no ladder truck is going to be able to reach.

· Strike line 152 in the draft ordinance and when the City can afford ladder truck, they can revisit the issue.

MCNARY/MINSCH I MOVE TO STRIKE 21.56.030(i) LINE 152 IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

Commissioner Hess noted the Fire Chief’s comments regarding the recent ISO survey that was completed that there are more than five buildings in the community that exceed the criteria for the current ISO rating so there may already be issues with the ISO rating.

There was brief discussion regarding landscaping and site design with relation to density in the town center.

VOTE (Primary Amendment): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT

Motion carried.

Further discussion followed:

· There has been discussion that the town center would be a future home for the Farmer’s Market.

· Allowing open air business allows for flexibility for uses permitted there.

· There is a need to establish some rules for open air business.

· Architectural Standards for the siding and trim.

HESS/MINSCH I MOVE THAT WE STRIKE LINE 131 AND 132.

Commissioner Hess expressed his concern regarding PUDs.

Commissioner McNary asked for clarification. City Planner McKibben explained that this makes a significant change from the current PUD language in our other districts. For this district it would only allow permitted uses in the district but would still provide for flexibility in other aspects of the development and phasing.

The Commission continued to discuss PUD’s.

VOTE (Primary Amendment): YES: HESS

NO: MINSCH, KRANICH, MCNARY, HOWARD

Motion failed.

It was noted that there will be other opportunities to address this prior to the adoption of the ordinance.

Other discussion included:

· Drive through establishments as a deleted use and how that could effect having a drive through espresso stand or coffee establishment. More research needs to be done on that.

· Ensure definitions of the deleted uses are included for reference when issues arise.

There was consensus of the Commission to add this to the January 16 worksession.

VOTE (Main motion as amended): NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion carried.

C. Staff Report PL 08-09, 2008 Planning Commission Work Plan - Updated December 2007

City Planner McKibben reviewed the Commission Work List.

There was discussion.

· Move spit parking to 1 and PUD to 2.

· Itinerant Merchants added to list regarding whether they require permits or not.

· Procedure for Commission asking questions of City Attorney.

· In lieu of dealing with spit parking, add a spit plan with the idea of asking for consultant funding in the next budget year, recognizing that the spit needs to be looked at.

· Quarterly meeting with Council is coming up and that would be an opportunity to discuss Council’s priorities for the commission.

· Comp Plan and Town Center plan will be taking up a lot of time.

· Boundaries for the Bridge Creek Watershed.

Commissioner Howard commented regarding the Code. The Commission recognizes that it is broken, but doesn’t stop long enough to fix it, even if it requires outsourcing to take care of it. Code codifiers are skilled at this. She doesn’t know of better money that would be spent to help the Commission and Council and also with lawsuits. It would pay for itself in staff work soon. We don’t have the people power to do this and need to take care of it through funding.

City Planner McKibben pointed out that the technical rewrite should help in resolving a lot of the problems. The policy rewrite would come after the Comp Plan is adopted.

City Planner McKibben said they need to add overslope. She will reorganize the list based on what is coming up in the near future and bring it back to the Commission.

INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS

A. “Temps Welcome” article by Jennifer Gerend, AICP, Planning Magazine, December 2007

COMMENTS OF THE AUDIENCE

Members of the Audience may address the Commission on any subject.

Bill Smith commented that the City Council amended the CBD to allow the Farmers Market as an allowed use. Regarding Bridge Creek Watershed Boundaries, it was all in the Borough when it was created. Some of it has been annexed and is in the City’s jurisdiction. The lidar has been done to give an accurate idea of what the watershed boundaries should be. Regarding architectural standards in Town Center, he was pleased to see what was provided regarding sign requirements. Regarding ISO when the building height definition, it was a reflection of looking at ISO requirement. He explained some other ISO requirements. He noted a conflict between building height in 21.32.085 and the definition in Marine Industrial 21.52.040(c). Regarding PUD and variances, Mr. Smith commented that variance allows someone to do what a lot owner might not be legally allowed to do on their parcel. A variance provides relief from the restrictions in Code. A PUD, using the word flexibility, is a way of getting a variance that other people aren’t allowed to have. When looking at conditionally permitted uses you say we want to make sure this use is not more obnoxious than permitted uses in the district. In a conditional permitted use we can add a condition that makes it so it is as acceptable as the permitted use in the district. To turn it on its head and use it to relieve the conditions or restrictions is not what a conditional use permit is for.

Francie Robert, Councilmember, said she came to the meeting to hear the Commission discussion on the Town Center Zoning Ordinance. It came before the Council and they made the one amendment, but she wants to hear the Commission’s input. She values the Commissions opinions because they are looking at planning things. She will be interested to hear what they do at their worksession and at the Public Hearing.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION

Commissioners may comments on any subject, including requests to staff and requests for excused absence.

Commissioner Howard commented that the conversation in the reconsideration was helpful. She hopes the applicant has observed their struggle and that they will have an opportunity to salvage their project. She thanked them for the opportunity for reconsideration.

Commissioner Hess commented that he probably said too much during the meeting, but he is kind of wishing the vote would have gone through tonight, he thinks it might have worked out for them.

Commissioner McNary said good night.

Commissioner Minsch had no comment.

Chair Kranich apologized and said when they have an issue come up that requires a super majority or majority plus one, he will be sure to clarify it prior to the vote. With new Commissioners coming on board he wants to ensure they are aware of the voting procedures. He reminded the Commission he will be absent from the next meeting as will Vice Chair Minsch. It was clarified that the senior member would be responsible for Chairing the next meeting.

ADJOURN

Notice of the next regular or special meeting or work session will appear on the agenda following “adjournment”.

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers. There is a worksession at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.

MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Approved: