September 18, 2002

7:00 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 10/16/02


a.  SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1180/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Apply the ND-Nodal Development Designation to Property Within the Chase Gardens Nodal Development Area; Amending The Text of Section 13 of the Willakenzie Area Plan to Replace Pages 71-74; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Map; and Adopting a Severability Clause. (NBA & PM 8/28/02)


Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.  Cindy Weeldreyer was present via telephone.  Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer was also present.


Mayor Jim Torrey presided with City Councilors Bonny Bettman, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, and Betty Taylor. Gary Rayor was excused.  Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer was also present.


Mayor Torrey opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.


Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.


Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene, explained tonight was the final scheduled public hearing on actions proposed to implement the nodal development plan in the Chase Gardens area.  He stated it was being processed as a quasi-judicial matter and decisions are made by applying evidence against specific criteria.


Dwyer asked for any ex-parte contacts or conflicts of interest.


There were none from the Board of Commissioners.


Torrey asked for any ex-parte contacts or conflicts of interests from the City Councilors.


Torrey noted approximately a year ago, a representative of a development firm from Portland came to talk to him about their plans.  He stated they did not specifically speak about nodal development.


Kelly recalled when the process first started he met with members of the Harlow Neighborhood because they were in his ward.  He added all other contacts had been in the context of public neighborhood meetings.


Yeiter said the project backgrounds and the applicable substantive criteria were compiled in a memorandum dated August 12, 2002 and titled:  “Implementing Measures for Chase Gardens Nodal Development Area.”  He noted the applicable criteria upon which the decisions will be based are contained on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the memo.  He stated that testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described in the memo or other criteria in the plan or land use regulations that the person testifying believes to apply to the decision.  He added failure to raise an issue or accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the board and the decision makers based on that issue.


Yeiter noted the August 12 memo also listed the five actions proposed to make the whole nodal development strategies come together and they were combined into three ordinances. He noted the first ordinance amends the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram and the Willakenzie Area Plan text and diagram.  He stated both the Eugene City Council and the Board of Commissioners would vote on ordinance number one.  He noted the first staff packet that went to the Board of Commissioners contained an error in the Willakenzie area plan text.  He added a subsequent memo with corrected text was passed out.  He noted there are 11 policies in what is proposed for approval.


Yeiter stated the second ordinance amends several sections of the Eugene Code,   clarifying how the special areas zoned could be used for nodal development and to allow better lighting in city parks.  He noted only the City of Eugene City Council would act upon the second ordinance.


Yeiter said the third ordinance establishes the Chase node special area zone and creates the zoning standards for development in that zone and applies the special area zone to several city, EWEB and underdeveloped properties within the nodes that are already within the city limits.  He added they were not proposing to change the zone on any unincorporated properties.  He noted the third ordinance would take city action only.  Yeiter announced a Eugene City Council work session had been scheduled for October 28 and they have scheduled November 12 for possible action.  He noted a possible third reading by the Lane County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 4.


Yeiter explained there were several letters received subsequent to the work sessions.  He stated there is a packet with a letter from Gordon Wylie, who owns property along Garden Way, a letter from Terry White who has commercially designated property in the area and a letter from Louise Wade, who is a Cubby Lane resident.  He added there is a staff memorandum answering questions that came up during a work session.   He also received a letter from Satre  Associates.  He noted he received a letter from Ward Beck, from Duncan & Brown, Phil Grillo, Miller Nash, and a master plan that was prepared by Simpson Housing.


Brandon Morgan, 1226 16th Avenue, Seattle, WA, Development Manager for Simpson Housing.  He represented Simpson Housing who is the owner of the largest parcel that is part of the nodal plan. He said in Eugene they are the owners of the Chase Village Apartment complex.  He said there are 536 apartments plus 20 acres of vacant land.  He added the vacant land is the largest part of the node.  He recalled they bought the property in 1997.  He stated they realized the highest and best use of the vacant property was to develop a neighborhood retail center, something they thought would add value to the neighborhood.  He said they had been cooperating with the city on the nodal plan.  He said that Simpson Housing was committed to seeing the nodal plan through to fruition to make sure the city, neighborhood and future developers of the property will be proud of what is achieved.


Rick Duncan, Duncan & Brown, 1260 Charnelton, reported that under the current proposed plan, there could be as much as 200,000 square feet of commercial space built.  He noted this plan was three times the size of Oasis Plaza and Edgewood Shopping Center.  He received information on second floor space from  the Oakway Shopping Center.  He was told that the leases are 40 to 50% less than what they get for main floor space.  He noted there are substantial problems with vacancies on the second floor.


Don Raichle, 3131 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, stated he had been working with Simpson Housing for the past two years.  He noted the two-story issue is a critical one.  He said as it stands now, this is a large project and the square footage is pushing what is available in the market and what the neighborhood wants to see.  He stated if the square footage is kept to put into two stories, they lose the continuous street frontage.  He added to go to a second story would drive down the quality of the architecture and attract less desirable tenants in the buildings.  He thinks the solution is to have a tall façade in order to feel like it is a critical mass.  He noted another issue was the orientation of the building entries.  He said the goal is to have the most active pedestrian oriented continuous retail area possible.  He said to have all the entries facing the adjacent streets is not the best way to achieve that.


Terri Harding, Satre Associations 132 E. Broadway, Eugene, explained her firm was the lead consultant for the nodal development study at Chase Gardens and as the project moves forward, she was happy they were close to implementation.  She noted as the code is written, it would require a building orientation to the street, but a separate pedestrian entrance to every street.  She stated the LUCU requirement for building entries is one per building, not one per business. She noted a common problem with nodal development standards is when two entrances are required for small businesses.


Rick Satre, 132 E. Broadway, stated the proposed set of ordinances represents what staff believes is the best set of recommendations to achieve Eugene’s nodal development objectives in the Chase Gardens area.  He noted the property owners they represent are in complete agreement with the entire set of recommended changes except that the market place is not there for a second floor.  His proposal is a single floor retail establishment that has a two-story façade.  He said it works. He added should the market ever catch up where second floors could be added, then they could put in a second floor.  He said they have an opportunity for the community to see the concept of nodal development take place in physical form. 


Terry White, 346 S. Garden, represented the Harlow Neighbor group.  He said they were suggesting an ATM machine be installed in the shopping center.


Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene, P. O. Box 1588, Eugene, said it was good to see nodal development was moving forward.  He explained nodal development is an important part of TransPlan.  He said the Chase Gardens node was a positive one because it is well located where the geography of the node supports lower than average driving. He said that improves the driving average of the whole metropolitan area.  He stated there was restricted access with this node.  He said the natural resource component needed to be strengthened.  He noted in Exhibit B, item 10, development shall be sensitive to the area’s natural features such as mature trees, orchards and the Q Street channel.  He stated there was a beneficial move toward clear and objective standards for development.  He said this had to achieve a certain density and if there is too much of a commercial footprint for the market, then the commercial footprint should be decreased.  He said that a two-story façade is not two levels of activity that is needed for nodal development.


Verna Thompson 110 S. Garden, Eugene stated she wanted the Chase Garden area cleaned of garbage.  She recommended that Eugene be a good neighbor and clean the garbage.  She stated she lives in one of the historical Chase homes and she wanted that to be considered in the development.


Jerry Thompson, didn’t think there was an owner on Garden Way who thought they were benefiting from this and they don’t want to pay for any of it.  He thought the best use of the area was a baseball park.


Ward Beck, 2502 Highland Dr., Eugene, was against the ordinances.  He read into the record a letter from Judge Gordon Wylie.  He thought the city staff was trying to steal the value of Judge Wylie’s land.  He stated that no one from the city spoke with Judge Wylie.  He said the land should remain commercial and have a minimum of four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.  He said they wanted to see a nodal overlay on Judge Wylie’s land but leaving the underlying zoning unchanged.  He added that Judge Wylie didn’t want his land down zoned.


Nathanson asked what the difference was between commercial and high density.


Yeiter responded that typically commercial land is more valuable and developable than residential.  He said the current Willakenzie plan shows all commercial being on the east side, between future Garden Way and I-5.  He said they wanted to make sure that residents had easy access to the services.  He said there is a combination of the limited access to the Wylie property for customer use from the freeway and higher density residences.  In comparing that to limited commercial opportunities with higher density residential, it would have higher value.


Nathanson asked if the team developing the plan took into consideration the natural boundaries.


Yeiter said this neighborhood and the greater region is underserved by retail and commercial services.  He explained their approach was to try to maintain a similar level of commercial.  He noted that was slightly more than ten acres of the Wylie property, east of Garden Way but nine acres are now proposed west of Garden Way instead.


Nathanson asked what the intent of the node was regarding transportation.


Yeiter responded the least they wanted to achieve was that the residents are within walking and easy biking distance. He said they are also trying to achieve having an identifiable neighborhood center that would be a pleasurable place to be.  He noted the way the Willakenzie area plan was originally set up, the entire commercial was on one side of a street.  He said they investigated creating new local streets through the Wylie property and concluded there were not enough residents in the immediate area to support grocery or retail services east of Garden Way.  He added being visible from Garden Way and Centennial was necessary.


Dwyer said his vision of a node is a place where people could live and work without an automobile.  He didn’t want a node to be another name for a shopping development.  He said the key was mixed use.  He stated that part of the I-5 Beltline plan will be a bicycle pedestrian crossing that will go to Postal Way.  He said if they are going to prevent sprawl, then they have to encourage upward development and not just put up facades.


Bettman said the whole intention of nodal development was to decrease vehicle miles traveled and to increase the efficiency of accommodating population growth that is projected to double in the Willamette Valley over the next 50 years.  She didn’t understand why they were letting the developers write the standards for the node.  She asked why they increased the intensity, and deducted amenities in an auto oriented development in response to this particular developer’s demand.  She said if they would just create what they need for nodal development in an overlay zone and apply it, then as pressure to develop increases over the years, it would be redeveloped according to those standards.  She noted that TransPlan did modeling based on nodal development.  She said they examined how nodal development would result in decreased trip length and decreased vehicles miles traveled both within the node and outside the node and how the node was affected by the larger transportation system.  She wanted to see a comparison where the code amendments and the metro plan amendments diverge from that threshold.  She said if they are going to modify nodal development to this extent, they would achieve the objectives of TransPlan.  She stated an analysis and comparison is needed to be made on what suggested code amendments are required. 


Taylor said it sounded like they were in the development business and the purpose was to develop the land as quickly as possible instead of providing for the creation of a node.  She asked why they would need so much commercial building if it were part of a node.


Yeiter said what became apparent when they involved the neighborhood was that there was frustration from area residents that there were not full retail services to serve the area.  He said the area is segregated and the residents were tired of driving to other shopping centers to get more services.  He said the acreage for all commercial services is kept the same as planned within the Willakenzie area plan.  He noted one of their goals was that the residential development potential did not drop and that they were not losing housing yield.  He stated the recommendation forwarded to the elected officials is that they have two functional floors along Garden Way and the stores facing Marche Chase and Garden Way have their entrances on them.  He noted that was not what the developers wanted.  He said there is a demand for commercial services in the area so they allowed for the shopping center to be as large as proposed with a cap on the size of the grocery story and having some of the buildings mandated where they are oriented so there is the pedestrian space. 


Yeiter said with regard to the vehicle miles traveled and the TransPlan modeling, the TransPlan model was not created to be so specific that the square footage would have affected it.  He noted there was a request from the state that the city create some monitoring process to track how well the nodal strategies are working for vehicle miles traveled for reduction.  He noted the city engineers are satisfied with the streets and the improvements and how the pedestrian movements would happen within the area.  He stated they didn’t have the data to show how this plan might be different.


Kelly stated he would support the plan as written as a compromise to get them to a real nodal project. He said unless they had a fair amount of density of jobs, they won’t hit the targets and use the land efficiently and the whole plan falls apart.  He asked to explain how the node would make progress to the targets, both as proposed and as the developer is asking for further changes. He asked what the program was that described some sort of maximum square footage for the future. He wanted answers at the next work session


Pape stated that every node would have its own character and this was a suburban node.  He was interested in any type of samples that staff could come up with for a work session on how two-story retail works in more suburban type locations versus out of town locations.  He added not only do they need the housing density, but also they need the jobs


With regard to the Work Session on October 28, Torrey asked how the Harlow Neighborhood request would happen with regard to the ATM banking access question.  He asked about the ineffective down zoning of the property east of Garden Way.  It was his understanding that a down zone could create a taking and they might be liable for value lost.  He wanted someone to do an analysis of that with a report back.


Bettman asked about TransPlan and what assumptions went into the modeling that showed nodal development reduces vehicle miles traveled and creates a more efficient transportation pattern.  She asked what the node specific assumptions were.  She thinks they are using TransPlan to justify all of the investments they are making in the planning and implementation process.  She noted there are incentives and they are redirecting public infrastructure investment into the area because it is a node and they are going to see a public benefit.  She wanted to reconcile this plan with TransPlan.  She wanted to know the assumptions and how this plan compares with them.


Nathanson had three questions for the work session.  With regard to two stories, please describe the value of a tall façade that is for appearance only versus the value of height for functional purpose.  Tell them whether there is some other way to handle multiple entrances and pedestrian access from the street, if there was another alternative and describe as best they can market reality.  She stated this neighborhood was different than a generic neighborhood anywhere else in Eugene.  She asked to what extent this factors into any of the testimony they are getting.  She asked if market reality was generic or adjusted for this neighborhood.


Meisner noted the node they were discussing regarding amendments is small in area but is surrounded by high-density developments.  He wanted to make sure the commercial development is available to those people.  He said he understands wanting contiguous commercial development and at the same time wanting second story development. He asked (in planning) if they looked at the relationship of second story retail or other space to the acreage that is provided for commercial zoning.  He asked if so much land was designated for commercial that would preclude second story development.  He wanted the response in the work session.


Childs noted since this was a quasi-judicial hearing, the property owner’s representatives  have requested that in the event the city council recommends substantial changes to the ordinance that they reopen the record to allow them to comment on those changes before final adoption of the ordinance.  She announced they had received that request.


Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing for the Eugene City Council and they will take the issue up on October 28, 2002 in a work session with possible decision making at that time.  He added it would take place at 5:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room.


Commissioner Dwyer closed the public hearing for the Board of Commissioners.


MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on Wednesday, December 4, 2002 for Ordinance  1180.


Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


b.  SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1181/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Apply the ND-Nodal Development Designation to Property Within the Royal Avenue Nodal Development Area; and Adopting a Severability Clause.


Mayor Torrey opened the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.


Commissioner Dwyer opened up the Public Hearing for the Board of Commissioners.


Allan Lowe, City of Eugene, explained the hearing concerns proposed amendments to the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, the Bethel Danebo Refinement Plan and the Eugene Municipal Code to implement the nodal development concept in the Bethel neighborhood.  He noted the Royal Avenue Nodal Development project area consists of 191 acres of land on both sides of Royal Avenue between Terry Street and Greenhill Road in west Eugene.  He said the implementation measures proposed for adoption support the creation of nodal development in the planning area.  He said the Royal Avenue area is labeled area 4F on the TransPlan map of potential nodal development areas in the Eugene Springfield area.  He stated that nodal development is encouraged as a development form and adopted policies of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Eugene Springfield Metropolitan area Transportation Plan and the Eugene Growth Management Study.  He added if adopted, the proposed regulations for the Royal Avenue area would not immediately apply to any property.  He said only after a property is annexed and rezoned would the proposed land use and development standards apply.


Lowe indicated that three actions are proposed to implement the Royal Avenue Specific Plan.  He said the actions include amendments to the Metro Plan diagram, amendments to the Bethel Danebo Refinement Plan and amendments to the Eugene Code.  With regard to the Metro Plan, Lowe said since the Royal nodal development area is totally outside of the city limits, both Eugene City Council and the Lane County Commissioners must adopt the proposed Metro Plan Amendments.


Lowe noted the Bethel Danebo Refinement Plan was adopted with the City of Eugene in 1982 prior to the acknowledgment of the Metro Plan by the state.  As a result, the Eugene City Council will adopt the amendments to the Bethel Danebo Refinement Plan only.


Lowe explained the criteria for approval for the proposed amendments are listed on pages 7-9 of the staff memorandum to the council and board dated August 12, 2002.  He said that approval of the proposed amendments would require findings of consistency with various adopted documents. He added that findings of consistency with the Metro Plan and refinement plan amendment criteria are included as Exhibit D to Ordinance number one.  He said that findings of consistency with the Eugene Code Amendment criteria are included as Exhibit A of Ordinance Number two.  He noted that staff had received once piece of correspondence regarding the hearing since the packet was given to the council and commissioners at the last work session on the issue.  He said an e-mail was received from Dick Briggs, 80 W. 23rd Avenue, Eugene regarding the proposed land use designation on an eight acre site west of the Amazon channel and within the node boundaries.  That letter was entered into the public record.


Kevin Matthews, Friends of Eugene, P. O. Box 1588, Eugene, commented that the Chase Gardens sub area provides a reasonable location for a node with a plan that is on the edge of fading away.  He said the Royal Avenue node is in the wrong place.  He said there is nice work in the development of the plan.  He asked if late in the TransPlan process whether the geographic component of vehicle miles traveled was taken into account in the modeling of the effectiveness of nodal development. He said they have to document how much is the reduction in trips going to be because of living in a nodal development area.  He didn’t think it would meet the purpose under the state planning goals in TransPlan.


Rob Handy, 455½ River Road, Eugene, said when they discuss market realities, they found that in order for a node to be successful, there needs to be transit stations in it.  He said a fixed transit station gives investors the confidence that that neighborhood would be developed.  He stated that transit stations anchor a successful node.  He said the elected officials have an alternative to support nodes rather than seek courses to see nodes fail.


Steve Cornacchia, 180 E. 11th, Eugene, stated he represents Robert and Ronald Bounds.  He explained they are discussing compact urban growth and talking about placing growth in areas where it could be accommodated by existing public facilities.  He said they are talking about creation of additional development and growth on the periphery of the community.  He stated the mere creation of this node and the set of criteria used is a good exercise when growth occurs in that area.  He took issue in the implementing ordinance where there are three capital facility projects that are focused in the area.  He noted one was a large drainage ditch and two are major road projects. He said the area they are discussing is a rural residential area and the majority of parcels are in the ten acre or less size.  He added the majority of the acreages and ownerships are families that had been located there for nearly 100 years.  He said these people are not planning on developing their property yet they are looking at a well-designed and good exercise.  He said their concern is if Roosevelt Boulevard is connected with Royal that it would prompt development of one large parcel on the outside of the node.  He said that starts the ball rolling for development.  He stated their request is that the capital projects be considered developed in a manner similar to the City of Springfield and Pioneer Parkway.  He added that based on a trigger, when the amount of traffic on either one of those thoroughfares exceeds a certain amount, the project begins. 


Donald Bounds, 5927 Kenwood, Dallas, Texas, stated his parents are Bob and Pat Bounds and they own parcel number three and his brother has parcel number 15.  He had concerns about how this node would develop.  He stated after his parents are gone, he plans on moving into their house and living there and not doing anything with the property.  He didn’t want to have the assessments that come with the improvements of the streets and other infrastructure for other developments.  He told the elected officials to consider the people who live there.


Ronald Bounds, 5670 Royal, Eugene, stated he had to hire an attorney for his property. He said the people in his neighborhood don’t want to move.  He noted his neighbors want development but not high-density development.  He said the development does provide for parking for recreational vehicles.  He wasn’t against growth, he doesn’t want to have to move.  He asked the elected officials to think this through.


Dwyer stated they have to be careful when roads are developed that they assign so much of a value and cost to a homeowner who wants to live on the property.  He thought this was more of a city concern.  He said the question should be of highest and best use as opposed to current and present use.  He commented they should change the tax policies at the state level for current and present use instead of highest and best use.


Kelly stated they didn’t have a chance at the work session to address the suggestion that they do street assessment differently.  He was disturbed that after the council and the commissioners spent time on a street assessment policy they would assess this differently.  He said it will give rise to feelings of unfairness and a lack of equity on the part of property owners elsewhere.  He asked staff if this plan achieved the residential density of 12 per net acre. 


Lowe responded the answer was yes.


Kelly indicated that it wasn’t clear to him that if the planning commission recommendation had made it into the documents that were proposed for adoption, or whether amendments would be necessary to incorporate some of their suggests.


Lowe noted the ordinances and exhibits included the policy changes.


Kelly commented that Exhibit B for Bethel Danebo Plan quotes a paragraph that said it is in TransPlan.  He said it wasn’t in the TransPlan and it was a Scribner’s error.  He was under the assumption that if someone has a piece of land with a house on it and it is owned that someone could continue to live in it indefinitely.  He said he wanted to be corrected in a work session if he was wrong.  He asked with LTD as an independent agency, how they tie transit requirements that should be a part of nodal development.


Kelly asked if there was need for housing in LUCU, how it relates to the proposed ordinances that they are adopting.  He commented they were told the specific plan was not being adopted as policy, but there is a statement from their work session on page 139 that amends the Metro Plan that does make this policy.  He wanted clarification.  He asked Matthews if it was better for land use planning and transportation planning if the Royal node area builds out at R1 densities and has no commercial as opposed to being built out in a nodal manner.


Matthews responded the Royal node as currently drawn is against the wetlands and urban growth boundary.  He said unless they are presuming the urban growth boundary moved out there, there is no asymmetric tributary area to support neighborhood commercial. 


Farr stated these people are his neighbors and he was concerned.  He said the node looks good on paper but when it is overlaid onto people’s properties, they have to consider how it would affect families.  He asked if the owners could stay on their property and leave their house intact and if  they could they bequeath it.  He asked what the timing was on the Roosevelt extension and the timing on the creation of a swale.  He stated Dwyer commented that the people on the property would be taxed the highest value rate of the property.  He wanted staff to comment on those questions at the work session.


Bettman wanted to hear from staff, given the fact that in the Royal node there is an opportunity for a developer to use the needed housing tract and circumvent nodal development or adjustment review that would not fulfill the objectives of nodal development.  She asked if there was a way to tie the SDC discount to the actual achievement of those objectives.  She asked the same question about the other node.


Torrey asked to get the issue of a triggering device, he wanted a response to that at the work session.  Could it work?  He noted the e-mail he received from Sally Briggs made sense to him. He asked why they wouldn’t do what the e-mail suggested relating to the eight acres from low density to natural resources.


Sorenson asked what the relationship was between transit planning and the establishment of a node and if it was part of the criteria.  He asked if they would be further ahead of established transit orientation if the goal was creation of a real node.


Pape stated he was troubled by most of the testimony he had heard about taking the rural character of the area.  He asked if they could do a node overlay zone without any of the detailed planning so as the character of the area develops in the future, the detailed planning could be done at that point in time and they could spend their time in areas that are closer to being developed.


With no one else signed up to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.  He announced the next meeting on this item would be a work session of the Eugene City Council on October 30 at noon at the McNutt Room.


With no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for December 4 on Ordinance PA 1181.


Morrison MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


There being no further business, Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 9:30 p.m.


There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 9:30 p.m.




Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary