COVID-19: City Hall and Lausmann Annex are closed November 18 through December 2.
Please note: Municipal Court is conducting business by phone. Please call 541-774-2040.
Click here for more information.

 

Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Planning Commission (View All)

Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, September 24, 2020

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 5:30 PM in the Medford City Hall, Council Chambers, 411 West 8th Street, Medford, Oregon on the above date with the following members and staff in attendance:
 
Commissioners Present               
Joe Foley, Vice Chair
David Culbertson
David Jordan
Bill Mansfield
David McFadden
E.J. McManus
Jared Pulver
Jeff Thomas
 
Staff Present
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer
Chase Browning, Deputy Fire Marshal
Terri Richards, Recording Secretary
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III
 
Commissioner Absent
Mark McKechnie, Chair, Excused Absence          
 
10.     Roll Call
 
20.    Consent Calendar / Written Communications.
20.1 LDS-20-201 Final Order of tentative plat approval for Phases 22C and 22D for Summerfield at South East Park Subdivision, a proposed 14-lot residential subdivision and one reserve acreage tract on five parcels totaling 16.16 acres located south of Cherry Lane and east of Calle Vista Drive in the SFR-4 (Single Family Residential Ė 2.5 to 4 dwelling units per gross acre) zoning district and the Southeast Plan Overlay (371W27AD100 & 200, and 371W27DA400, 500 & 600); Applicant: Mahar Homes; Agent: Neathamer Surveying; Planner: Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
20.2 LDS-20-207 / CUP-20-208 Final Orders of tentative plat approval for a six-lot subdivision, along with a request for Conditional Use Permit in order to construct a driveway crossing, as well as locate a multi-use path and drainage facilities within the riparian corridor of Lone Pine Creek.  (The proposed requests are running concurrent with AC-20-205, a proposed 84-unit multi-family development.)  The property consists of a single parcel totaling 4.76 acres, and is located at the corner of Skypark Drive and Crater Lake Avenue (1971 Skypark Drive).  The property is zoned MFR-15 (Multiple Family Residential, 15 dwelling units per gross acre) (371W18AA TL 2300). Applicant: Windy Creek LLC; Agent: Slaughter Consulting; Planner: Dustin Severs.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopted the consent calendar as submitted.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                     Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Voice Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
30.          Approval or Correction of the Minutes from September 10, 2020 hearing
30.1 The minutes for September 10, 2020, were approved as submitted.
 
40.          Oral Requests and Communications from the Public.  None.
 
Eric Mitton, Deputy City Attorney read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
 
50.          Public Hearings.
 
Continuance Request
50.1 LDS-20-219 Consideration of tentative plat approval for Cherry Meadows Subdivision Phase II a 15-lot residential subdivision with reserve acreage on a 2.68 acre parcel located on the west side of Cherry Street approximately 400 feet north of Stewart Avenue within an SFR-10 (Single Family Residential - 10 units per acre 372W35AA819) zoning district. Agent: Angela Hibbard; Planner: Liz Conner.  The applicant requests this item be continued to the Thursday, October 8, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Vice-Chair Foley stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the October 8th hearing, please come forward to the podium and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on October 8th.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued LDS-20-219 per the applicantís request to the Thursday, October 8, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                     Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
50.2 ZC-20-216 / LDS-20-218 Consideration of a zone change from SFR-00 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per lot/parcel) to SFR-10 (Single Family Residential, 6 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre) and consideration of tentative plat for an eight-lot subdivision on a 1.21 acre parcel located at 1210 Sweet Road approximately 400 feet west of the intersection of West McAndrews Road and Sweet Road. Applicant: Sweet Homes Development LLC; Agent: Jay Harland, CSA Planning Ltd; Planner: Liz Conner.  The applicant requests this item be continued to the Thursday, October 22, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
 
Vice-Chair Foley stated that if there are members in the audience that have come to testify on this agenda item and cannot attend the October 22nd hearing, please come forward to the podium and the Planning Commission will hear your testimony at this time.  Please keep in mind that it is possible that your questions may be answered when staff presents their staff report on October 22nd.  There will be no decisions made this evening on this agenda item.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission continued ZC-20-216 and LDS-20-218 per the applicantís request to the Thursday, October 22, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                     Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
Old Business
50.3 CUP-20-232 Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to implement several minor modifications as well as a 345,000 square foot hospital tower addition to the Rogue Valley Medical Center Campus within the C-S/P (Service Commercial and Professional Offices) zoning district (371W28CC109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 200, 302, 309 & 401).  Applicant, PKA Architects; Agent, Jacobs; Planner, Steffen Roennfeldt.
 
Vice-Chair Foley inquired whether any Commissioners have a conflict of interest or ex-parte communication they would like to disclose.  None were disclosed. 
 
Vice-Chair Foley inquired whether anyone in attendance wishes to question the Commission as to conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts. None were disclosed.
 
Steffen Roennfeldt, Planner III reported that the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(C).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report, included in the property owner notice and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Mr. Roennfeldt gave a staff report.
 
Vice-Chair Foley asked, is the condition of the westerly driveway onto Barnett to be closed included if the Planning Commission adopts the final order this evening.  Mr. Roennfeldt replied yes.
 
Alex Georgevitch, City Engineer clarified that on page 144 of the agenda packet item 3 states that in the future the western most driveway on Barnett Road close due to its proximity to Black Oak Drive.  Public Works is not recommending closure at this time.  The recommendation is included in the staff report if the Planning Commission adopts the final order this evening.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, was the Traffic Impact Analysis and Transportation Demand Management Plan included by the applicant in the agenda packet?  Mr. Georgevitch responded that conditional uses are more challenging.  It looks at impacts to the surrounding community.  The development will have impacts to the surrounding intersections.  The question is are these impacts different than if it were Service Commercial.  Every use has different peak hours and travel patterns.  The idea is to review this specific use to see if it contradicts the general use that would normally occur.  If so, Public Works would request mitigation.  There is no mitigation proposed specifically for intersections.  They are not looking at the level of service.  They are looking at operations like is traffic backing up to far, closing a driveway or installing a median. 
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is a lot of that focused on peak hour traffic that is primarily employee whereas customer traffic is coming off Siskiyou and spread throughout the day at non-peak times?  Mr. Georgevitch stated that the general hospital will have traffic spread out throughout the day.  A business will have a distinct a.m. peak, lunch peak and p.m. peak.  In this particular case there will be employees coming and going in different shifts and people coming and going for emergency services, doctorís appointments, etc.          
 
The public hearing was opened.
 
a. Josh Kolberg, PKA Architects, 6800 SW Hampton Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97223.  Mr. Kolberg reported that present this evening is Keith Russell, Director of Real Estate as well as Matt Bell with Kittelson and Associates.  This application is to update the record to include the parking structure, extension to the parking structure, demolition of the building and the pavilion building.       
 
Mr. Kolberg reserved rebuttal time.
 
The public hearing was closed.
 
Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings as recommended by staff and adopts the Final Order for approval of CUP-20-232 per the Revised Staff Report dated September 17, 2020, including Exhibits A through M.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                     Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8-0-0.
 
New Business
50.4 DCA-20-243 A legislative amendment to modify the Temporary Shelter provisions in Chapter 10 and add provisions for (permanent) Shelters. Planner: Carla Angeli Paladino.
 
Carla Paladino, Principal Planner reported that the Development Code Amendment can be found in the Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184(2).  The applicable criteria were addressed in the staff report and hard copies are available at the entrance of Council Chambers for those in attendance.  Ms. Paladino reported that additional revisions to the amendment adding items related to the operational permit will be submitted into the record as Exhibit G.  It was emailed to the Planning Commission earlier in the week.  Ms. Paladino gave a staff report.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, is it prudent to move this forward at this time without the Housing Advisory Commission reviewing it and needs more revisions?  Ms. Paladinoís concern is that staff would like to have it adopted before winter.  It is scheduled to go to the City Council October 15, 2020.  If staff could get a recommendation at the next Planning Commission meeting they could get it to the City Council the first of November.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is permanent shelters already permitted and separating it out as a separate SIC code?  Ms. Paladino replied it is not a separate SIC code.  The code references SIC code as a three digit number that was updated to a four digit number.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, is it currently permitted in all the zones being proposed?  Ms. Paladino reported that it is permitted in all commercial zones, not light industrial, which is being added.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, do requirements exist?  Ms. Paladino replied no.  It is only Building and Fire Code.
 
Commissioner Culbertson asked, if the Housing Advisory Commission had major modifications or concerns would staff table the amendment and bring the modifications back to the Planning Commission if they were able to move it forward today?  Ms. Paladino reported yes.
 
Vice-Chair Foley asked, how did staff arrive at the 15 and 16 guests?  Ms. Paladino stated they based it on the residential facility requirements.
 
Vice-Chair Foley thinks they should be allowed in general and heavy industrial zones.  Comments from the providers makes sense. 
 
Vice-Chair Foley asked, does the tents and yurts involve the permanent and temporary?  Ms. Paladino replied both.  These amendments do not relate to anything in a temporary structure.  Either temporary shelters or non-temporary shelters have to be in an existing or new building. They are not permitted in tents or yurts.  Vice-Chair Foley is trying to reconcile that comment and the development on Biddle Road.
 
Mr. Mitton explained that the Biddle Road facility and the temporary expansion of the Kelly Center are under the Cityís emergency powers under Chapter 12.   Due to the COVID emergency and now the fire emergency in order to temporarily increase stable housing the City has the ability through emergency powers and City Manager action to allow tents. After the emergencies passed it is expected temporary shelters be inside a fixed structure. 
 
Ms. Paladino added that there are state provisions for urban campgrounds that is separate from these specific land uses.
 
The public hearing was opened and there being no testimony the public hearing was closed.
 
Ms. Paladino commented that this amendment would be going to the City Council on October 15 and to the Housing Advisory Commission on October 14.  Ms. Paladino would have to give the City Council a verbal update.  If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with that staff can move the City Council meeting to November and give the Planning Commission an opportunity to revisit this on October 8 (October 22 was noted in error). 
 
Kelly Evans, Assistant Planning Director stated that another alternative may be for the Planning Commission to make their recommendation, staff bring the Housing Advisory Commissionís decision in a report and City Councilís action back to the Planning Commission. 
 
Motion: The Planning Commission, based on the findings and conclusions that all of the approval criteria are either satisfied or not applicable, forwarded a favorable recommendation for adoption of DCA-20-243 to the City Council per the staff report dated September 17, 2020, including Exhibits A through G; and allow staff to make final edits to the draft related to the operational permit requirements, inspection requirements, and application materials.  
 
Moved by: Commissioner Culbertson                     Seconded by: Commissioner McFadden
 
Commissioner Pulver has a lot of concerns about this.  There is code in place that allows for non-temporary shelters to be created.  A Conditional Use Permit is the appropriate mechanism.  He is not comfortable with them being a Type I approval.  He does not think a neighborhood meeting and Planning Director approval is the appropriate course.  Citizens need to come and let their voice be heard by a greater body than one.  It is hard to argue these will not have an impact wherever they land, residential, commercial or industrial.  It needs to be studied and taken time with.  It requires thought and process for people to understand as opposed to them being dropped all over the place.  They have detrimental impacts.  He is not compelled to believe the public benefit criteria is met.  He thinks it is opening the door for more homelessness to accommodate in our area and it is not for the greater good.  The first question is what is a more comprehensive solution to homelessness and how can these shelters be a part of that.  Not creating a whole bunch of homeless shelters and then figure out what to do with the people later on.  That is not right.  He has broad based objections to this and will be voting no to the motion on the table.
 
Vice-Chair Foley has been working with the Red Cross on the fire project.  He has heard that 7,000 homes have been lost in the state of Oregon.  Two thousand six hundred are in this area.  They have partnered with states that have already had a big challenge with housing.  He thinks the City is going to need these going forward.  He does not know for how long.  Continue to work with the partners the City has been working with.  Those partners are focusing on getting the people in the shelters out and into permanent solutions.
 
Commissioner McManus appreciates Commissioner Pulverís comments. He reviewed the minutes from the Planning Commission study session related to this amendment.  There are questions with the review from the Housing Advisory Commission that could be beneficial to the Planning Commission to digest.  He is not up to speed how many applications have been submitted for these types of shelters.  Changing it to a Type I to make it more efficient under these circumstances they need to evaluate what is effective comprehensively by not going through a public hearing process.  He does not see how that is as effective. At this point he will be voting no.  As this is has come up because of responding to some of the policies that need more clarity it is a result of again feeling as a reactive mode.  Even getting into extreme weather conditions they need to take extra time to make sure this is operationally effective for staff and citizens.  He would not be comfortable voting in favor.
 
Commissioner Culbertson also expressed at the study session that his office is in proximity to one of the shelters.  It has a lasting impact when people are showering at their front door and sleeping in the flower beds.  When they are in the shelters at night there are no problems.  It is the draw of when they are in the neighborhoods.  He agrees with Commissioner Pulver there are policies on the books that does need some tweaking but he also agrees it needs to be a process not a fast track.  Voices of the citizens if they are going to be directly impacted need to be heard and put on the record rather than just submitting letters.  He agrees with Commissioner Pulver.  Although he made the motion because it is in the script in front of him he will not be supporting the motion.
 
Commissioner McFadden agrees with Commissioner Pulver and Commissioner Culbertson.  He is not sure the amendment is needed or bad to have on the books.  He is encouraged that it is not dealing with temporary structures.  People are more productive when they are gainfully employed.  He is in favor of moving this forward to the City Council and thinks they will approve the amendment.
 
Commissioner Thomas does not disagree with the strategy of the amendment.  He is going to vote no because he is uncomfortable every time of trying to cut the public out coming to speak.  He is not in favor of one person having a meeting with the neighbors and then making a decision.  These types of meetings should always be in front of a pubic body and on the record.
 
Commissioner Jordan also recognizes this is a societal issue and needs further clarification.  He is also uncomfortable with taking away public input for the areas that might be impacted and provide feedback.  He is conflicted because he sees the need but will vote against the amendment.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that they could make it where the current City Council President attend the meetings instead of a City employee.
 
Mr. Mitton suggested that given the feedback focused on the issue of Type I review versus Conditional Use Permit amend the motion not supporting that particular change but supporting the rest of the changes such as language in terms of policy, etc. as opposed to a no vote on the entire project.
 
Commissioner Culbertson commented that the question would be does the no votes satisfy the public hearing portion?  He gets a sense from Commissioner Pulver it is not.  Commissioner Culbertson is comfortable with the process as long as it goes to a hearing and not a staff review. He would be comfortable with that type of an amendment.
 
Vice-Chair Foley asked, if they do not do the Type I review does it go to a Conditional Use Permit process or is there something in between those two that is simpler than the complications of a Conditional Use Permit process?  Ms. Evans responded that a Type I is an administrative process without notice.  The applicant does a neighborhood meeting.  Type II process is an administrative review with notice.  Type III would come to the Planning Commission.  It would be appropriate as a Conditional Use Permit unless there is new construction then it would go before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
 
Ms. Paladino commented that staff could change the non-temporary shelters in existing buildings back to a Type III review.  Temporary shelters would go back to a Type III review and there would be no distinguishing.  They would all be Conditional Use Permits.
 
Commissioner Mansfield stated that it is obvious this is going to fail primarily because of the Conditional Use Permit removal.  He is probably the only one to vote in favor.  He suggested proceeding to record that vote then if there are additional motions to be made to resurrect part of the amendment then do so at that time.
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that normally it works the other way.  There are amendments to the motion to clarify the motion before taking a vote.  Commissioner Mansfield stated the motion on the table is going to fail.  Kill it then make new motions to resurrect part of it.
 
Vice-Chair Foley recommended to see if there was a Commissioner that wishes to make an amendment to delete the Type I review to do it now, vote on it then go to the main motion.
 
Amended motion: The procedure on all the reviews shall be a Type III Conditional Use Permit process to the Planning Commission.
             
Moved by: Commissioner McFadden                     Seconded by: Commissioner Pulver
 
Commissioner Pulver asked, with the amended motion on the table are the amendments primarily housekeeping or are there any substantive changes left?  His read on it is based on the amended motion that temporary shelters continue to be a Conditional Use Permit in all the zones that are permitted currently.  Ms. Paladino stated earlier that permanent shelters were already permitted and added them to be allowed in Light Industrial.  They added a limitation that temporary shelters cannot be any closer than 500 feet.  Ms. Paladino stated that the proximity is for all zones and already in the code.  Staff is changing that it is only 500 feet between shelters in residential zones.  Temporary shelters in all commercial and light industrial zones would be permitted with special standards.  New structures would go before the Site Plan and Architectural Commission and the Planning Commission.  It would be a double process.  Ms. Evans reported that is correct.  If it was new construction it would still be a Conditional Use Permit much like a church.  The Planning Commission would have the authority to send it to the Site Plan and Architectural Commission.  Ms. Paladino reported that with the amended motion everything would be a Conditional Use Permit temporary and non-temporary.
 
Commissioner Pulver asked his original question again.  Does Ms. Paladino view this as more of a housekeeping item?  Ms. Paladino reported the entire amendment was housekeeping.  It was also directed by City Council with specific questions and looking at changing the conditional use provisions to permitted. 
 
Commissioner McFadden commented that agencies will be submitting their applications and will have to pay the Conditional Use Permit fee.  They have raised the dollar amount bar without necessarily affecting the outcome.  The Planning Commission has not seen a lot of these applications come through.
 
Mr. Mitton addressed Commissioner McFaddenís comment about the Conditional Use Permit fee stating there is a provision in the temporary shelter provision where the Planning Director has authority to reduce or waive application fees or other fees required by the Planning Department.
 
Vice-Chair Foley commented that helped because he was going to vote against this amendment but that particular provision makes a difference to him.  He is supportive of the public hearing part.  He is going to vote to support the amendment.   
 
Commissioner McManus responded to staffís clarification on making the changes as a housekeeping direction.  The 500 feet distance changing to residential is more material than clarification of what it applies.  He does not feel pushed to a strenuous timeline.  He would still vote no.  He would like being able to have follow up comments or recommendations from the Housing Advisory Commission as well as the City Council.
 
Commissioner Pulver echoed that and Commissioner Culbertsonís earlier comments.  It seems that staff was pushing this with seasonality in mind.  Granted the Planning Commission is not the final decision making body.  He would be in favor of this being tabled for two weeks and having the amendment cleaned up more before they make a motion.  He focused on a couple of items that may be rectified but he is not sure.
 
Amended Motion Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 6-2-0, with Commissioner Mansfield and Commissioner McManus voting no.
 
Amended Motion #2: Table this agenda item to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to make adjustments based on the amended motion and any other cleanup they feel necessary.
 
Moved by: Commissioner Pulver                                              Seconded by: Commissioner McManus 
 
Commissioner Thomas stated that he did not think the Commission could table something they just passed.
 
Commissioner Mansfield commented that such a motion is in order. 
 
Mr. Mitton replied that Commissioner Mansfield is correct and clarified that you cannot make a motion when the main motion is pending, however, a motion to table can be made while the main motion is pending.
 
Amended Motion #2 Roll Call Vote: 7-1-0, with Vice-Chair Foley voting no.  
 
60.      Reports
60.1 Site Plan and Architectural Commission.
Commissioner Culbertson reported that the Site Plan and Architectural me Friday, September 18, 2020.  They had a continuance and immediately jumped into a study session discussing modifying the code to where car washes and gas stations can be placed, proximity and exceptions.
 
60.2 Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Pulver reported that the Transportation Commission met yesterday, Wednesday, September 23, 2020. They have been trying to put forth a six year transportation project list to City Council.  The TSP identifies approximately thirty Tier 1 projects in the next twenty five years.  They were trying to prioritize what they thought should be accomplished in the next six years.  Over the six year window the budget is $3 million.  It is troubling that approximately thirty projects over the next twenty five years and there is not enough money to complete one in the next six.  Revenues are not going up but expenses are.  The Engineering Director stated that a big driver of that is $10 million of that is committed to the Mega Corridor.
 
60.3 Planning Department.
Ms. Evans reported that there is a Planning Commission study session scheduled for Monday, September 28, 2020.  Discussion will be on Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Production Strategy update. 
 
There is business scheduled for Thursday, Thursday, October 8, 2020, and Thursday, October 22, 2020.
 
Last week City Council approved the Annexation and Urbanization Plan for MD-5e.
 
The Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association is conducting a virtual conference October 14 through October 16, 2020.  If Commissionerís are interested please let staff know.  Commissioner McFadden commented that in the past it has been a good conference with different interesting contacts.  There are meetings and topics that are covered that the Planning Commission typically does not see.  They have excellent speakers that could be worthwhile.
 
Ms. Evans reported that the Mayor and City Council declared an emergency and the City Manager signed an executive order that allowed anyone to live in RVís on residential properties and right-of-ways in front of homes.  The placement of more than one RV on industrial properties larger than a half-acre.  Staff is also working on assembling a list of potential sites for longer term transitional housing solutions.  These would accommodate FEMA trailers or various other temporary types of dwellings.  The City partnered with Rogue Retreat to open another urban campground.  City Council authorized Rogue Retreat to add tents behind Hope Village.  Staff is also working on example site plans for different types of temporary facilities.  Staff has been working closely with cities in the Valley and County.  The City will continue to participate in the effort.  There are a lot of short term issues and a lot of medium and long term solutions that staff is looking for.
 
Commissioner McManus commented that there are a lot of follow up communications in these types of situations. He suggested so that the Planning Commission is aware of all the things staff, Mayor and City Council are doing, an email summary might be helpful to the Commission so they can relay that information to their constituents.             
 
70.      Messages and Papers from the Chair.  None.
 
80.      City Attorney Remarks.  None.
 
90.      Propositions and Remarks from the Commission.
90.1 Commissioner McFadden stated that with the recent devastation of the fires he knows everybody is helping as much as they can and with the people that need help.  He is hoping the sister cities to the south will take the opportunity to help envision what their city should be rebuilt to look like.  He urged people to be patient and work with their cities to make those envisions ending up with a better Valley than we had before.   
 
100.    Adjournment.
100.1 The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:56 p.m.  The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and are filed in the City Recorderís office.
 
 
Submitted by:
 
                                                                                                               
Terri L. Richards                                                                               
Recording Secretary                                                                      
 
Mark McKechnie
Planning Commission Chair
 
Approved: October 8, 2020
 
 

© 2020 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top