Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-03-2006• • Commissioners Present Council Liaison: Staff Present: Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 3rd, 2006 6:00 PM Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Bruce Westby, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a full quorum. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, December 6th, 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Schumann requested that a review of 2006 Commissioner positions be added as item number 9 on the agenda. Citizen comments. NONE. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zonina Ordinance reaulatina On_ en and Outdoor Storaee in I-1. I-2. and I -IA areas. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman reported that the ad hoc committee had met in December and developed some additional comments related to the four remaining issues to be addressed. Grittman indicated that as a result of the discussion on those items, staff had developed an ordinance, which was included in the Commission packet. However, Grittman stated that the IDC is requesting tabling of the item so that the ad hoc committee could have an opportunity to comment and review the revised ordinance. If the Planning Commission is agreeable to that, the item would be considered in February. Chairman Frie asked if any of the Commissioners had any comments or concerns. Commissioner Spartz noted that there were meetings on this topic in November and December. He stated his opinion that the group had come a long way in the crafting of this ordinance and that if they need additional time to review the amendment, he is comfortable with that. Spartz also asked staff to provide a comparison illustrating the current to proposed ordinance. Grittman noted that staff has worked on that and will be able to provide that information. Chairman Frie stated that the IDC should be aware of the rationale behind an amendment to the ordinance. Frie explained that the Planning Commission wants something in place that is more Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 enforceable than the current ordinance. • Chairman Frie asked if the industrial representatives present would like to make a brief statement. Bill Tapper, 1501 Edmonson, stated that the IDC discussion centered around the promise to distribute the revised amendment prior to Christmas, in order for the ad hoc committee to have an opportunity to review it. Tapper stated that as there are a number of interested parties who've attended the meetings consistently, they would like opportunity to review the final draft. Tapper indicated that while the draft substantially covers what was discussed, there are some typographical errors that need to be corrected. Frie asked if there were any specific concerns. Tapper stated that there were not. Jay Morell, 1401 Fallon Avenue, commented that he supported Tapper's statements. Morrell expressed appreciation to Spartz for attending the meetings and commended the staff on working through the amendment. Morrell noted that the amendment should be sent to those on the attendee list from the ad hoc meetings. Frie noted for the record that a public hearing was not held on the amendment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE THE FINAL AMENDMENT AND REPORT AVAILABLE TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. • 6. Continued Public Hearinia — Consideration reauest for Variance from the Monticello Zonmv, ordinance to allow an 11,760 sa_uare foot detached accessory structure in an 1-2 district. Applicant: Wallboard, Inc. Grittman reviewed the application, explaining that Wallboard, located within an I-2 District, is seeking to construct an 11,760 square foot detached accessory structure in addition to an existing 6330 square foot accessory structure. If allowed to construct the 196' x 60' structure, the detached accessory structure square footage for both would total 18,090 square feet, or almost 35% of the gross principal building's square footage (principal building at 51,904 square feet). Grittman stated that the Commission had tabled action on this item in December, recommending that the applicant meet with staff to discuss other alternatives. He noted that the applicant had considered a principal building expansion, increasing the 30% threshold. However, Grittman reported that the applicant has decided to proceed with the variance request. Grittman stated that he wanted to make clear that there is enough room to build the size of the building they are proposing. The issue is that they need a variance as they are allowed to construct an accessory building that is a maximum of 30% of their principal structure. The building they propose is over that 30%. Grittman referred to the required findings for granting of a variance. He stated that the presumption is that the ordinance should prevail unless a hardship exists. Grittman indicated that physically, there is adequate room to expand the principal structure or just build a smaller building. Therefore, staff does not recommend approval of the variance. Hilgart asked what the difference is between what Wallboard could build and what they are requesting. Grittman stated that he believed it to be about 2500 square feet. 2 Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. • Mike Sand, representing Wallboard, explained that Grittman had touched on a majority of the items. He stated that the principal structure addition is something they may do but he doesn't know when. He doesn't want to move forward on a building permit they may not move forward on. Morel] questioned why the Commission would deny a variance when they are looking to eliminate outdoor storage. Morell stated that from a business standpoint, economics are a hardship factor. He supported giving Wallboard an opportunity to expand. Frie stated that while he understands the financial aspect, the guidelines outlined in both the state and city codes are clear in that economics are not an eligible hardship for variance. Morell responded that perhaps the 30% mark is wrong and n that case, the Commission can make a variance. Frie asked Grittman to respond. Grittman stated if the concern is regarding whether the 30% is appropriate, the remedy is not a variance to a specific request, but an amendment to the ordinance. If the Commission does want to adjust the 30%, that is their option. Frie asked if that would be a Council process. Grittman stated that the request could come from anywhere, but would go through the Commission for public hearing. Tapper commented stated that his property is directly adjacent to the Wallboard property and that he does not oppose the variance. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. • Hilgart stated that in his opinion, if the Commission were going to accommodate the request, it should be through the ordinance. Hilgart asked if anyone else had come forward requesting a change. Grittman stated that he is not aware of other issues with the 30% number. Grittman noted that the ordinances are set up to prefer the principal buildings, as they tend to be more likely employment and tax generators. Hilgart asked if the City should look at different percentages for the different districts. Grittman replied that the Commission could do that. Frie agreed, noting that the ordinance now provides hard and fast direction to the Commission in regard to the variance. Frie asked if the true factor in making the request was economics. Sand answered that it is. Sand stated that they need to be careful in what and when they promise to expand. In response to Grittman's statement regarding primary structures, they are looking for storage, but it doesn't inhibit job creation. Sand said that their company will continue to grow. Frie stated that he feels very strongly about getting things inside and that he believes the balance of the Commission is also supportive of that goal. However, he said that he cannot justify circumventing the code through the variance. Dragsten commented that he was also curious whether other businesses had requested a change from the 30%. Dragsten also noted the outdoor storage issue was a factor here. He stated his opinion that it was difficult to justify the variance. Spartz noted that Wallboard had previously asked for an open and outdoor storage CUP. Spartz asked how much more space would be needed for storage and how much more buildable area there would be without the variance. Sand stated that due to the elevations of their primary building, they can't expand to the west or north and an expansion to the south Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 would present an aesthetic issue. Sand indicated that they do have sufficient room on the east side for expansion. Sand stated that they want to put up an 11,000 square foot accessory . structure. The gap between that and what is allowable is 2500 square feet. Spartz clarified that there is already a shed on the property. Sand concurred, noting that it is currently filled. Spartz asked if Wallboard has gone ahead with the footings and foundation for the new accessory structure. Sand confirmed. Frie asked if Sand had any opinion on the open and outdoor storage meeting. Sand stated that he feels that they've come along way in the year that the group has been meeting. He stated that agreed it is important for committee members to be able to review the item. Suchy also noted the existing CUP for open and outdoor storage. Suchy asked what the advantage is to keeping Wallboard's product indoors. Sand explained that some of their product is weather resistant. However, moisture does create problems and lost product. Sand indicated that Wallboard needs as much indoor storage as possible. Suchy stated that while she understands their position, she does believe that the 30% is adequate unless there is a justifiable reason for expansion. Suchy stated that in her opinion, this request doesn't meet the guidelines for the variance. Sand stated that there is always gray area, and although he understands the black and white of the ordinance, he is requesting that the Commission make a decision based on what makes sense. Frie asked Grittman if the Commission can approve the variance and adjust the 30% without amending the ordinance. Grittman stated they would have to amend the ordinance. Frie asked if Commission denies the variance, does Wallboard have the right to appeal. Grittman stated . that the applicant can appeal to the Council. Frie asked for Wallboard's timeframe. Sand stated that they would take every step as fast as they can, as they need to order their structure. Posusta commented that the City tries hard to entice businesses to come to Monticello, and we have a business that wants to expand storage to help their business make their product better. He stated that he thinks the Commission should allow that to happen. If it means amending the code, then he stated that is what should be done. Schumann asked Sand if Wallboard was interested in applying for the amendment. Sand indicated that he could not answer at this point. Dragsten asked if the Commission could call for the hearing. Grittman stated that it could. Sand stated that with all due respect, he would request that Commission grant the variance and then amend the ordinance. Frie indicated that process would be putting the cart before the horse. Posusta stated that he would like to vote on the request and see what he Council has to say in an appeal. O'Neill noted that there is a public hearing process for the appeal of variance. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIP IS PRESENT, AND THAT THE APPLICANT CAN • CONTINUE TO PUT THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE UNDER THE BASIC ZONING REGULATIONS WITHOUT A VARIANCE. Planning Commission Minutes O1/03/06 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0 Frie clarified that Sand understood the process that was going to occur. Sand confirmed. The Commission briefly discussed a time and date for a public hearing regarding an amendment on this topic. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 23an, 2006 AT 6:00 PM TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE "I" ZONING DISTRICTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stake Planned Unit Development in a PZM District. Applicant: UP Development Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the concept PUD proposed includes 40 attached townhouse units on approximately 6.8 acres of land. The west boundary of the project is Elm Street, with 6'/2 Street extending through the project, connecting with Elm. Grittman reported that the project consists of a series of looped private drives and two-story buildings in groups of 4 and 6 units. Grittman referenced that the site was subject to a previous concept PUD proposal, which had included a mix of 41 detached and attached units. In that plan, the developer proposed a housing design new to Monticello, relying on rear - loaded garages exiting directly to an alley. Grittman noted that the minimal use of driveways was intended to focus more property in front yard open spaces. Grittman stated that the new • proposal design is more garage -oriented, noting the loop street with driveways and direct access to units. Grittman stated that the applicant has also indicated that he is working on a concept for the property on the west side of Elm Street. He has used that suggestion as part of the argument in favor of considering a more dense project on this side, with less density on the other side. Grittman noted that proposal is not to be considered with this part of the request. The question is how far is the Commission willing to go in terms of approval, in consideration of the other site for leverage. Grittman relayed that staff does have concerns with the east side, notwithstanding what happens on the west. Primarily, the concern is the amount of housing on this site. Grittman noted that when looking at PUDs, the City should make a finding that there is a tangible benefit to the use of PUD design flexibility. Grittman stated that an increase in density is not necessarily a negative, if by using private streets, a site is able to have increased building separation. However, Grittman noted that did not happen in this case. Instead, the developer increased the amount of impervious surface. Grittman stated that the project includes very little open space that is not consolidated and usable. Grittman stated that when the project was considered previously, one of the issues was trying to make sure that the open space was usable and offset visually from the front yard access. With this plan, Grittman indicated that almost all of the front yards are driveways. As a site itself, the plan maximizes density, at 7 units per acre, Grittman reported. Theoretically, from a zoning code perspective, Grittman said that 8 units per acre would be possible, but that would leave no usable open space. Grittman said that staff is also concerned about the back-to-back housing units with only a single exposure. This arrangement makes them into multi -family units. The single exposure does present a liveability issue. • Grittman indicated that there are also other functional issues, including a number of driveways that come out into corners, which presents visibility and safety issues. The building separation Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 is also a concern. Grittman discussed the next steps in the PUD process, stating that concept stage PUD is an opportunity to provide feedback to the developer. At this point, Grittman • stated that staff s recommendation is denial of the concept stage PUD. Grittman recommended that if the intent is to balance density between the east and west sites, the applicant should present both together. Frie asked Grittman to briefly explain the difference between attached and detached townhomes. Grittman said that the simple explanation is an attached unit shares a common wall with another unit. The units are all townhouses in that they each have their own lot. In contrast, Grittman explained that a detached unit has no common walls. He noted that all the units would be governed by an association, but detached units are separate free-standing structures on smaller lots. Dragsten asked if the interior townhomes are multi -family as defined by the ordinance. Grittman confirmed that and replied that the ordinance also defines different styles of units. For example, a townhouse is a unit that has a separate private front and rear entrance. A "townhouse" is essentially a row house; it might have a side common wall. However, Grittman stated that back-to-back style units are not "townhouses" by definition. He noted that the PZM district, which is the zoning district applicable in this situation, does allow multi- family units. Drgatsen asked if the multi -family units could still be sold separately. Grittman confirmed that they could be. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Goeman, Goeman Realty, 307 145t" Street, addressed the Commission. Goeman stated that he owns one of the homes in the adjacent Vine Place subdivision. Goeman indicated that he had delivered the plan to others in the Vine Place subdivision. He indicated that he had spoken with about ten neighbors, and the consensus is that they are happy with the open space that is there. Goeman stated that they do not what to see this density. Goeman said that they would like to see this plan put over the Vine Place townome plan as a comparison. Goeman explained that the Vine Street project consists of 26 homes on 4 acres. At the time that project was proposed, he noted that the fire department and post office had concerns about private streets and density. Goeman commented that while he understands the motive for density, there are other factors to consider on this site. Frie stated that long-range, something will be developed there. Goeman confirmed that the residents understand that, but they would like to see quality rather than quantity. Hilgart asked if Vine Place was a PUD project. Grittman replied that it was, as it included flexibility to setbacks and private streets. The benefits to that project were the front yard space and alley driveways. Tom Rollings, addressed the Commission as applicant and representative of UP Development. Rollings stated that he had hoped to get feedback on the entire 21 acres before proceeding. He indicated that he does have control of the whole site. Rollings asked the Commission if they had seen the concept plan for the whole site. Frie stated that in considering providing feedback on the whole site, the Commission would be straying from what the agenda item is. Rollings stated that he had taken the single family off of this site, because he had acquired the whole site. The single-family product had been moved to the west side. Rollings referred to the elevation drawings, noting that he has a • builder for the east side and the elevations are reflective of the product that would be built. He stated that the units are over 1500 square feet and are townhomes with an association. Rollings commented that the phasing would be from the single family on the west side, then to Cel Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 detached and row homes, then on the higher density back-to-back townhomes on this east portion. Rollings indicated that on entire site, the density is just under 6 units per acre. He indicated that Vine Place is at 5.2 units per acre. Rollings stated that the private drives are • currently at 28 feet, but they can go to a narrower width to provide more greenspace, and change access points. Rollings stated that on the west side of the project, 32 of the 80 units are detached with rear -load access. Frie restated that while he understands there is a larger site, the request is for concept stage PUD only on the east side of the project. Frie asked what the market for the project is. Rollings stated that it will be a mix due to mix of entire project. Mike Cyr, developer of Vine Place townhomes, stated that it is his understanding that the concern of the Vine Place residents is that this project would be detrimental to their property values. Cyr said that the values should be the same for this project as Vine Place. He said that the project is too dense, in his opinion. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that when Vine Place was constructed, people probably thought that project was also too dense. Hilgart asked if the west side is also zoned PZM. Grittman confirmed. Hilgart asked Rollings what the density would be on the west side. Rollings responded it would be 80 units on 14.4 acres. Hilgart stated that at this point, he would like to see the whole project at once. He explained that he can't accept a PUD on this side alone if they are meant to fit together. • Dragsten stated that the impervious area shown on the plan is a concern for him. Dragsten inquired about the gross living area. Rollings answered that the units range from 1548-1566 square feet total, with about 750 per level. Dragsten confirmed the 6-plex units include a double -car garage. Rollings concurred, stating that they are tuck -under. Dragsten stated that he did like the design of the units, but that some additional style variation would make it even better. Dragsten commented that overall, the project is an okay, but not superior. He noted that this type of density and the lack of open space areas are a concern. Dragsten asked if he had plans for additional open space. Rollings stated that he does not at this time. Rollings stated that if the units could front off 6'/z, they would get a lot more green space in the back, but that design would change the entrance/exits. Rollings inquired about a possible reduction in the width of the street. Dragsten stated that there are not many projects in the city with private drives at 24'. Dragsten stated that if the 6 unit works, he would leave it up to marketing. Spartz stated that he is also concerned about the density on the east portion. He indicated that he would also like to see the whole plan. Suchy commented that she would also like to see the whole plan. She stated that the density is also too high, indicating that she would prefer it to be around 6 units per acre. Suchy noted that she wants to see more amenities. She said that a big concern is the lack of both front and rear yards, and open green space. Suchy also referenced that she would like to see adequate street lighting in these locations. • Rollings stated that he thought the Commission was going to see the whole plan, including the sketch for the west side. Rollings inquired about feedback from Council. 7 Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 Posusta asked if staff had tried to discourage him from bringing this plan forward. Posusta stated that the direction of the Council has been to not increase units per acre. Posusta stated • that if staff didn't convey that, they should have. Rollings indicated that staff had made a recommendation to reduce density. Rollings stated that he wanted to do a better job in bringing a proposal forward. He stated that the project has been an 18 month communication and evolution. He commented that the next time the Commission sees it, it will be combined. Posusta noted that a recent developer had just dropped all of the townhouse from their plan and put in single-family units. He suggested that if Rollings made these all the units four plexes, it might be more palatable. Posusta stated that for the most part, the Council is against packing as many townhouses into a parcel as possible. Posusta commented that he feels Rollings is wasting time by bringing such a project forward, as it doesn't meet lowest residential district guidelines in terms of setbacks and greenspace. Posusta stated it would be better to see the project as a whole. O'Neill noted that staff had wanted to see both sides together in a formal application. However, the developer didn't want to bring other side forward in a formal concept stage application. It was staffs opinion that the sketch plan needed to be part of same concept PUD application if the Commission were going to review it, not based on a promise of what was may occur on the other side. O'Neill noted that the original concept for detached single- family was approved. At that time, the developer did receive good feedback and was about 3- 4 units away from the desired density. Frie summarized the Commission's comments, stating that the direction is that both east and west should compliment each other. Additionally, the developer is responsible for higher site standards and building design because of the PUD designation. Also, the Commission would • rather see an all -encompassing project. Frie inquired about the submission deadline for the applicant' west side materials. Schumann indicated that the deadline had passed, but could perhaps be extended to allow the applicant to be considered on the February agenda. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE PUD UNTIL AN AMENDED PLAN IS PRESENTED TO INCLUDE THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT, AND TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THIS APPLICANT BY ONE WEEK. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Grittman introduced Charles Carlson, with Northwest Associated Consultants. Carlson will be assisting with Monticello work in the future. Carlson is a graduate of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute. DWSMA and Zoning Presentation by City Engineer and Public Works Director Bruce Westby presented the staff report on the item, noting that John Simola would have provided the presentation, had he been available. Simola was key in developing the Welllhead Protection Plan (WHPP). • Bruce Westby referred to thegraphic included in the packet, referencing the WHPP. He explained that the WHPP is meant to protect drinking water, noting that there are many Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 management strategies within the plan. Two of the identified strategies relate to the scope of the Planning Commission. Westby stated that there are specific areas within the DWSMA (Drinking Water Safety Management Area), which are reflected in the grey areas of graphic, that represent moderate and high vulnerability in terms of development impacts on the safety of drinking water. For example, there are three currently three wells within the high vulnerability area, and two in moderate vulnerability areas. Westby indicated that the point of the graphic is to show that the DWSMA connects with zoning districts. He stated that the development of commercial and industrial projects within the vulnerability districts allows for greatest risk of contamination. Westby stated that he and Simola are requesting that City staff, working with Commission, review zoning districts and revised them as necessary to minimize or eliminate potential contamination, and to consider the DWSMA in establishing future zoning boundaries. Secondly, Westby noted that it will be important for staff, again working with the Commission, to contact Public Works Director when it is known that a well will be included with a new development. Westby recommended the last measure as a means for the finding the best location for the well. Westby stated that staff recommends fully approving the City Engineer and Public Works recommendation. Frie inquired who the representatives on the committee had been for residents and the Council. Westby responded that it had been Tom Perrault for the Council and Jeff Burns for a resident liaison. Burns also serves on the School Board. Frie asked how long the WHPP had been in place and how the plan was funded. Westby stated that the plan had two parts. The first was identification of vulnerable areas, which was . published in January of 2004. The second part was development of management strategies, which was published in March 2005. O'Neill stated that the WHPP could have been funded through trunk or general funds. Frie asked if there is a well intended for the Jefferson development. Westby stated that he believes there may be, although there are no specific locations yet. Dragsten asked how the vulnerability was determined. Westby stated it has to do with confining layers, soil types, and percolation. Dragsten asked how deep the wells in vulnerable areas are. Westby stated that he doesn't know the depths of all wells. Dragsten asked if they want separation between surface and groundwater to last longer than 10 years. Westby stated that the area outlined in light grey is the area where surface water will reach well within 10 years. Westby stated that a separation longer than 10 years would increase quality of water reaching the wells. O'Neill stated that while zoning districts wouldn't necessarily change, a strategy will be to create an overlay district with certain standards for the protection areas. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE WPMC'S REQUESTS OF CITY STAFF, WITH CONCURRENCE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO REVIEW OUR CURRENT ZONING BOUNDARIES, REVISE THEM AS DEEMED NECESSARY AND ESTABLISH FUTURE ZONING BOUNDARIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR DWSMA, AND TO CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ONCE IT IS KNOWN THAT A DEVELOPER • IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL A NEW WATER SUPPLY WELL. C Planning Commission Minutes 01/03/06 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. • 9. Consideration to review and recommend 2006 Commissioner appointments. Schumann reported that the terms for Commissioner Frie and Dragsten were set to expire and inquired whether they would be interested in serving an additional term. Commissioner Dragsten indicated that he would serve another term on the Commission. Chariman Frie stated that as it was his intention to tender his resignation, effective at the completion of the regular January meeting. Frie stated that he had enjoyed his nine years on the Commission and he thanked City staff, the Council liaisons he had worked with previously, including Councilmembers Herbst, Stumpf and Posusta. He also thanked his fellow Commissioners and former Commissioners, noting that it had been a pleasure to work with them, and he thanked the Commission secretary. Frie expressed his thanks to the community for the opportunity. In closing, Frie made a request that the community, Planning Commission and Council keep growing and learning and getting better. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRIE TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. O'Neill stated that having Frie as Chairman had been a fantastic experience. He stated that the Chairman always ran meetings efficiently, with class, and a sense of humor. O'Neill thanked Frie, stating that he and others had benefited from his class and sense of humor. 10. Adiourn. As noted above. E 'W't a ! ,,---- 10