Committee Minutes


PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
City of Grand Forks, North Dakota
November 3, 2010

1. MEMBERS PRESENT

The meeting was called to order by Paula Lee at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Steve Adams, Jim Bollman, Doug Christensen, John Drees, Robert Drees, Jim Galloway, Al Grasser, Bill Hutchison, Laura Jelinek, Gary Malm, Frank Matejcek, Dana Sande and Mike St. Onge. Absent: Mayor (Dr.) Michael Brown. A quorum was present.

Staff present: Brad Gengler, City Planner; Charles Durrenberger, Senior Planner; Roxanne Achman, Planner; and Carolyn Schalk, Senior Administrative Specialist (Planning and Zoning Department); Bev Collings, Building and Zoning Administrator (Building and Inspections Office) and Mike Flermoen, Fire Department. Absent: Ryan Brooks, Senior Planner.

Lee welcomed Laura Jelinek as a new member to the planning and zoning commission. She replaces Tom Hagness.

2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 6, 2010.

Lee asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of October 6, 2010. There were no corrections noted and Lee said the minutes would stand as presented.

Gengler requested the commission suspend the agenda to include the rezoning of the Hansen property. He explained the commission had heard the rezoning request previously in December, 2009. The request was for the developers to bring back professional renderings and drawings of the proposed plan for the commission to see. Through a lack of communication, the developer thought it was on the agenda for November 3, 2010.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY SANDE TO SUSPEND THE AGENDA.

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY GRASSER TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AS 4-2.

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FINAL APPROVALS, PETITIONS AND MINOR CHANGES.

3-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED AT NORTH 5TH STREET BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND 1ST AVENUE NORTH.

Gengler reviewed the expansion project for Central High School by showing the schematics for the additions of the theater and the athletic area. The two vacations associated with the plat have been acted on. A site plan is required but the planning department has not received the final product as yet. However, the plat and the vacations will not be filed and recorded until the site plan is approved.

There were no questions from the commission.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

Galloway asked to be excused from voting on the request. MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO EXCUSE GALLOWAY FROM VOTING ON THE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION BY HUTCHISON AND SECOND BY ST. ONGE TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Change the 20-foot utility easement between Block 19 and vacated 2nd Avenue North to a 20-foot sidewalk and utility easement.
3. Revise the metes and bounds description in the owner’s certificate to include all lands within the plat boundary.
4. The Central High School Addition and the corresponding vacations will not be recorded until such time the city has granted approval to the pending site plans related to the building additions. The planning and zoning commission and the city council have previously agreed to this condition.

MOTION CARRIED WITH MALM VOTING NAY.

3-2. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER XVIII OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 18-0204 RELATING TO RULES AND DEFINITIONS AND 18-0220 F-1 (FLOODWAY) AND F-2 (FLOODPLAIN) DISTRICTS.

Collings reviewed the ordinances. The ordinances are necessary for the adoption of the “D” Firm Map.
Matejcek said he wanted to make sure the ordinances cover the zero to two miles zoning area around the city. FEMA action for anything that happens in the flood plain goes to the zoning entity and that entity is the city of Grand Forks. People in the two-mile area carry flood insurance and they don’t want the flood insurance option taken away.

Collings said it would cover the entire jurisdiction of the zoning area and that includes the two-mile extra territorial area. The city of Grand Forks, ND is required to follow Model D ordinance.

In the area beyond the two-mile jurisdiction, Matejcek said that Model C was recommended to them. Any building site has to be at least two feet above the base flood elevation (BFE).

State requirements are that residential properties have to be one foot above BFE and commercial properties have to be at least two feet above BFE.

Grasser stated it was staff’s opinion of what it will apply to but staff cannot control what FEMA will ultimately decide.

Matejcek said FEMA’s concern is who functions as the zoning entity on flood related matters. The county will not help them. He wanted it made clear at the meeting because it affects a lot of people in the Burke Addition and also north of Grand Forks. He does not care if they are in a Model C or D as long as they are included in the ordinance. If they are not included, then on December 17, they will be out of the flood insurance program.

Collings stated the deadline is December 17 and that is the reason for getting the ordinances passed before that date. The ordinance does include the extra territorial jurisdiction; it is not just the city limits. Staff made sure to include the terminology “the city’s jurisdiction.”

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY MATEJCEK AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCES AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-3. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM THE GRAND FORKS PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING CHAPTER XVIII, ARTICLE 8, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; SECTION 18-0802, ELEMENTS, OF THE GRAND FORKS CITY CODE OF 1987, AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2035 LAND USE PLAN (MAP AMENDMENT NO. 4 – WELLNESS CENTER VILLAGE).

Achman reviewed the ordinance that amends the Land Use Plan map for the Wellness Center Village property and changes the area from residential to commercial. The area will be designated as a PUD (planned unit development). There was a discussion on the surrounding zoning area.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY SANDE TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-4. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM KEVIN RITTERMAN, ON BEHALF OF DAKOTA COMMERCIAL, FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS C & D, BLOCK 1, MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3700 BLOCK OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE.

Lee noted since this is a fast track, this is the only time the replat would be seen by the commission.

Gengler reviewed the replat request by giving a brief overview since the initial development. The developer has requested a “footings and foundation” permit for the proposed replat for an additional 35 unit apartment building. He showed a map of the McEnroe site south of the Ray Richards Golf Course with 42nd Street on the west and 11th Avenue South to the south. He pointed to the buildings that currently exist and labeled as A, B and C. Buildings A and B are 44 unit structures and building C is a 67 unit structure. Building D is the current building under review and associated with the proposed replat. It would be a maximum of 35 units.

The area has been platted and zoned for years and density maximums are tied to each individual sub-area. Building D is 6.05 acres on the existing platted lot and the lot is capped at 6.5 units per acre for the entire six acres. The proposal would maximize the available units to be constructed. A 35-unit apartment building would result in a 5.8 unit per acre density. This means no other buildings would be allowed on the property. The developer would have to request a change of the commission if they wanted to do something different. There have been sensitivity issues for the area that have to be taken into account with the townhome development to the east and throughout the general area. The issues have to do with the densities. There is parking located to the north, creating a more centralized parking area. The only thing remaining on the east side is a row of garages. The developers are still accomplishing the same density for the same acreage except for the shifting of the parking lot. In order to shift the parking lot to the area shown on the map, approval is needed for the proposed replat. The replat reconfigures the existing lots to match the same acreage and keep the same density requirements; the lot lines are shifted. There is some benefit to shifting the parking lot from the east to the north and that reduces the problems with headlights. The project does fit with the current zoning as well as the current platting. They would be allowed to build the building on the existing lot and it would force them to create the parking lot and more of the development closer to the residential area. By approving the replat, they will not have the possibility of doing that. Now the parking will be to the north of the proposed parking lot. That seemed to be a good compromise.

There was a discussion of the shifting lot lines and density levels.

Gengler noted the Magellan pipeline runs through the property and that puts heavy restrictions on what is allowed to be on top of it and what is allowed to be next to it.

Parking and the parking lots were discussed. Gengler said the developer provides above and beyond parking to reduce on-street parking. After questioning water run-off, Gengler stated that there are still several matters that are being studied as far as overall drainage.

As part of recommending approval of the plat, the commission will be giving approval to the parking lot to the north.

Christensen asked what is proposed for the property east of the Magellan pipeline. Gengler replied that at the present, it would be a no-build zone because they have maxed out the density.

Christensen wanted to know about the buffering between the development and the townhomes to the east. There will be push back from the residents south of 11th Avenue South because of the number of apartments allowed in the area. He suggested a moratorium on development until a better resolution is presented.

Gengler said he did not see the issue buffering as far as landscaping because that is handled through the site plan review process. There is no need to prolong the building of the apartment building because once the building is completed, they have reached the maximum density.

Malm wanted clarification. Once Building D is completed, there will be no more development north of 11th Avenue South?

Gengler stated that was incorrect. There can be no more development east of the Magellan Pipeline because the densities are maxed.

Galloway asked if the developers had met with the neighborhood. Gengler stated the neighborhood would be notified once the area to the south is brought in for platting.

Lee opened the public hearing. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY BOLLMAN TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Submit utility master plan.
3. Set monuments at new lot corners.
4. Use shorter version of the city council approval as no new rights-of-way are dedicated with this plat.
5. List Dana Sande as the Planning and Zoning Commission secretary.
6. Change Lots 1 and 2 to “F” and “G.”
7. Remove unnecessary lot dimensions from Lot “C.”

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-5. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. (AE2S), ON BEHALF OF TURNING POINT, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO ANNEX LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, MCENROE SECOND RESUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND, LOCATED IN THE 3700 BLOCK OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE.

Gengler reviewed the annexation request. Option A is staff’s recommendation that goes beyond the platted right-of-way. The developer’s choice was to only annex the area adjacent to the roadway of Garden View Drive (Option B). The difference of Option A to Option B is only a minimal amount of acres but staff felt the line should be brought straight down to make a cleaner annexation area.

Malm thanked staff for the annexation point rating system.

MOTION BY SANDE AND SECOND BY CHRISTENSEN TO APPROVE OPTION A AS THE ANNEXATION AREA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3-6. (PUBLIC HEARING) MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM CPS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF OVERPASS INVESTORS, L.L.P., FOR FINAL APPROVAL (FAST TRACK) OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, DEMERS SEVENTH ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, LOCATED NORTH OF DEMERS AVENUE AND EAST OF NORTH COLUMBIA ROAD.

Lee noted since the item is a fast track, this would be the only time the commission will see it and act on it.

Durrenberger reviewed the replat, stating the LaFarge Concrete facility is growing and needs additional storage space for the railroad cars. There is not enough stacking space for the cars bringing in the raw materials. LaFarge Concrete approached Overpass Investors, LLP about purchasing a triangle shaped area (.18 acres) located north of the strip mall area that includes Team Electronics. As a fast track, any variances need to be approved by the commission. There are two variances attached to the replat. A variance from the definition of a minor subdivision is needed to include the existing and proposed utility easements on the plat and another variance because the property does not have a roadway to access it; it is landlocked. Staff recommendation is for final approval of the replat request, subject to the technical changes shown on or attached to the review copy and also for the two variances as noted.

Lee opened the public hearing.

Brad Beyer, 2422 DeMers Avenue, representing LaFarge, stated there was an existing rail that goes back to the other property. They are adding a switch to make it twice as wide. Instead of stacking cars one wide, there will be cars stacked two wide. There is no impact to any traffic. The intent is to fence in the additional property

Lee closed the public hearing.

MOTION BY BOLLMAN AND SECOND BY MALM TO APPROVE THE REPLAT REQUEST AND VARIANCES SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include 10-foot wide utility easement along the westerly line of Lot A.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4. COMMUNICATIONS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVALS:

4-1. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. (AE2S), ON BEHALF OF KEITH D. DANKS, SR. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF DANKS FOURTH RESUBDIVISION LOCATED AT SOUTH 42ND STREET AND 8TH AVENUE SOUTH.

Gengler reviewed the plat request, explaining the property is located north of the Alerus and between South 42nd Street and I-29. The property has been platted for some time and the zoning is within the Danks PUD (planned unit development) with a designation of commercial uses. The replat is to convey the property from one party to another party. There is no development plans at this time. The property is not annexed and since there is no request for infrastructure, there is no need for annexation. There is a document on file from the land acquisition agreement between Mr. Danks, Sr. and the city that provides for a prolonged annexation of this area. As part of the purchase agreement, until such time that development is requested through a detailed development plan, none of the lots would be forcibly annexed.

Galloway asked about access to Lots 2 and 3. Gengler explained there is a roadway and utility easement providing access to Lots 2 and 3 as well as Lot 4.

Christensen pointed out that Gengler expressed his opinion of the agreement between Mr. Danks and the city but it was not a legal opinion. The agreement actually states “except as otherwise provided by law.” Assuming approval of the plat, there is no representations that the city would not annex the property.

A public hearing is not necessary since the request is for preliminary approval.

Malm asked about the two cul-de-sacs located at each end of South 43rd Street. Gengler stated they had been there since 1996 and the access to that roadway is 8th Avenue South. There will be issues in the future as to intersection lights.

Christensen asked if there were plats that accurately depict the accesses so that people who want to buy each lot could see them. Gengler said there were plats available that showed the access points. Christensen noted it might be a good idea to get rid of the cul-de-sacs. He wants to make sure that developers of the property know it does not have to look like that.

Grasser said the plat is just for purposes of conveyance of property.

Christensen said there are future plans for some type of underpass/overpass on DeMers Avenue and South 42nd Street. He asked Grasser about how the city will get over or under the train. Will there be enough reserve from Lots 1, 2 and 3 to have enough access? Grasser replied that is why the land to the east is not being replatted at this time. When the land to the east is replatted, the city will have to determine the alternatives they will need to reserve land. People should be able to see what is available and what proposals are for.

Grasser asked if a note to the plat would help to state: “Access shown for South 42nd Street may be subject to change based on an on-going study of a grade separation project. Copies of alternatives are available at the city engineer’s office.” That would make it clear that everything may not stay exactly as it is shown. Christensen suggested the wording be fine-tuned by city attorney, Howard Swanson. Grasser said they would discuss it with Mr. Swanson between the planning meeting and meeting of city council.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY GALLOWAY TO APPROVE THE PLAT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS TALKED ABOUT BY CHRISTENSEN AND GRASSER AND SUBJECT TO THE TECHNICAL CHANGES SHOWN ON OR ATTACHED TO THE REVIEW COPY:
1. Submit title opinion.
2. Include additional existing utility easement along the west line of Lots 2, 3 and 4.
3. Show existing monuments and monuments set.
4. Include curve data.
5. Add spot ground elevations or contours.
6. Include widths of all rights-of-way.
7. Add missing lot dimensions.
8. Include distances and bearings along all plat boundary lines.
9. Check all distances.
10. Show correct acreage on all lots.
11. Supply a utility master plan for this area.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

4-2. MATTER OF THE REQUEST FROM MIKE OPP, ON BEHALF OF HANSEN CHRYSLER PROPERTIES, LLP, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE AND EXCLUDE FROM THE B-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT AND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE R-4 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, HIGH DENSITY) DISTRICT, LOT F, BLOCK 1, OF THE REPLAT OF LOTS A, D AND E, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 2, HANSEN’S ADDITION; LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BOYD’S ADDITION; AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HANSEN’S ADDITION, ALL TO THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND.

Achman reviewed the rezoning request. The request was brought before the commission in December, 2009 at which time the commission requested renderings for the proposed use of the property. The rezoning is for the old Hanson Ford/Lithia Chrysler property (three properties) and located across from Simplot. The area is a mix of commercial and residential properties. With approval for the rezoning, the plan is to construct four 36-plex apartments. The renderings were shown and Achman explained that the impervious surface of the area would be reduced from 85% to 55%. Since the area is in the corridor overlay district, certain materials would be required.

Grasser asked if a holding pond would be constructed or is the decrease in impervious surface supposed to meet the demands of water quality. Achman said that had not been discussed at yet.

Malm asked about the density of the 144 apartments and the resulting traffic that would be generated. There is very poor access to Stanford Road and the only other access is the frontage road.

Gengler said as part of the review process and depending on preliminary approval, the developer could work with the city on possible traffic studies for problem areas.

Hutchison brought up the concern of drainage at 13th Avenue North and Darwin Drive. He remembered that one of the options for drainage was to take water to Gateway Drive. He wondered if the drainage issues could be incorporated in the proposed plan. Once the development is in place, it will be hard to go back and try to correct the problems.

Grasser answered that the solution might be to reserve an easement along the south side of the property for the future installation of pipes to carry water away from the problem areas. It would not be possible to require the pipe to go in as part of the project but the city can reserve a 20-foot or 30-foot easement along the property for future use.

Hutchison stated that when the other apartments were constructed, they were specifically prohibited from accessing onto Boyd Drive. Would that apply to these apartments also? He was told yes.

Christensen thanked Mr. Opp for his plan by first rezoning the property. Since the acreage is only 8.8 acres, it is too small for a planned unit development (PUD). Stanford Road is fairly narrow and there has been much discussion in the past from the neighborhood residents about traffic and water drainage. The plan is to add 144 units and the possibility of an additional 300 cars to the area. The proposed project looks very nice and he said he was not against it, but the commission and the city needs to understand the impacts the apartments will have on other areas.

Grasser said that typically the city does not ask for a traffic study and probably should do that more often. That would validate what some of the traffic impacts would be on site and in the area.

Christensen said he did not want to create any more costs and wondered if the engineering department could do the traffic study. Grasser answered the city does not have the computer models to do the traffic studies.

Gengler noted that rezoning the property from the B-3 to the R-4 status greatly diminishes what can be constructed on the property.

Christensen asked the maximum number of units that could be constructed on the property. Gengler replied that in an R-4 District, 50 units per acre.

Achman said the proposed density is 16 units per acre with the 36-plex.

Gengler stated there have been rezoning ordinances in the past where the density has been capped. The proposed ordinance could be approved with a density cap also.

Galloway said he had not noticed a traffic study being a requirement for projects. He asked what the history was for the planning and zoning commission requiring traffic studies.

Gengler said in the past, traffic studies have been required for large developments such as the Super Target development or the Bronson property. He also pointed out the subject property with the continued B-3 zoning could be developed as a shopping center and/or grocery store without having to come before the commission. The impact of the 144 units would be much less than a grocery store, strip mall or a high turnover restaurant.

Christensen stated he was for the development and would approve it, but wanted the commission to understand that the units will probably house university students and the additional 300 cars will pass through Stanford Road or Columbia Road.

Lee asked Grasser about whether or not a holding pond should be required. Grasser replied there is a fair amount of pervious surface and if a pond were to be required it would be a very modest sized pond. Since the request is preliminary, maybe it would be an option to request a traffic study between preliminary and final approval. He also liked the option of limiting the density by ordinance. Grasser said he would also like the ordinance to set a limitation of the impervious surface.

MOTION BY CHRISTENSEN AND SECOND BY ST. ONGE TO INCLUDE LIMITING DENSITY AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BY ORDINANCE AND A TRAFFIC STUDY BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR REZONING. HE ALSO REQUESTED THAT STAFF WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED.

Hutchison asked the length of time for a typical traffic study.

Grasser replied that if an engineer can be on board immediately, the report would take approximately a month. When asked about the cost, Grasser said it would be in the thousands of dollars range.

Jane Williams, traffic engineer for the city, stated it would not be a real involved study. It would be a comparison of existing trip generations and what type trip distribution is involved for certain periods of time. It should not slow up the project since all of the information is readily available.

Malm said a traffic study might be good but there is no traffic out there now because there is no development there right now. He said most of the traffic will not go to Stanford Road but will go out to Gateway Drive because it will be a faster route for them. Stanford Road has a school zone as well as four way stops.

Christensen said that would be fine with him. Gateway Drive is the road that should be used and Stanford Road will not be impacted. If the city engineer gives a common sense report to that effect, the project will be fine.

Malm said people drive 55 mph down Gateway Drive because there is nothing to slow them down. It is a very busy street; however, he would love to see the property developed.

Sande said there were instances in town where people are forced to take a right turn from a local road onto an arterial road. Can the city force people to take a right turn onto Gateway Drive and avoid the problem of people taking Stanford Road?

Gengler said that would be one of several factors the traffic study analysis would determine.

Sande said he agreed that the commission should be considerate of the people living in the area. He also stated the Hansen property is a big eyesore and a redevelopment with more green space would be good. As long as the developers deal with the traffic issue, they can put in as many apartments as they want.

Grasser said he agreed with Gengler that without changing the zoning, something with much more impact could develop on the property without any action by the commission or city council. The proposed development is much better than what could be there.

Jelinek said a study would be nice since her thought was that the residents of the apartments would head south through the residential area. They will be heading toward a parking lot close to the university.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:

5-1. MATTER OF THE REPORT ON THE SIGNAL COORDINATION IMPLEMENTATION.

Earl Haugen, Director of the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO), introduced Mike Anderson, consultant, who gave a report on the signal coordination implementation.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

6-1. MATTER OF SELECTION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR OFFICERS FOR YEARS 2011-2012.

Lee asked for volunteers to be on the nominating committee. The nominating committee will bring in a slate of officers to be considered at the December 1, 2010 meeting. The following will be the nominating committee for officers during 2011-2012: Jim Galloway, Mike St. Onge and Steve Adams.

7. ADJOURNMENT.

MOTION BY MALM AND SECOND BY JOHN DREES TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


____________________________
Dana Sande, Secretary


____________________________
Paula H. Lee, President