Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-05-2000 I I . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, Septemher 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst 4. Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Al Brixius and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 1. 2000 and the special meeting of August 14,2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICIIARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1,2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TI IE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14,2000. Motion carried unanimously. '"' j. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Clint Herbst asked to discuss a Used Cm Lot on I Iighway 25. This was placed as Item #14 .Jeff O'Neill asked to provide an update on the 7th Street strip mall. This was placed as Item #15. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Heming - Consideration of a re<.luest for a variance to the side yard setbacks to construct a garage. Applicant: Edward & Marla Ilughes .Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised the Planning Comlnission that they are asked to consider granting a variance request to the side yard setback which will allow development of an attached garage. The setback proposed under the request is g feet which results in a variance of 2 feet. -1- I I . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 O'Neill noted that variances are rcgularly granted in this neighborhood duc to thc nlct that the homes were situated on lots in a fashion that docs not allow developmcnt of a two car garage without a variance. Also, this particular rcquest is a repeat of an identical reqncst submitted and approved earlicr by the Planning Commission. 'rhis item is back beforc the Planning Commission because the applicant did not build thc garage within one year of thc granting of the previous variance. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Marla Hughes, applicant, addressed the commission stating the reason for this request is to update their home. Hughes explained that they did not build the garage when the variance was previously granted as they were contemplating whether they would stay in Monticello at that time and there were also some financial issues. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Hughes notes that there was a previous issue in the past regarding some trees located on the property and she noted that they are in compliance. Hughes also noted that there is a natural barrier between their home and their neighbor which includes a fence as well as trees. Rod Dragsten stated he continues to disagree with the variance as he does not believe it constitutes a hardship. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITII AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE TIlE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT" TIlE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW CUSTOMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY WIIlCH INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO CAR GARAGE. APPROVAL OF TI--IE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT IMPAIR THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Rod Dragsten opposing. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reCluest to amend the conditional use permit for Monticello Auto Bodv to add a Darcel of land to the planned unit development for future development. Applicant: John Johnson (Monticello Auto Body) Fred Patch, Building Official, advised that Mr. Johnson came into the office earlier that day and asked that this item be withdrawn, but that this was not in writing. Staff therefore recommends that this item be denied. Chair Frie asked if this item can come back if the appl icant so chooses. Patch noted that the applicant will be installing a fence and is cleaning up the debris on his property. Patch also noted that this parcel wil\.be developed independent of the other parcel. hie wished to continue the public hearing rather than denying it and Brixius. NAC, questioned how far the applicant was into the 60 day review period. Staff advised it was approximately 20 days would not exceed by the next planning commission meeting. -2~ I , . Planning Cornlllission Minutes - 09/05/00 Brixius suggestcd that this item be continucd to tIle next regular Planning Commission lneeting rather than denying it. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE OCTOBER 3, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BASED ON THE APPLICANT NOT BEING IN ATTENDANCE. Motion carried unanimously. Aftcr further discussion it was noted that the applicant's previous item was tabled and therd()re thc Planning Commission may wish to act on Mr. Johnson's first application. Brixius statcd the Planning Commission should get a lettcr oi'withdrawal for both applications. 7. Public Hemin!! - Consideration ofa preliminarv ))lat for right-of-way and eommercial lots known as the 90th Street Addition. City of Monticello AI Brixius, NAC, provided the staff report stating the City had finalized acquisition of the land for the construction of Chelsea Road West, including ncgotiation with the Township and County for the disposition of the fonner 90th Street right-of-way along Interstate 94 which will be transferrcd to the adjacent private property owners. A plat of the area is necessary to clarify title and allow the distribution of the parcels. The City Engineer prepared the plat, which was attached as an exhibit to the rcport. In order to proceed with development in this area, approval of the 90th Street Addition plat is required. Also, on a relatcd matter it was discovered that the annexation of the Hoglund land on which the plat is located was only partially completed. Only the Hoglund land that included the original Grovcland Plat was included in the recent annexation. Therefore, a joint resolution supporting the anncxation ofthe 90th Street Addition necds to be proccssed via City/Township joint resolution. It was noted that the MOAA Board had alrcady approved the annexation of the entire Hoglund parcel. Therc was discussion regarding the land involved and how it was to be transferred. There are items related to this projeet such as special asscssments which will be paid by the property owners. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no rcsponse, thc public hearing was closed. Chair Frie stated that this was a specific instance where the City and Township Board had. worked together. Clint Herbst, melnber of the MOAA board, statcd this item really was a cut and dried issue. -3- , Planning COllllllission Minutes - 09/05/00 A MCrrlON WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICllARD CARLSON TO APPROVE TIlE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TilE AREA AS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PL,AN. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request t(H" a CUP for new and used automohile/light truck sales and display in the B-3 District. Apnlicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello, LLC (Denny Hecker's Automotiye GrouD) Al Brixius, NAC, provided the staff report advising that the Goldridge Group applied fl)f a Conditional Use Permit to establish a new automobile dealership to he known as Monticello Dodge between Interstate 94 and the extension of Chelsea Road West. The property is zoned B-3, General Business, and guided tor commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. Automobile Sales is a Conditional Use in this zoning district. , Brixius also noted that the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance was recently alnended to require that on parcels of this size (5.8 acres) a huilding must he built which is at least 15% of the lot area. In this case, a building of at least 40,000 square feet is required. The proposed building appears to he at least 42,000 square feet, in compliance with the standard. Staff will verify compliance as more detailed huilding plans are developed. Brixius also noted other requirements such as outside sales area to be screened from neighboring residential districts, although it was noted the property will he surrounded by commercial land or the Interstate; lighting is to be hooded so that the light source is not visible from residential areas or the public right of way; Outside sales area is hard surfaced; Adequate parking is provided apm1 from the area utilized hy outside sales; Vehicular access points do not create tratlic conJ1icts, and are approved by the City Engineer; Lot dimensions are at least 22,500 square feet; Drainage is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer; Signs arc consistent with the City's sign regulations. Brixius also noted the applicant suhmitted a landscape plan which appears to be in conformance with the City's requirements for site and parking lot perimeter landscaping. It was asked of Mr. l3rixius to explain the requircd lighting. Staff also verified that the applicant met the new requirement rcgarding the square footage of their building. Brad Coats, Goldridge Group, addrcssed the commission stating the delay in the signagc was due to them not meeting the City code and he explained that initially they had proposed roof signs. Fred Patch, Building OtIiciaI, advised that this has heen corrccted. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. 8rad Coats again addrcssed the commission advising that the square footagc oj' the building is actually between 41,000 and 42,000 sq. -4- , , . Planning Commission Minutes - OWOS/OO n. with room enough to accommodate approx. 500 cars including employee vehicles. He pointed out their new signage which projects fron1 the front of the building as wcll as dircctional signage for Chelsea Rd. Coats also explained that the light poles will have tilt canopies to direct the lighting. The public hearing was then closed. The commissioners asked if staff felt the applicant would meet the new architectural and building code standards, if approved, which are listed in item # 12 of this agenda. Patch did ask the applicant what types of materials they were intending to use they seemed to be in compliance. Curbing was also addressed and Brixius stated there was sufficient parking, but that staiTmay want to ask the applicant to specifically mark the parking for customers and employees. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MONTICELLO DODGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of an amendment to a planncd init develoDll1ent in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto salcs and storage lot. Appl icant: Dave Pcterson' s Monticello Ford. JeITO'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the staiTreport adding that there was additional information submitted regarding engineering and that is being rcviewcd at this time. He also noted that the information was not pertinent to the planning commission's decision. O'Neill gave a brief review of the planning commissions decision to deny this item and send it on to City Council at which time the Council remanded it back to planning commission because the necessary site plan data was then available for review. O'Neill also advised that storage/sales lots and employee parking at Monticello Ford are not allowed by code without the presence of a principal use on the site. In this case, the PUD is employed to link the Ford Dealership and its operation to the use ofthe nearby, hut separate, property. O'Ncill adviscd that the PUD docs meet code in regard to the 15% ratio of the total building to area. O'Neill gave a summary of certain site plan elements and possible concerns of staff and planning commission as follows: LandscapinglBuffer Yard Screening - did not appear to meet thc minimum requirements of the code in terms of creating scparation between the parking arca and the day care facility. He notcd the need for a 10' buffer yard, according to staiT interpretation, when located next to a commercial use. It was also discussed whether the daycare was classified as a commcrcial use or not. Also noted was the fence between thc daycarc and parking lot which providcs a cornpletc scrccning effect. -5- , Planning Comlnission Minutes - 09/05/00 Lighting Plan - It \vas discussed that lighting Jj"om the original Ford dealership may be used but that the Building Ollicial would have to review and a plan had not yet been submitted by the applicant. It was suggested that a photometric plan be submitted for this site. Storage Area/Screening Fence - The planning commission lnay wish to discuss the method of screening for this significcll!t storage area in addition to the landscaping. Drive Access Points - Thcre was a concern by the Public Works Dircctor regarding the two access points not lining up with access point across the road which could result in an indirect route f(x vehicles moving from one side of Sandberg Road to the other. It should be determined by the planning commission whether or not to require cross street access points to line up. , Signage - O'Neill noted there was no signage plan submitted and therefore this PUD amendment will not include changes to the sign plan. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the banners being displayed on the light poles on the site which staff and the City Attorney feel are in violation of the City code. However, the applicant believes the banners to be directional signs. O'Neill and Brixious expressed the need for this issue to get resol ved as there has been pressure on staif from a nearby used car dealershi p who wants to display similar banners. It was also noted that failure to enforce the code in this instancc could lead to a proliferation of banncrs. Chair Fric asked staff if the City had been in receipt of a legal intcrpretation regarding the banncrs and it was stated that they had been in contact with the City Attorncy, who would also bc in contact with the attorney for Peterson Ford. Fric also asked Mr. Pcterson if he was in receipt of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z and he stated not prior to this meeting. Chair Frie opcned the public hearing. Dave Peterson, Monticello Ford, addressed the commission. Frie asked ifhe had been in contact with his attorney regarding the banners and he stated there had been discussion, but that he did not feel they were relatcd to this particular item. Again it was noted that it is now the time to address the rules that were initially imposed but arc not being f()llowed. Peterson again stated that thcse were directional signs directing customers where the uscd cars/trucks are located. He also stated that he was not willing to remove them at this time. . O'Neill stated that the City was sympathetic to Mr. Peterson's situation, however the problem thc City faccs is the pressurc from other dealerships to also install banners and they will proliferate and end up everywhere. He statcd that possibly staff could work with Mr. Pcterson on a solution. Fred Patch, Building Oflicial, adviscd that the codc allows f(Jr 10 sq. ft. maximum directional signs and also noted that the previous signage that was approvcd was within that plan and these are not. Patch also statcd that these banners are -6- , Planning Conunission Minutes - 09/05/00 too large and the material they are constructed oft~t1ls into the definition of banners. It was staffs perspective that if approval was granted on this item, it should include that the signs on the existing site need to be in compliance. Mr. Peterson asked that this item be continued due to the fact that he did not receive inf(lrmation on the conditions in Exhibit Z prior to this meeting. Robbie Smith stated his aggravation regarding continuing this item again and felt that the planning commission had already spent too much time on this item. Chair Frie asked Mr. Peterson which conditions, other than the signage, he was uncomfortable with and Peterson stated item 1 with the additional trees noting he would have to bring this back to his architect to have re- done. Peterson also added that he was not aware of the fees listed in the conditions. O'Neill address this issue stating that this is a long standing policy for the City and that he had discussed this issue with Steve Johnson of Monticello Pord as well. There was further discussion on the engineering data still needed and O'Neill again stated that this was not pertinent to thc planning commission's decision, but that City Council had also addressed this need for the appropriate data to Mr. Johnson. , There was further discussion regarding the additional 5 ft. requested in the conditions and Mr. Brixius stated that narrowing the drive stalls could provide this additional 5 ft. and Peterson would not lose any parking stalls. It was again noted that this type of information cannot be determined until a eOlllplcte site plan is submitted by applicants. There was also a question by the commission as to who determines if thc daycare site is commercial or institutional and 0 'Neill advised that itis difficult to determine by looking at the code, but that according to the City Planner it would be commercial, although it seems the intent ofthe code would be institutional. D. Mandel, Playhouse Childcare, also asked who determines the classification of their site and how this would affect them. It was noted that this was really not a concern to them as it was not the height of the fence, but the space betwecn the properties whcre the fcnce would be located. Ms. Mandel also stated their concerns with the parking issues and security and that there had been no contact with Peterson or Dunlo Motors, the auto dealer on the other side of the childcare, regarding these issues. Melody Peterson, Playhouse Childcare, also addressed the commission stating the lack of communication between Petcrson, thc Playhouse and Dunlo Motors. It was noted that a meeting had taken place with the three parties, but that Ms. Peterson was not able to attend. O'Neill advised that he had sent Ms. Peterson pictures and notes regarding that mceting and he would get them to her again. . Clint Herbst Council Liaison, asked the commission why Pcterson Ford would need to abide with a 5 ft. setback only because there is a daycare next to thcm. This site could be something entirely ditrcrent from a daycare at some point in time. (Ie did not feel it was -7- , Planning COIlHnission Minutes - 09/05/00 the responsibility of the two car dealerships to put up these fences and lose 5 ft. of their parking availability. Chair Frie noted that Dunlo Motors was an entirely separate issue and would be followed up on by staff. Dave Peterson did note, however that they and Dunlo Motors would be installing the fencing once Peterson is ready. Melody Peterson asked Dave Peterson of his time frame on this item and he stated that it was his intention to start sometime this fall. Patch asked Mr. Peterson to establish a specific datc that the work would be completed and Peterson said he could not do that. Patch advised that the use is already there and that they are in violation as they are non- conforming. Mr. Peterson stated he was not prepared to establish a date until his attorney had worked with thc City Attorney rcgarding the sign issue, stating it could be June of 2001. Peterson did state that this was his major concern regarding the conditions of the approval. Chair Frie then closcd thc public hearing. Popilck stated he concurred with Smith in that this issue needed to come to an end and that the applicant is not in compliance with City code. Planning Commission would like a date established. Dragsten stated he concurred but that the condition regarding the setback should remain at 5 f1. , A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK (;RIE AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE TilE AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN A B-3 DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTO SALES AND STORAGE LOT, CONTINGENT UPON TI IE COMPLETION OF THE ITEMS LISTI]) IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE CHANGE IN ITEM #1 TO A 5' SETBACK, ITEM #4 TO BE DETERMINED AND DECIDED UPON MUTUALL Y BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR PETERSON FORD, AS WELL AS TI IE ADDITION OF ITEM #7 STATING A COMPLETION DATE OF DECEMBER 1,2000. There was further discussion with Dragsten not being comfortable with the completion date and commissioners not being comfortable with having the attorneys for both parties decide on the banner issue stating they felt this would set a precedence for future issues. Mr. Brixious stated his opinion regarding the signage/banners would be to concur with staff and remain with conditions listed. CHAIR FRIE AND ROBBIE SMITH THEN RESCINDED THEIR MOTIONS. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBI3IE SMITH AND SECONDED BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE TI IE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN A B- ::; DISTRICT TO ALLOW TIlE FXPANSION OF AN AUTO SALES AND STORAGE LOT, CONTINUENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF ITEMS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITI I TI IE CI IANGE TO ITEM #1 TO A 5' SETBACK AND THE ADDITION OF ITEM #7 FOR A COMPLETION DA'fE OF DECEMBER 1, 2000. -8- , , . Planning COIlHnission Minutes - 09/05/00 Therc was further discussion on the completion date rcgarding landscaping due to vveathcr conditions and perhaps it should be stated that thc completion date to be Decembcr 1, 2000, weathcrpermitting, and that stair and Peterson Ford would work out a satisfactory date. Patch suggested the applicant put up a bond for the landscaping. It was suggested to possibly amend the motion to add the languagc of weather permitting to item #7, but after further discussion on the matter, and Mr. Peterson leaving thc meeting, the motion stood as stated and carried unanimously. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendiIll! thc Monticello Zoning Ordinm1ce, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [Dl 7, by adding subsections (a) and (b), establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential district. ApDlicant: Monticello City Council. Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the report advising that this zoning ordinance amendment coupled with a proposcd amendmcnt to the trat11c ordinances ofthc City of Monticello, is intended to allow cnforcement of ordinances restricting commercial vehicles from residential districts. The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential district (with some exceptions), howevcr, alone the 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is insufIicient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amcndment, along with amendments to the traftlc ordinanccs (cm-strcet parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character of our residential districts while not limiting neccssary commercial vchicle traftlc serving those districts. There was discussion whether this amendment would have any efTect on recreational vehicles and Patch stated it would not. Chair Prie opened the public hearing, and hearing no response, the public hearing was closcd. A MOTI()N WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCI L OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING OR[)INANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, rDj 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B), AND ESTABLISHING REGULA"fIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Motion carried unanimously. ~9- '- Planning Cornrnission Minutes - 09/05/00 11. Review status of public nuisance ordinance enforcement. Fred Patch, Building Official, provided an update regarding a clarification on the previous discussion regarding this issue. He noted a small percentage of the non- compliance issues have now been referred on to the City Attorney to proceed in court. Patch also explained that the staff forwards these on to the City Attorney approximately every six months. There was further discussion on handling the non-compliance issues and the members asked if a fine could be placed on these bef(Jre forwarding them on to the City Attorney. Patch stated that fines don't seem to work, people just would not pay them. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised the members that Patch, Roger Belsaas, and he had toured the City previously to prioritize the public nuisances. O'Neill also stated that a pamphlet could be put together for residents that explained what thc process is fiJr public nuisances, as wcll as advising them that a nuisance could be reported anonymously. It was also asked if this information could be put in the City Newsletter and to bring this item back to the planning commission in six months. , 12. Draft Ordinance establishing building and architectural design standards in the business district. Monticcllo Planning Commission. AI Brixius, NAC, provided the stalTreport regarding the Planning Commission's request to establish building materials standards in the Busincss Districts with the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. The discussion focused on the establ ishment of minimum materials requirements, but without architectural or design review, such as is applied in the CCD District. Language was provided by NAC which is utilized in other communities to raise the level of building materials above the pole building construction style, and does not permit the metal siding typical of such buildings. While "pole" buildings are technically allowed, they arc often disquaIiiled because of their inabi I ity to support the required finish. Brixius advised that, as stated in the ordinance, this language would only apply to the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 districts. There was discussion as to whether this would exclude metal roofs and Brixius advised that it does not. Brixius also advised that any of the specifics could be moditled. The members discussed whether there would be percentages applied to item C in the ordinance and Brixius explained that these could be looked at on a case-by-case basis. They also felt that item D needed to be more specific, and that possibly 1 YYo of the total building was too low. Brixius stated they could leave it open or the City could be more restricti ve. . -10- '- Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 It was agreed that NAC would come back to the planning commission with Inore inlemnation at it's next meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRII': AND SECONDED BY RICHARD eARLSON TO TABLE AeTION ON TilE AMENDMENT, PENDING ADDITIONAL INfORMATION. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration to call for a public hearing on amendments to Darking requirements in the eeD District. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided the staff report advising that City staff requests that the Planning Commission review thc currcnt eity ordinance allowing developments in the CCD District to opt f(Jr payment of a fee in lieu of parking. O'Neill advised that the CCD ordinance was set up to encourage on-street and centralized public parking in part by allowing businesses to pay into a fund for development of street and centralized parking. Staff bclieves that the goals ofthe CCD District regarding parking remain, however there is somc concern that the language of the ordinance givcs the developer too much latitude in selccting whether or not to pay the fee or create parking. , Staff suggests that the Planning eommission look at allowing this provision to be employed at the discretion of the City. Factors used in making determination as to whether or not a business could pay the fee in lieu of creating parking would include proximity to available public parking and the number of parking stalls needed. As an alternative and possibility in addition to giving the City more discretionary authority, the City could consider increasing the fee which would make this option less desirable. O'Neill also stated that the CCD district is in a TIF district where parking related expenses arc el igible for coverage via TIF funding. Therefore, deficiencies in the parking fund could be supplemented by TIF funding. After further discussion it was noted by Mr. Brixius that this was the first City he has seen propose this but that he wished more cities would look into implementing something similar. It was agreed that the fee should be discussed further. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIe HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE eCD DISTRICT AI' TilE OeTOBER 3, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. . -I 1- , Planning CommissiOll Minutes - 09/05/00 14. Used Car Parking Lot. Council Liaison Clint Ilerbst ask the commissioners about the TDS parking lot that is being used on weekends to display vehicles for sale. lie advised that he had asked Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator. to put this item on the next City Council agenda as well. It was stated that this is in violation of City Ordinance and the Phmning Commission advised staff to contaet TDS Telecom asking them to cease this use. It was also pointed out that there have been no complaints or problems in the past with this use. Chair Frie did advise however that a resident living adjacent to the TDS lot had advised that she was uncomfortable with this llse and the number of people coming and going from this lot during the weekends. However, she did not eontact the City about this issue. 15. 71h Street Strip Mall Update. , Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided an update regarding Barry Fluth's 71h Street Mall projeet noting that they were deficient in their parking requirements due to the City not having previous knowledge that a restaurant would be occupying some of the mall space. O'Neill stated they are 22 stalls short and there is not sufficient room for more parking. He also advised that the developer was upset with this increase in fees to eover the parking deficiency as well as other fees and that this item may come before City Council at it's next regular meeting. 16. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. /JW^.-A~ Ci~~~etary . -12-