Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 02-06-2008LJ Commissioners: Council Liaison: Staff: 1. Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 6:00 PM Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Susie Wojchouski Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien - NAC Chairman Dragsten noted full quorum and welcomed new Council Liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of January 2nd, 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 2na' 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda. Commissioner Hilgart requested that an item titled "Miscellaneous" be added as item 9. Commissioner Gabler requested that an update on the status of the Mills Fleet Farm be added as item 10. Chairman Dragsten added a Comprehensive Plan update as item 11, and update on enforcement related to commercial vehicle parking as item 12. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Final Plat and a request for Rezoning from B-3 (Highway Business to B-4 (Regional Business) District for the proposed JERRY HARTUNG ADDITION. Applicant: SB 22, LLC/Mike Krutzig Planner Holien presented the staff report. She stated that Mike Krutzig had submitted an application for Final Plat/Replat of Monticello Business Center Second Addition, and a request for rezoning from B-3, Regional Business to B-4, Highway Business. An additional application for a CUP for joint access and joint parking was submitted, but has been deemed incomplete. Holien stated that staff expects that the CUP application will come forward at a later date. As such, the final plat and rezoning are to be considered independent of any Conditional Use Permits for future site development. Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 Holien described the subject site, indicating that is approximately 3.63 acres in area and is located east of Highway 25 and west of Cedar Street. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as the Jerry Hartung Addition. In terms of the rezoning request, Holien explained that the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial land uses, and the requested B-4 designation is generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Holien commented that while the purpose of the B-3 and B-4 Districts are identical, the B-4 Zoning District allows for a wider variety of commercial uses. All uses allowed in the B-4 District would again be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. Holien noted that the property directly east of the site is zoned B-4 and land to the north of the site and west across Highway 25 is zoned B-3. No minimum lot width, lot area, or setback requirements apply to the B-4 District. Holien stated that the proposed lot sizes appear large enough to support commercial uses, as well as the required landscaping, parking, and drive aisles to accommodate said uses. Holien commented that curb cut locations have not been illustrated on the proposed plat, but have been shown on the site plan submitted with the CUP application. The applicant is proposing two curb cuts on the east side of the site, off Cedar Street. The first curb cut will provide access to Lot 2. The second will provide access to Lot 1. Each curb cut is proposed at a width of approximately 30 feet. These access locations comply with the minimum setback requirements. Internal traffic circulation will be evaluated as part of a future CUP application. As part of the plat, Holien stated that the applicant has provided right-of--way to accommodate a potential expansion of Cedar Street on the south side of the property, as it extends to the south • past Kjellberg's East. As noted on the above chart, the applicant is dedicating 8,743 square feet ofright-of--way for Cedar Street in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has inquired about the potential to place parking within this right-of--way with any future development. The applicant would be required to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the future extension of Cedar Street and potential encroachments as a condition of approval. Holien reported that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and determined that an additional easement is necessary through the center of the site, over the existing storm sewer. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to revise the survey to include this easement, as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. No permanent structures maybe placed within said easement. The applicant shall be required to comply with any additional recommendations of the City Engineer, as they relate to grading, drainage, and utilities. Voight inquired why the storm sewer isn't shown on the plat and inquired about the location. Holien stated that the sewer runs through the center of the proposed Lot 2. Holien noted the applicant is working with the engineer on a final configuration for the easement. Hilgart asked if the storm sewer is shown on the original plat. Holien explained that the easement document was created in conjunction with the placement of the sewer, but was never executed. For that reason, it needs to be shown as part of this plat. Hilgart asked for more information on the proposed Cedar Street. Holien responded that the plans for the future extension of Cedar Street have not been finalized. The configuration shown on the proposed plat represents the worst case scenario for the future extension. She noted that an assessment for the extension would be included within the development agreement for the plat. Hilgart inquired why the City doesn't know what the alignment of the street will be and if the outlot will only be parking. Schumann indicated that as the property to the south is currently developed and 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 there is no plan for redevelopment of that area at this time, developing firm plans for the alignment are premature. Different redevelopment patterns will impact the final road alignment. Holien stated that the outlot area is shown on site plan as parking, but the applicant is not restricted to use it only as parking. Dragsten noted that the property owner will not be able to put a building on the right-of--way. Voight asked where the existing cul-de-sac is. Holien illustrated its location. Spartz stated that based on the site plan presented, the applicant will be requesting a conditional use permit for joint parking. They are currently requesting a rezoning from B-3 to B-4. Spartz inquired whether the two districts are different in terms of regulations for shared parking. Holien answered that as parking is determined by use, not zoning. The final parking requirements do not change. A CUP will still be needed under B-4. Gabler noted that site plan proposes a restaurant use. She asked whether the applicant is proposing a drive through. Holien stated that based on the current site plan, they are not. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Mike Krutzig, 18897 180' Avenue, Big Lake, made himself available for questions. Dragsten asked Krutzig if he had any problems about the land he will be giving up for platting Cedar Street. Krutzig stated that he understands this is part of the platting process. Dragsten asked if he is aware of the conditions listed in the planning report, along with the City Engineer's conditions. Krutzig replied that he was familiar with both. Dragsten inquired with regard to platting, if the applicant had thought about preliminary platting and waiting until the right user to final plat. Krutzig stated that he is very close to signing with a particular user, but needs the final plat as assurance that they can get the parking they need. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSION VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT AND REZONING FROM B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) TO B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS), BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B-4 DISTRICT, THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. The applicant shall be required to provide a storm sewer easement through the center of the property, as determined by the City Engineer. No permanent structures may be located within said easement. 2. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City addressing the future extension of Cedar Street and associated assessments. Said document shall also address an encroachment agreement for the storm sewer easement. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearinu -Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for the proposed UNION CROSSINGS THIRD ADDITION, a commercial subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc. Planner Holien provided a report on a request by Ryan Companies has applied for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Union Crossings Third Addition, a commercial subdivision consisting of three lots. Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 Holien described the site, located south of 7`" Street, west of Highland Way, and east of the St. Henry's Church property. She stated that the gross area of the site is 3.85 acres and is part of the existing Union Crossings Planned Unit Development. The site is part of the existing Union Crossings PUD and therefore, additional applications are expected prior to development. In a narrative submitted by the applicant, it is stated that the platting has been requested prior to any applications for Conditional Use Permits or development stage PUD to facilitate the sale of the lots. In her analysis of the request, Holien stated that the subject site is guided for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The site is currently platted as Outlot C of Union Crossings. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as Block 1, Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Union Crossings Third Addition. Holien stated that there are no minimum lot area, lot width, or setback requirements that apply to the B-4 District. No structures have been sited on the proposed lots. Holien reported that any future buildings proposed for the site shall be evaluated on their own merit at the time of development to ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate space for required parking and landscaping. Access to the lots has not been illustrated on the plat documents. Instead, staff anticipates that access points will be determined as each site develops. The width of each lot appears adequate to provide a curb cut setback of at least 40 feet from the intersection of two of more rights-of--way, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. Holien stated that the applicant is asked to comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as they relate to grading, drainage and utilities. Holien concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the plat. Gabler asked where Home Depot and Office Max are in relationship to this proposed use. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Steve Broyer of Ryan Companies addressed the Commission as the representative for the applicant. Voight inquired where the previously approved bank is located relative to the plat. Broyer illustrated the location of the bank. Broyer presented a letter from MnDOT, which indicated they had reviewed the proposed plat and had no comment. Gabler questioned whether Ryan has prospective tenants for the site. Broyer confirmed that Ryan did have a fast food restaurant user for one of the sites; the platting will facilitate the land sale. Dragsten inquired whether Lot 3 was of adequate size and depth to place a building. Holien commented that the site is zoned B-4, which has no building setback. She said that based on staff review of the size and depth, a commercial user could function on the site. Dragsten asked how storm water was being managed. Broyer responded that WSB had worked with them on storm water. The site has three storm sewer stubs for each lot to convey storm water to the regional storm pond which serves Union Crossings. • Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF UNION CROSSINGS THIRD ADDITION, SUBJECT TO A FIlVDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision a request for Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access for Prairie Ponds Second Addition a commercial plat in a B-4 (Re ig opal Business) District. Applicant: Premier Bank Planner Holien presented the report for the request, indicating that Premier Bank is seeking approval of a Simple Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access for their property at 4134 Deegan Court. The property is currently platted as Lot 2, Block 1 of Prairie Ponds Second Addition. Holien reported that the subject site is guided for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a portion of the lot, which is identified as parcel A on the plans, into a lot of 1.16 acres in area. The parcel containing the existing bank building, parcel B on the plans, is proposed to be 1.55 acres in area after the subdivision. Holien noted that no minimum lot area, lot width or setback requirements apply to the B-4 • District. For references purposes, this information has been provided for the proposed parcels. No buildings are proposed for Parcel A at this time. She commented that any future buildings proposed for Parcel A would be evaluated on their own merit at the time of development to ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate space for required parking and landscaping. In terms of the Conditional Use Permit, Holien stated that the proposed shared access location is located approximately 33 feet from the east side lot line. The curb cut between the two parcels is proposed to be 24 feet in width. No curb currently exists along the property line. Holien explained that by code. adjoining business properties may share full parking access of more than 24 feet with no curb barrier by Conditional Use Permit, provided that the required landscaping and island areas within the shared parking lot meet the combined minimum required by ordinance. In this case, the applicant is proposing shared access, but not shared parking. According to the original landscape plan for the Premier Bank site, the proposed curb cut for the shared access will not interfere with any required landscaping on the existing site. Holien also noted that the ordinance regulating conditional use permit for joint parking requires that the parking lot meet the setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. The existing parking lot on Parcel B is consistent with the setback requirements. No parking lot has been illustrated on Parcel A at this time. Any future parking area on Parcel A will be evaluated on its own merit at the time of development through the CUP process. Holien stated City Engineer Westby has reviewed and approved the proposed curb cuts. Additionally, the ordinance requires that a shared access and maintenance agreement is provided by the property owners and recorded against all subject properties. Holien stated that while no • such maintenance agreement has been provided as part of the application, this document will be 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 required as a condition of any approval, and would be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Holien commented that the original site plan for the Premier Bank site illustrates a snow storage area north of the site, on the proposed Parcel A. The proposed shared drive will cut through this snow storage location. Holien suggested that the applicant be required to show an alternate snow storage area on Parcel A, as that site develops. Holien indicated that a grading and drainage plan was approved for the site with the review of the Prairie Ponds Second Addition plat. Holien finished her report by stating that staff recommends approval, subject to conditions as noted in Exhibit Z. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Nick Nowacki, of Meyer Rohlin Engineering spoke on behalf of the applicant. Dragsten asked if Nowacki is familiar with Exhibit Z. Nowacki stated that he is and that he has discussed the conditions with the bank. They have no issues with the conditions of approval. Dragsten asked if they have users for the lots. Nowacki stated that the bank just wanted to separate the lot for business and family reasons, as the bank will continue to own one parcel and the family that owns the bank will own the other. He stated that Premier is not actively marketing the property, other than the sign on the site. Spartz noted that the requirement for an alternate snow storage area was not listed in the Exhibit Z. • Holien responded that item would fall into the CUP review for the vacant parcel as it develops. Voight inquired if it is typical to have a designated snow storage area. Holien stated that while the City hasn't required it to be shown, it was called out here, and it was noted. If the applicant is counting on it for the purposes of maintenance for their site and circulation, staff would like to see an alternate area. Voight asked if there would be a curb along the property line area. Holien stated that it would be required. Voight questioned whether there would there be another curb cut on the cul-de-sac to provide access. Holien confirmed that they could potentially add one. Voight stated that if they didn't, circulation could be difficult. He questioned whether there was adequate spacing to add the curb cut. Holien stated that the driveway setback is determined from property line. The requirement is 10 feet from side property line. In this case, another curb cut would work. Dragsten asked if there is any water and sewer information for the site. Schumann clarified that had been reviewed with the original plat and that the vacant lot does have services. Draggten asked about lot widths. He cited that the report lists a requirement for 100 feet, and they only have 83. Holien clarified that originally, staff believed that this site was B-3, which does require a 100 foot lot width. However, it was found that the zoning is B-4, which has no minimum lot widths. Spartz confirmed that while there are setbacks for access, there are none for the buildings. Holien indicated that statement was correct. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1 PRAIRIE PONDS 2rrn ADDITION AND A CUP FOR SHARED ACCESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4, • REGIONAL BUSIlVESS DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 1. Future development of Parcel A shall require full Conditional Use Permit review to ensure compliance with the proposed CUP for shared access. 2. The applicant shall provide asix-foot drainage and utility easement along the interior property lines of both parcels. 3. The restoration of any private facilities disrupted due to work within the drainage and utility easement shall be at the expense of the property owner. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared access and maintenance agreement and record it against all subject properties. 5. The Subdivision and all necessary easements shall be recorded with the Wright County Recorder's Office within 100 days of approval. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3-5 Off- Street Parking Requirements, as related to the regulation of the size and weight of vehicles parked in residential districts. Annlicant: City of Monticello Holien provided the staff report for the request, stating that the item had previously been considered at the January meeting, at which time the Commission directed staff to prepare more research. Staff had prepared an exhibit regarding length, width and height. That exhibit has been amended to • include width. Additionally, the staff report has been amended to include information from Public Works and the City Engineer, who noted that allowing 12,000 pound gross vehicle weight may create a situation of quicker degradation for Monticello roadways. She noted that consumer vehicles may already exceed that limit. Holien explained that in working on a revised report for the Commission, Building and Public Works staff recommended looking at a license plate regulation. Currently, vehicles of 9,000 pounds or more are required to have a State license sticker with the letter "E", while 12,000 pound vehicles have an "F" sticker. The letters increase as the weight gets higher. Holien stated that the letter may also help with ease of enforcement. She commented that Commission may feel inclined to just include license plate regulation in lieu of weight. Holien stated that in terms of emergency response vehicles, if the Commission would like to make an exception for those types of vehicles, they would still need to meet parking location requirements. Holien reported that Chief Building Official Anderson would not like to see vehicles in excess of 22' long. Gabler asked if the Building Department has a width and height limitation they would like to see. Holien stated that Anderson has only noted length requirement. DJ Hennessey spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Building Department. Hennessey stated that Anderson had mentioned length as a personal concern. He noted that when regulating widths, it would start getting into personal vehicles violation. Heights are something the Building Department would need to look into, to make sure the regulations don't cut into personal vehicles. • Dragsten commented that in trying to keep track, it would be nice to have simpler regulation. Hennessey agreed, noting difficulties with measurements and vehicle weight capacity. He stated that 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 is why the Building Department had suggested the idea of regulating by license plates. As commercial • vehicles have to register with State, the sticker is a uniform requirement. It is also the easiest to review for violation without encroaching on personal property. Dragsten stated that in looking through the materials, it seems like it is more complicated than it needs to be, that perhaps the sticker may be the easiest to understand and regulate. Dragsten asked who enforces this ordinance. Hennessey responded that it is the Building Department. He also noted that the City's current administrative fee ordinance does not include the ability to fine for these types of violations. Wojchouski asked what is parking defined as. Holien stated that parking would be determined as stationary, in other words, stopped is parked. Wojchosuki asked how these regulations could impact someone who is using a U-haul to move. Holien stated that they wouldn't be able to leave it parked for a long period of time. Voight stated that there would need to be some common sense in the application of the ordinance. Hennessey stated that regulation would also be determined by the intent to store the vehicle, rather than an incidental or transitory use. Dragsten clarified that it would be regulated if it were a chronic problem. Holien noted that there are also other locations available for parking of commercial vehicles. City staff have been working to provide information on this. Dragsten stated that the simplest means of regulating seems to be by the letter licensing requirement. He indicated that the other issue to consider is whether emergency vehicles should be exempt. Dragsten asked if towing vehicles are currently designated as emergency vehicles. Holien stated that she doesn't believe they are included in that defmition now. It has been brought up for discussion, but never formally written in. Gabler stated that she had been concerned about where tow vehicles could be parked. However, if the ordinance applies to both on and off street parking, she stated that she felt that tow trucks should be included within the definition of emergency vehicles. Hilgart indicated that he had some concern about this regulation, as the large recreational vehicles are as much of a problem. Schumann responded that staff would prefer to deal with commercial vehicle regulation first, and then if the Commission chooses, call for a separate hearing on recreational vehicles. Hennessey also noted that the off street parking ordinance requires that only one recreational vehicle may be parked in a driveway. Spartz asked if RVs have a similar licensing structure through the State. Holien stated that she was unsure. Hennessey commented that he believes that RVs have a separate licensing system. Hilgart noted that changing the regulation to 12,000 pounds makes it cloudy for him, as there maybe personal vehicles that exceed that number, although the commercial designation seems to limit that. He noted the increasing size of passenger vehicles. Spartz stated that the intent of the amendment is to get an unsightly nuisance out of someone's yard in an easily enforceable way. However, he noted that affecting someone's livelihood is a concern for him. • Gabler asked if those who get violations can appeal. Holien stated that she doesn't know if the Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 administrative portion of the code has a formal appeal process. i Dragsten commented that some commercial vehicles parked in residential districts also pose a safety issue; the intent is to get rid of those; especially if the City does offer somewhere else to park them. Wojchouski recommended that this information should be provided to those who receive violations. Voight stated that within the code search, Big Lake's ordinance included some language referencing that "not a resident at residential site", which he believes needs to be added into the amendment. Holien stated that could be added. Holien stated that if the Commission chooses, staff could redraft the amendment based on the license sticker requirement and bring it back in fmal formal for review. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DIRECT THAT STAFF DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING COMMERICAL VEHICLES 1N RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: • An "F" State license sticker, regulating 12,000 pounds, or greater • Including language "not a resident at the residential site" • Including tow trucks as emergency vehicles. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Miscellaneous. . Commissioner Hilgart stated that he has been wondering about the sign issue in relationship to the Moon Motors decision. He commented that it seems that perhaps the City should eliminate the sign ordinance and evaluate each request case by case. He also noted a similar concern regarding variance requests. He stated that his point was that the ordinance is the basis for decisions. Gabler stated that she agreed with Commissioner Hilgart's concerns. The Commission had denied the Moon variance and then when appealed, the City Council overruled the Commission. She inquired what was the purpose of putting City staff through the motions of review if the outcome was pre- determined. Holien noted that the City is looking very closely at the sign ordinance and is about to embark on a complete review and codification of the zoning ordinance. Dragsten stated that the Commission looks at the sign ordinance every year, and that he believes that the Commission tries to accommodate new and existing businesses. He noted that the Commission did recommend amendments in the CCD and the freeway overlay district. Dragsten agreed that it is an important issue. Wojchouski responded to Hilgart's concern by referencing Moon's multiple products and the size of building as Council's rationale for granting the variance. She stated that she thought it was tastefully done in terms of the use. She suggested that perhaps the City does need to do some re-writing. Draggten stated that he thinks the point is that the Commission denied the request because there was no hardship. Moon will have products on display in a very visible way along the interstate, which will • be seen more than the sign. With all that advertising, they should have been able to stay within the ordinance. 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/08 Hilgart commented that the point is not the Moon Motors signage; he doesn't think it was too much. He stated that the issue is that it is not for him to make the determination to ignore the ordinance. He stated that the City should go with what the rules say; if not then change the rules. He stated that he didn't want to ruffle any feathers, but wanted to state his point. Schumann responded that in terms of the process, and as related to the Moon variance, technically the proper process would have been to deny the variance, amend the ordinance, allow Moon to come back and re-apply under the new ordinance. However, in this case, the Council had an appeal, had an ordinance they found to be out-dated or inappropriate, felt the signage proposed was appropriate for the use and building and found that to be the hardship. Spartz stated that he also supported Hilgart's comments. He recommended that based on this discussion, the sign ordinance needs to come back for amendment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO AUTHORIZE THAT THE CITY COMMENCE A REVIEW AND AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING SIGNAGE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10. Fleet Farm Update. Schumann indicated that while Fleet Farm has not made any further requests of the City in terms of site development or building permit, they have closed on the property and have maintained an interest in what is occurring within the community. She noted that they had recently requested a copy of the draft comp plan. Dragsten asked if they would build this year. Schumann stated that she did not know. 11. Comp Plan. Schumann reported that HKGi was in the process of reviewing comments from the open house. If there are significant issues that require review, the Planning Commission and City Council maybe asked to participate in a special meeting, tentatively set for February 25`x. Commission will be asked to set a public hearing date for the review of the comp plan at March's meeting for April. 12. Enforcement Item -Commercial Vehicles. Schumann reported that the Building Department had acted immediately in response to Commission's concerns about commercial vehicle parking on Golf Course Road. A letter related to the violation was sent. The Department will be following up on action resulting from the notice of violation. 13. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10