Loading...
08-19-1985 CC MIN REGULAR WEEKLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1985 Members Present: Mayor Hinkle, Councilmembers Engstrom, Gunkel and Williams Members Absent: Councilmember Schuldt Staff Present: Tom Bublitz, City Administrator; Rick Breezee, Building and Zoning Administrator; and Terry Maurer, City Engineer Mayor Hinkle called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. Consideration of Agenda The Council moved Item 11 and placed it between items 4 and 5 on the agenda. The Council also placed the memorandum from the Chairman of the Planning Com- mission between 4 and 5 on the agenda. An additional memo from the Police Chief was also added, and an update from the Building and Zoning Administrator on enforcement of the City's Junkyard Ordinance was added after Item 11. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 19, 1985 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 2. Consideration of Minutes of the August 5, 1985 City Council Meeting COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 5, 1985 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS SUBMITTED. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 3. Open Mike I Mayor Hinkle inquired if there is anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council at the open mike session. No one requested to speak and the Mayor continued with the regular agenda items. 4. Consideration of Feasibility Study for Sanitary Sewer Improvements on Simonet Drive The City Engineer reviewed the informational meeting held with the residents on Simonet Drive regarding the potential of constructing Sanitary Sewer in their area. He explained that a letter had also been sent to the residents on Xenia, South of Highway #10. He noted that, in general, a positive response had been received from both the informational meeting held with residents on Simonet and also the written inquiry to the residents along Xenia. The City Engineer noted that similar concerns had been expressed at the Staff level for the Westwood area, which lies north of Highway #10, across from the Simonet Drive area. He explained the Staff is aware of some potential problems with the septic systems in the Westwood area. Mayor Hinkle suggested that the Council should approve the feasibility study for both the Simonet and Xenia areas and also direct the Staff to hold an informational meeting for the residents int:he Westwood area. City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page Two COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 85-41 ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SANITARY SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ON SIMONET DRIVE AND XENIA AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1985-3). COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG HIGHWAY 1110 ADJACENT TO THE SIMONET DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS MOVED TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO CONDUCT AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE WESTWOOD AREA WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment for Private Roads Mr. Jim Tra11e, Planning Commission Chairman, stated that the Commission does not have the appropriate wording from the City Attorney regarding the Ordinance Amendment for Private Roads. He pointed out that the Planning Commission does not want to eliminate roads in the areas such as townhouse developments, where there are homeowners associations established to maintain the private roads. Counci1member Gunkel cited Resolution 83-8 regarding private roads and inquired how the elimination of private roads would affect existing private roads. The Building and Zoning Administrator replied that the existing private roads would be grandfathered in. Planning Commission Chairman Tra11e suggested extending the moratorium on private roads abutting paved roads. Chairman Tra11e then reviewed his memorandum to the City Council regarding administrative subdivisions, including the rationale of the administrative subdivision, which was originally included in the ordinance to help the small property owners to divide a piece of property without going through the formal process of platting and subdividing. He noted the City Attorney's comments were that the impact of the administrative sub- division on city services is the same as for a platted lot. In summary, he highlighted the three recommendations from the Planning Commission which included that, the Planning Commission review all administrative subdivision requests and make recommendations to the Council, that no piece of property be involved in an administrative subdivision more than once within a two year period, and that a park dedication fee of ten percent (10%) be required of administrative sub- divisions, which is consistent with the existing language of the present ordinance. He pointed out that the first two recommendations of the Planning Commission would require an ordinance amendment but that the park dedication fee could be handled immediately without ordinance change. Counci1member Gunkel inquired how an administrative subdivision resulting in fewer lots would be handled. Chairman Tra11e stated that this would have to be addressed in the ordinance amendment prepared by the City Attorney. In summary, Chairman Tra11e stated that he believes that the administrative subdivision process is currently being overused and requires an amendment. City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page Three .Mayor Hinkle cited the situation where a property is being subdivided for other than residential lots and expressed a concern as to how this would be handled. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISIONS AND THE TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE SUB- DIVISIONS COULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS ~~I- SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. Chairman Tralle stated that the Planning Commission would attempt to return to the Council in six weeks with the ordinance amendment. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DELETING PRIVATE ROADS FROM THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY ATTORNEY CAN PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR THE AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 6. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision Request from Mr. Gary Denzer The Building and Zoning Administrator reviewed his memorandum for Counci1members regarding the administrative subdivision request by Mr. Gary Denzer. He ex- plained that in 1984 Mr. -Denzer requested an administrative subdivision to eliminate a number of lot lines which were previously located on his 35 acre parcel. He noted that the reason for the elimination of the lot lines at that time was so that Mr. Denzer would have one large parcel. He also noted at that time that City Staff and the City Council recommended to Mr. Denzer that he not eliminate the lot lines because they were legal lots of record and also had a road easement running through the center of his property. He noted that Mr. Denzer indicated at that time that he would like to eliminate the lot lines so as to create one large parcel for him and his family. The Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that Mr. Denzer is now requesting to subdivide his property into smaller lots, and noted that because the property would abut upon an existing private dirt road, and because of the size of the lots Mr. Denzer is requesting, the Staff is recommending that Mr. Denzer go through the preliminary and final plat procedures as outlined in the subdivision ordinance. Mayor Hinkle opened the meeting with the purpose of a public hearing on an administrative subdivision request for Mr. Gary Denzer. Mayor Hink]e recognized Mr. Gary Denzer who stated that he would appreciate it if the Council would put back the lot lines which were previously in exist- ence. He stated that he was previously assured by the City that this could be accomplished. He explained he bought the property in April of 1984 and built his home off the paved road. He added that if the Council is uncomfortable with recreating the 2~ acre lots, he would request re-creation of the ten and five acre lots. City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page Four Councilmember Gunkel reviewed the memorandum from the City Staff regarding assurances that road easements could be obtained. The Building and Zoning Administrator stated that these could be obtained through the platting procedure. The Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Tralle, stated that Mr. Denzer was ~~ the last Planning Commission meeting, at which time the City Attorney addressed the issue of the formal platting procedure being required for some administrative subdivision requests. Councilmember Williams inquired what the cost of platting would be for the property. The Building and Zoning Administrator cited examples of the platting costs including Wilderness Acres which consisted of nine lots at an approximate cost of $1,000 and the Oak Meadows subdivision which cost approximately $1,200. Councilmember Gunkel inquired whether there was an existing private road agreement with the City. The Building and Zoning Administrator replied that the primary purpose of the road was to service two existing homes. He pointed out the City cannot force the property owners along this road into a developer's agreement for an existing private road. Councilmember Gunkel commented that three more prospective property owners would simply compound the problem, in her opinion. Mayor Hinkle recognized Mr. Martin Tracy who requested to see a layout of the streets. Mayor Hinkle inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION FOR MR. GARY DENZER BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED BY BOTH THE CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PRIVATE ROADS. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. Mr. Gary Denzer questioned when the Council decided to eliminate private roads. Mayor Hinkle stated that private roads are allowed, but with a developer's agreement. He noted the City cannot get assurances on private roads without entering into a developer's agreement. Mr. Denzer then questioned why he was originally told by the City that the lots could be recreated. The Building and Zoning Administrator stated that the Council can require that the Subdivision Ordinance be enforced even with an administrative subdivision request, and that this is part of the existing City Code. 7. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision Request From Modern Tool The Building and Zoning Administrator reviewed his memo to the Mayor and City Council regarding the Administrative Subdivision Request by Modern Tool, Inc. He explained that Modern Tool Inc is requesting an administrative subdivision to divide a parcel of property which is approximately 42 acres in size, into three ten acre par~els and one twelve acre parce~ located at 207th Avenue. He proceeded to review his memorandum and noted that in 1973 Modern Tool Inc. purchased the 42 acres from Christian Realty with the hopes of locating their ~ City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page F:tve~ industrial facility on the site but that, after further study, Modern Tool expanded their operation in Crystal, MN. He pointed out that Modern Tool, Inc. has hired Christian Realty to split the property and put it on the market for residential sale. Mr. Roy Goodin, representing the applicant, passed out sketches of the proposed lot lines requesting that the lots be created to make the property marketable. Mayor Hinkle recognized Mr. Jim Tralle, Chairman of the Planning Commission, who stated he spoke with many of his neighbors and that they had no problem with the administrative subdivision request. He explained, that from a Planning Commission point of view, he concurs with the Building and Zoning Administrator's recommendations regarding requiring lot and block numbers for the subdivision. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST FROM MODERN TOOL, INC. CONTINGENT ON OBTAINING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY SPECIFYING LOT AND BLOCK NUMBER AND THAT A PARK DEDICATION FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE RAW LAND VALUE BE OBTAINED. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 8. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision from Mr. Arlon Molde The Building and Zoning Administrator reviewed his memorandum for Councilmembers regarding the administrative subdivision request by Mr. Arlon Molde. He explained that Mr. Molde is requesting an administrative subdivision to subdivide 13.3 acres of land which he presently owns, into two lots, one being 2.5 acres in size and the other lot being 10.8 acres in size. He noted that the surveyor had originally included the right-of-way in the legal description, which is allowed by the County but not allowed by City Ordinance. He added that this would have to be addressed if the administrative subdivision were approved. Mayor Hinkle opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the administrative subdivision request by Mr. Arlon Molde. Mayor Hinkle inquired if there was anyone who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST BY MR. ARLON MOLDE WITH THE CONDITION THAT A PARK DEDICATION FEE BE PAID IN THE AMOUNT OF TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE RAW LAND VALUE. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 8. Consideration of Replat of the Barthel Multi-Family Housing Project Mayor Hinkle opened the meeting for purpose of a public hearing on the replat of the Barthel Multi-family housing project. Mr. John Griese, representing the applicant, stated that the Farmers Horne Administration does not consider applications until a plan has received Council approval. He explained the FHA requested Barthel to increase the number of multi-family units from 36 to 40. ~ City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page Six Mr. Nick Olson, questioned whether the original amount was to be 36 and whether or not it was for ap~rtments or townhomes. Counci1member Gunkel stated that the configuration the Council reviewed in June was to be townhouses and the design was to be townhouses. The Building and Zoning Administrator stated that all previous presentations to the Council stipulated that the units were to be rental units. Mr. Nick Olson stated that he objected to apartments and also objected to the proposed density. Mr. Bob Kirschbaum stated that he originally thought the project would be town- houses as compared to apartments. Mr. John Griese noted that there is more green area in this plan than was present in the previous plan. Mr. Skip Sorenson, architect for the project, addressed the Council and pointed out that townhomes are still part of the project and do face the R-1 neighborhood. He added that, as requested by staff, the berm and the trees have been added as a buffer to the R-1 neighborhood and that the neighborhood will be viewing townhouses. Mayor Hinkle inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he closed the public hearing. Counci1member Gunkel commented that there had been years of negotiation on this project and that the agreement on the townhouse arrangement was agreed upon as a transition of R-1 to R-3. She noted that the developer's agreement originally said no more than 12 units per building and that now the plan shows 16 units per building which is allowed in an R-4 zone. She added that there are not assurances that townhouses will be eliminated and apartments put in their place. She ex- pressed a concern over the Council's credibility on the project with regard to the changes experienced since the project was initiated. The Planning Commission member present indicated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on July 15, 1985. He explained the Planning Commission recommended approval but that the Planning Commission did not have as much information as is being presented this evening. Counci1member Williams noted that the concept was reviewed by the City Council on June 13 of this year. Mayor Hinkle reviewed items 1 through 7 of the Building and Zoning Administrator's recommended conditions of approval and noted that some of the items have additional costs related to them and inquired whether the FHA would require additional density to compensate for these added costs. Mr. Skip Sorenson stated that the townhouse construction is more expensive and requires separate water and sewer runs adding approximately $1,100 per unit added cost. He pointed out that the two to three bedroom townhouse units were reduced and more one bedroom units were added. ~ City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page Seven COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT FOR THE BARTHEL PLAZA PUD MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Engstrom expressed a concern over the changes in the plan from the initial public hearings held on the project. He also expressed a concern over the fact that the lenders appear to be in- dicating what is built and not built. He also expressed a concern over the residents' expectations of the project from the start. of the planned unit development and the changes that have occurred to date. UPON A VOTE BEING TAKEN ON THE MOTION, THE FOLLOWING VOTED IN FAVOR THEREOF: COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL AND COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM. THE FOLLOWING VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION: COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. THE MOTION PASSED 2-1. Mayor Hinkle recognized Mr. Skip Sorenson, Architect for the project, who re- quested the Council's approval for one sixteen unit multi-family building with one and two bedroom units to be located at Freeport and School Street. He noted that his request also comprehended twenty-four townhouse units to be constructed in addition to the one sixteen unit building. Councilmember Gunkel expressed opposition to having sixteen units in one building since this is equivalent to R-4 density. Mr. Sorenson stated that he believes the lender may accept more townhouses and reducing the number of sixteen unit apartments. He stated that the total units in his proposal would be no more than forty. Mayor Hinkle recognized Mr. Nick Olson, who stated that he appreciated the Council's action and added that he believes the residents had adequate input into the public hearing process. Mr. Bob Kirschbaum also commented that he believes the Council's credibility in this situation will be passed along to others and is appreciated. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE A REVISED SITE PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT WHICH WOULD PROVIDE TOWNHOUSES ON THE SOUTH AND WESTERLY PORTIONS OF THE BARTHEL PLAZA PUD MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SITE WITH A SIXTEEN UNIT MULTI- FAMILY BUILDING LOCATED AT FREEPORT AND SCHOOL STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. SIX INCH SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE ONE SIXTEEN UNIT BUILDING AS OPPOSED TO THE FIVE INCH LINES. 2. A DETAIL BE PROVIDED FOR THE CONNECTIONS OF THE SEWER LINES TO THE INTERCEPTOR MANHOLE. 3. A PIPE SIZE BE PROVIDED FOR THE STORM SEWER. 4. INCREASE THE THICKNESS OF THE SIDEWALK OR PROVIDE REINFORCING AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES. 5. PROVIDE A SHUTOFF VALVE OF THE SOUTHERLY FIRE HYDRANT FEEDING THE APARTMENT. 6. THE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT WITHIN THE COMPLEX SHALL BE LOOPED. ~ City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page Eight 7. A BERMED BUFFER SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 7. Consideration of Variance Request for Eugene Mosbek Mr. Jim Tralle, Chairman of the Planning Commission., introduced the variance request by Mr. Eugene Mosbek and noted that the request was a variance from Section 900.18 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a 600 foot setback for any metal skinned buildings or agricultural buildings from neighboring residents or subdivision. He explained that Mr. Mosbek is proposing to construct a 28 foot by 60 foot structure to house farm animals. He noted that the structure would be 1,680 square feet. He explained that the Planning Commission felt the re- quest for the large building was not a bonafide agricultural use as is required to exceed the 1,000 square foot size. Mayor Hinkle opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a variance request by Mr. Eugene Mosbeck. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he closed the public hearing. Mr. Jim Tralle commented on the definition of agricultural uses as contained in the zoning ordinance and indicated that the Planning Commission did not believe that in this case the applicant met the requirements for agricultural uses. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM THE 600 FOOT SETBACK FOR MR. MOSBEK AND TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING NOT TO EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 8. Consideration of Request for Zone Change for Property on Highway 169 From R-lb to C-3b Jim Tralle, Chairman of the Planning Commission, introduced the request for a zone change for the property along Highway 169 north of School Street and noted that the Planning Commission recommended no commercial property should be created north of School Street at the present time. The Building and Zoning Administrator noted that several people were in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting at which the request for Zone change was dis- cussed and that several of those in attendance spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Jim Tralle stated that the Planning Commission discussed whether a commercial corridor should be created and that the Planning Commission recommended there be no further commercial development north of School Street. Mayor Hinkle o~ened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a request for zo e change for property along Highway 169 north of School Street. No one request d to speak at the public hearing and Mayor Hinkle closed the public hearing.1 I I I City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page 9 Counci1member Gunkel stated that, because of Dr. Gi1genbach's request, the City has been prompted to look at the property in question and the surrounding area. She noted that the Council determined it would not be spot zoning, given the boundaries in the area are fairly well defined. She questioned that, based on today's trends, whether the area would ever be developed as R-1. She stated that residential property does not appear to be a proper zone for this area and that if the City perceives it as such, why not recognize what the area is and what it can be used for. Counci1member Williams added that he thinks the area does not lend itself to residential development. He stated development along Highway 169 is different than what is occurring on Highway 10 and that the only figure received from the assessor for the City owned parcel was for residential use. He added that he does not agree with the appraisal and does not think the area will be developed as residential. The Building and Zoning Administrator stated that the survey done by the City, in conjunction with the City's consulting planner, stipulated that there is a great deal of vacant commercial property already existing within the City and that at the present time there is not a need for additional commercial property. Mayor Hinkle stated he does not think the City should rezone the property at the present time and added that he does not think it is in the best interest of the City and agrees with the Planning Commission. MAYOR HINKLE MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE FROMR-1B TO C-3B FOR THE PROPERTY ALONG HIGHWAY 169 NORTH OF SCHOOL STREET. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE FOLLOWING VOTED IN FAVOR THEREOF: MAYOR HINKLE AND COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM. THE FOLLOWING VOTED AGAINST: COUNCILMEMBERS GUNKEL AND WILLIAMS. Mayor Hinkle noted that a rezoning request requires a 4/5 vote for approval. 9. Right Turn Only Sign at Jackson Avenue and Railroad Drive The City Administrator noted that several months ago the City Council decided to change Railroad Drive from a one way street to a two way street and that at that time it was decided that the west bound traffic on Railroad Drive can only make a right turn onto Jackson Avenue. He explained that the intersection has become a burden for the Police Department to control as the right turn only sign is continually being ignored. He also pointed out that the Police Depart- ment has received calls from business people asking that left turns be allowed at this intersection. After considering these requests and the fact that the majority of cars are ignoring the sign, the Chief of Police and the Street Superintendent have agreed that it would be best to design the intersection so there is a left turn lane. He added that the Street Superintendent feels that Railroad Drive is wide enough at this location to make the change. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO CONSTRUCT A LEFT TURN LANE AT THE INTERSECTION OF JACKSON AVENUE AND RAILROAD DRIVE AND TO REMOVE THE RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGN FROM THIS INTERSECTION. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0" -.., City Council Minutes August 19, 1985 Page 10 10. Update from Building and Zoning Administrator Mr. Rick Breezee reminded the Council that Mr. Larry Wolner had been given a deadline to construct a building on his property on Highway 10. He noted that Mr. Wolner has asked for an extension until next spring and that the current deadline is November. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers to remain with the original recommendation. The Council encouraged the concept envisioned by Mr. Wolner for his apple sales building but expressed disappoint- mentwith him not meeting the deadline. Councilmember Williams suggested that Mr. Breezee communicate with Mr. Wolner regarding the Council's concern over the deadline. The Building and Zoning Administrator then reviewed letters to various businesses along Highway 10 including Custom Motor Sales, D & S Truck Sales and the Eisenshank property. He explained that letters had been sent to these owners regarding clean up of their property. He pointed out that the Charest property has gone through a Summons and Complaint which requires a court appearance. 11. Check Register COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 12. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. Respectfully submitted, ~'/l!~ Thomas R. Bublitz City Administrator TRB:st