Loading...
032204 CC Reg Min I!. . . . ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2004 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby, Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown, Finance Director Burton, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Councilmember Garfunkel B. Review Agenda Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda for the evening. Administrator Dawson requested Item 9A, Planning Commission Appointments, be removed from the Agenda and become part of Item 12, A Work Session on Planning Commission Appointment Process. He noted Council would recess the Regular Meeting to an EDA Meeting, then back to Item 12, Work Session, and then to Item 13, Adjourn. Lizce moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes, March 8, 2004 Lizce moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes, March 8, 2004 Zerby moved, Lizce seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 8, 2004 Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Love reviewed the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Turgeon requested Item 3D be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to Item 8E for further discussion and consideration. -. . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 2 of 11 Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-021, "A Resolution Approving a Gambling License for American Legion Post #259, 24450 Smithtown Road." D. Appeal Notice to Remove Appellant: Wade Kenyon Location: 25565 Smithtown Road This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to Item 8E. E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-022, "A Resolution Proclaiming April as Child Abuse Prevention Month." F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-023, "A Resolution Proclaiming Arbor Day as April 30, 2004." G. Accept Proposal for Professional Services for Badger Well H. Request from T-Mobile for Conditional Use Permit to Locate on the Southeast Area Water Tower I. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for a Public Works Van Motion passed 4/0. Attorney Keane arrived at 7:05 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. 7:15 Public Information Meeting - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program This item followed Item 7C on the Agenda as the appropriate time had not yet been reached for this segment of the meeting. Mayor Love opened the Public Information Meeting at 7:24 P.M. Administrator Dawson stated federal mandates directed cities to provide an opportunity to present information and gather feedback from City residents on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program being implemented by the City. . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 3 of 11 Engineer Brown explained the Council had previously discussed the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Phase IT, as part of information to be shared with municipalities regarding the Clean Water Act. He noted preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) was one component mandated to meet the Clean Water Act guidelines. He also explained the goal of the NPDES permit process was to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the state through management and treatment of urban storm water runoff. In accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115 and 116 as amended, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7001, the SWPPP shall be reviewed at a Public Information Meeting and public comment received for permanent record and to provide a record of decision regarding comments received for the SWPPP, with submission of record to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Engineer Brown then explained the parts of the SWPPP, with specific attention being given to six control measures to help reduce pollution in receiving waters. These six control measures included many components including Public Education and Outreach, whereby brochures, handouts and newsletters would be readily available to residents, SWPPP Staff Training, and creation of a SWPPP Web page for City residents' access. Public Participation and Involvement would be gained through holding the SWPPP Annual Meeting. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, including establishment of an Illicit Discharge Ordinance, enhancing aspects of the existing Recycling program, and updating the Storm Sewer System Map. Additional Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Measures would also be developed as part of the City's SWPPP. Best management practices for these measures included development of an Erosion Control Ordinance, and Staff Training for the Public Works Department regarding best management practices regarding erosion control measures. A fifth control measure included Post Construction Storm Water Management Measures that would include revisions to the City's Storm water Management Plan, and hold a development review annually. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping Measures included a Storm Sewer Inspection program, best management practices for storage of equipment and hazardous materials, evaluation of the landscaping and lawn care practices, review of the road salt application process, evaluation of the street sweeping program, and evaluation of guidelines for a NPDES permit for industrial activity within the City. Seeing no one present wishing to provide public testimony on this issue, Mayor Love closed the Public Testimony portion of the meeting at 7:35 P.M. Councilmember Lizee questioned how long the City had to work on this federal mandate. Engineer Brown stated information had arrived in mid-2003, with a directive that cities should be covering the year 2003 in their SWPPP report. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency was still providing revision to the requested information six days prior to the reporting deadline for cities, thus making it doubtful all regulations could be met for 2003. He stated Staff had made every attempt to meet those regulations and would review the EP A comments and modify the reported goals of the SWPPP as needed. Councilmember Lizee also questioned whether this report included licensure for four years for the City and if the mandate had any federal funding associated with the directives to cities. Engineer Brown stated the report spanned four years, with annually reporting to the EP A, and no federal funding had been given to cities to offset the costs for their staffs to accomplish the extra workload presented by these mandated efforts. Engineer Brown also explained these standards were required by each city. He commented Staff had been doing many of the items currently as part of the City's Storm water Management Plan, but without the level of documentation being requested by the EP A. He also noted management of the goals of the SWPPP providing a large undertaking for City Staff. . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 4 of 11 Mayor Love stated studies of the City's sediment basins were needed, but he remained concerned for the old ponds throughout the City that did not function as part of a development agreement. He stated he would like to enter into discussions with representatives of the Watershed Districts in Shorewood regarding storm water pond maintenance issues. He stated he would be happy to represent the Council in that dialogue, and noted he was concerned for funding the efforts stated in the SWPPP. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would like to see a site established in the area where people could bring hazardous materials for recycling purposes. Council indicated consensus for having Mayor Love act as its representative in discussions with the watershed districts for the City. Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Accepting the SWPPP and Directing Staff to Prepare a Record of Discussion for submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Motion passed 4/0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held March 9, 2004 Commissioner Davis reported on the March 9, 2004 Park Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). B. Music in the Park C. Consideration of Sponsorships for Music in the Park Engineer Brown stated the next two items would be discussed at the same time. Engineer Brown explained at the March 9,2004, Park Commission Meeting, the Commission discussed the potential of establishing Friday, June 11, Friday, July 9, and Friday, August 13,2004, as dates for an event called "Music in the Park." These musical events were proposed to take place using the covered pavilion area of Eddy Station at Freeman Park. The Park Commission would be seeking vendors to perform during these dates, and Park Funds would be utilized for the expense of these events. In response to Councilmember Zerby's question, Engineer Brown explained the events were proposed to take place from 6:30 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. In addition, the Park Commission discussed the idea of corporate sponsors for these events. After much discussion, the Commission agreed to recommend any acknowledgement of sponsors would occur only on the back of any programs printed for such events. Mayor Love stated it would be important to consider not only corporate sponsorship, but private sector sponsorship as well. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 5 of 11 . Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Dates of Friday, June 11, Friday, July 9, and Friday, August 13 of 2004, for the "Music in the Park" events at Freeman Park. Motion passed 4/0. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving Acceptance of Private Sector Sponsorship for the "Music in the Park" events. Councilmember Zerby questioned issues of signage for the event. Engineer Brown noted literature could be passed out on site, but the City needed to follow its own rules regarding signage. Motion passed 4/0. 8. PLANNING Planning Commissioner Conley reported on the matters considered and actions taken at the March 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Minor Subdivision/Combination Applicant: D.R. Verdoorn (Rep. By Sharratt Design & Co.) Location: 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road . Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the case for the Council, noting the Planning Commission discussed these issues at the January 6, 2004 meeting, at which time Staffwas directed to prepare findings denying the application as presented. He went on to briefly review the history of the case noting Daryl and Carol Verdoorn, owned the property at 28210 Woodside Road. The Verdoorns proposed splitting off the southerly 11 feet of their lot and conveying it to their son, Jim, who owned the property immediately south at 28220 Woodside Road. He went on to explain the northerly parcel contained 113,943 square feet and was occupied by a single-family residence. The southerly parcel was substandard for the R- INS, Single-family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district, containing only 21,636 square feet, and was occupied by a single-family residence. Access to both lots was gained by a private road that extended off of Woodside Road. The strip of land to be conveyed contained approximately 7004 square feet, which would bring the southerly lot to 28,640 square feet. He noted it was the intent of the parties to bring the smaller lot up to at least 70 percent of the R-IA1S lot area requirement that would make a lot buildable. The applicants hoped to avoid having to obtain a variance in the event they would demolish the smaller house and rebuild on the site. Director Nielsen went on to explain that while it was understandable the property owners wished to increase the size of the smaller lot to avoid future variances, gerrymandering of lot lines simply to achieve area was not recommended. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan specifically mentioned gerrymandered lot lines and "flag lots" as problems to avoid in the subdivision of lots. To approve a subdivision as proposed by the applicant would run contrary to, and defeat the policies adopted in, the Comprehensive Plan. Although the II-foot strip added a little width to the smaller lot, the easterly 390 feet of the strip did nothing to increase the "buildability" of the lot. . Director Nielsen explained a different alternative existed that accomplished what the applicants were seeking. To simply pivot the property line from the northeast corner of the smaller lot, making it more CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 6 of 11 . perpendicular to the shoreline, resulted in better lot design. The owner of the larger parcel had expressed an unwillingness to adjust the lot line in this fashion because it reduced the length of shoreline for the larger lot. Director Nielsen also noted the two lots as presented in the alternative form would be among the widest lots on the Shorewood portion of Smithtown Bay. Director Nielsen also explained the applicants' attorney had submitted a letter to the City earlier in the day, explaining that if the City was not willing to approve the application as submitted, the applicant would be willing to revise the plans. With this in mind, Director Nielsen explained the case could be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration on April 6, 2004. Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the City was asking the applicant to consider a substantial conveyance in this case. He also thought there were extenuating circumstances to this property, and he did not see the need not to convey the eleven-foot strip, as recommended by Staff. Councilmember Turgeon stated the goal of the recommendation was toward making the lots more buildable in the future. Director Nielsen noted the value of the land would not disappear simply because the smaller lot was made buildable, and benefits to the applicant would still be retained as the applicant owned both parcels. Councilmember Lizee stated she did not think the economic issues of the applicant were the issue of concern in this item for the Planning Commission. She stated the Commission made a recommendation predicated on the issue of "gerrymandered" lot lines, and the Commission had recommended Staffs proposed design as making the most logical sense. . Councilmember Zerby stated he thought the two lots worked together as one since the driveway access was shared. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Directing Staff to refer this issue to the Planning Commission for further review. Councilmember Zerby stated he would support returning this case to the Commission for further review as his comments on the case had been made known. Motion passed 4/0. B. Bosworth PUD Concept Stage ApprQval Applicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive . Director Nielsen explained the history of this case, noting the applicant was requesting Concept Stage Approval of a Planned Unit Development as a zoning district. He briefly summarized the history and changes for the request, noting the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this approach and concept stage approval. He explained the proposed development agreement would direct the activity of both lots on the site. He stated the Commission and Staff had agreed with the applicant's plans for the driveway, parking, and lots, as well as additional proposed uses including additional hours of operation, occasional emergency care on the site, and illuminated signage for the site. Director Nielsen summarized the issues being considered as part of the request that impacted the zoning district aspects of the case. He stated daycare and day spa use had been considered by the Planning Commission for inclusion in the CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 7 of 11 . description of uses in a Residential-Commercial district, and thus, would apply to this site as well. He stated the applicant had stated his intentions to include more of a medical use for the day spa concept for the site, and trip generation and drainage issues had also been considered for this project. Additional landscaping had also been requested as part of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen also noted the presence of the applicant this evening. Dr. Kelly Bosworth, owner of 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive, stated he would be happy to answer any questions Council had of him regarding this case. Councilmember Zerby stated he was concerned about the elevation difference between the site and the house to the north and proposed height of the buildings. He also noted concern for a retaining wall on the site and related impacts for drainage to the area, as well as concerns for signage and hours of operation. Director Nielsen stated the height of the building would have to comply with the City's ordinance regulating the height of structures, and some retaining wall would be necessary due to the topographical constraints on the site. Engineer Brown also noted the drainage on the site would be collected via a gutter system and directed to the south away from the residential neighborhood to the north. Director Nielsen also noted the City, through a P.U.D., would gain architectural control for the site as part of the development agreement. Councilmember Zerby noted he was concerned for any potential extra noise or nuisance that might come from having the hours of operation begin at 7:00 A.M. . Councilmember Turgeon stated the Planning Commission had spent a great deal of time on each of these issues, and had viewed the whole plan as one site with the northerly lot's development being reviewed by the Commission at such a time that the applicant would be moving into the development phase of the planning process. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Directing Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Recommending Approval of a Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Plans for Dr. Kelly Bosworth, 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive. Councilmember Zerby questioned whether there were any concerns regarding the hours of operation, and requested hours be specified in the development agreement. Motion passed 4/0. C. Minor Subdivision and Bluff Impact Setback Variance Applicant: Thomas Thiss Location: 6110 Ridge Road . Director Nielsen explained Mr. Thomas This is proposed subdividing his property at 6110 Ridge Road into two lots. Due to the topography on the eastern half of the lot, Mr. Thiss had also requested a variance to the bluff setback requirement. Director Nielsen also explained the subject site was zoned R- IAlS, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contained 2.42 acres of land. It was occupied by a single-family dwelling and a detached garage. The property was accessed by Ridge Road, a private street. The land was situated between Christmas Lake and Silver Lake, and was relatively wooded and dropped rather dramatically (>40 percent grade) toward Silver Lake. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 8 of 11 . The proposed lots would contain 45,239 square feet (west lot) and 60,145 square feet (east lot). The applicant had provided hardcover calculations showing the lot with the house on it would have 21.7 percent impervious surface. The small garage on the west side of Ridge Road was nonconforming with respect to side yard setback requirements. Although both of the proposed lots met or exceeded the R-1A/S size requirements, the applicant was . asked to demonstrate the new lot would be buildable. Driveway grade and bluff impact were two issues raised in the initial review of the proposed division. The applicant was directed to show a driveway serving the new lot could meet a maximum eight percent grade. The proposed building pad shown on the survey provides for a driveway that meets the City's requirements. The slope of the land in the southwest comer of the new lot was more gradual than most of the lot. In spite of that and despite taking advantage of the average setback provision allowing a reduced front yard setback where adjoining structures were closer to the street, the proposed building pad encroached into the 20-foot bluff impact zone for Silver Lake. Director Nielsen further explained that even if the house pad was reduced to comply with the bluff setback, the driveway would still need to encroach in order to meet the maximum grade requirement, and he had recommended the variance be limited to the driveway construction only. Thomas Thiss, 6110 Ridge Road, stated he thought the site had a plateau with a gradual slope in the buildable area and there was no real encroachment in the bluff area as a bluff was not readily apparent in the topography of the site in this area. He requested Council allow the extension of the building pad into the "bluff' area as it would give an architect room to maneuver a structure on the site, and no real impact to a bluff was being made. . Planning Commissioner Conley explained, in response to Councilmember Turgeon's question, that the Commission had believed there was adequate space on the site to construct a new structure within the buildable area of the lot, and there was no demonstrable hardship for granting a variance to allow construction to enter into the bluff impact zone. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Directing Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Approving the Request for a Minor Subdivision, subject to Staff Recommendations, and Denying the Bluff Impact Setback Variance Request for Thomas Thiss, 6110 Ridge Road. Motion passed 4/0. D. Shorewood Village Shopping Center - Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Signage Director Nielsen explained representatives of the Shorewood Village Center had submitted an application to revise the center's existing conditional use permit for multiple signage. He went on to explain Shorewood's Zoning Code allowed each commercial property up to three signs - one freestanding and two wall signs. Properties with multiple tenants, such as a shopping center, by conditional use permit, could be allowed more signs based upon an overall sign plan approved by the City. . The City's regulations allowed the property owner latitude with respect to the design of the signage plan. In the past, the center was quite restrictive, going so far as to specify lettering style and color. The new plan provided for more flexibility in this regard. Tenants were allowed different lettering styles and a broader choice of colors, and under the revised plan, logos were allowed for display as well. Director Nielsen also stated the biggest change in the new plan was that signs would be allowed to be internally lit with LED lighting. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 9 of 11 . Director Nielsen explained the City's primary concerns with respect to signage in this case were the size number of signs. The revised plan spelled out how big and how many signs were allowed for each of two types of tenants. "In-line" and "Interior Mall" tenants were allowed one sign each, to be located within the signage band on the front of the building, not to exceed 20 square feet in area. Major tenants occupying 5000 square feet or more of the center, were allowed additional signage. After clarification of the applicant's determination of appropriate signage planned for each type of tenant, Director Nielsen stated the total sign area for the major tenants remained of some concern. Although the total area of signage was within 10 percent ofthe building silhouette area, 150 square feet was considered a great deal of signage. Director Nielsen also explained two new tenants' requests were to have the business name included with the previously allowed "open/closed" signage. With regard to the plan submitted, Director Nielsen's recommendation was that these signs be allowed, as long as it included only business identification and open/closed information, and remained limited to three square feet in area. Director Nielsen stated he had recalculated the signage footage, and found signage would be limited to 100 square feet for the two major tenants and the number of signs specified as two for future major tenants and three for larger major tenants, such as the hardware store and drug store, and with the three foot sign being revised to four feet for informational signage only. With these revised calculations, he was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and would include the revisions for the request. Councilmember Zerby expressed concern for larger informational signs, as the identification of the tenant would clearly be visible on the sign band on the exterior mall entrances. He also stated he would like to see an example of the LED technology to be utilized in the signage. . Without objection from Council, Staff requested time to gather appropriate related documentation regarding Council's concerns and would report back later in the Agenda for the evening. E. Appeal Notice to Remove Appellant: Wade Kenyon Location: 25565 Smithtown Road This item was moved from 3D on the Consent Agenda for further discussion and consideration. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had requested this item be moved to 8E in the Agenda as she wondered what was being constructed with the building materials on site, and stated she did not want these issues to remain without remedy for ninety days. She also stated she would like to see building permit applications within five to seven business days, and construction materials removed within 45 days. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Granting an Appeal Notice to Remove, subject to the following restrictions: Building permits would be applied for by March 31, 2004; Nuisance materials would be cleaned up within 30 days of this date; and Building materials would be removed within 45 days of application for building permits. Motion passed 4/0. Council then returned to Item 8D for further clarification from Director Nielsen on issues of concern. . Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-024, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Signs, subject to Staff Recommendations, and the Size of . . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 10 of 11 Informational Sign age to remain at 3 square feet and to include the name of the individual business. Councilmember Turgeon clarified the interior mall tenants should not have the information signs posted inside the mall windows. Without objection from the seconder of the motion, the maker of the motion amended the motion to include language stating the interior mall tenants should not have the informational signs posted inside the mall windows. Motion passed 4/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Commission Appointments This item was removed from the Agenda for this meeting and placed under Item 12, Work Session Meeting on Planning Commission Appointments. B. Revision to Gideon Glen Cooperative Agreement Administrator Dawson explained that late in 2003, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) drafted a cooperative agreement for the improvements and maintenance of them on the Gideon Glen property. The MCWD Board approved the agreement in December of 2003, and Shorewood City Council approved in on January 12, 2004. When the agreement arrived at Hennepin County, staff in the Transportation Department raised objections to the provision making it the County's responsibility to maintain the storm water treatment pond and grit chamber, as County policy strictly assigned this responsibility to cities. Staff entered into negotiations regarding this issue, and Administrator Dawson noted revisions to the Cooperative Agreement were still being discussed with regard to transference of wetland credits on the Gideon Glen site from the County to the City. Council clarified various aspects related to wetland credits and the Gideon Glen project. Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Revised Cooperative Agreement for Gideon Glen, and Authorizing Execution of the Cooperative Agreement by the Mayor and City Administrator. Motion passed 4/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS None. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. County Road 19 Intersection Administrator Dawson stated the County Road 19 intersection project was proceeding appropriately at this time. 2. Public Safety Facilities ~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 Page 11 of 11 . This item was discussed as part of Item lIB. Engineer Brown noted a well failure had occurred at the Woodhaven Well in the past week. He stated residents were receiving adequate service at this point in time with appropriate long term repair solutions also being considered. Attorney Keane stated the Lake Linden Drive condemnation offer had been accepted at appraised value and a trail would be constructed along the remaining segment in the future. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Love reported the residents concern regarding the northerly slope of the Public Safety Facility had been accepted and made part of the record at the March 17, 2004, EFD Board Meeting. Mayor Love recessed the Regular City Council Meeting to the Shorewood Economic Development Authority Meeting at 9:23 P.M., and a Work Session on Planning Commission Appointments would follow the EDA Meeting this evening. 12. WORK SESSION Mayor Love reconvened the Work Session portion of the meeting at 9:33 P.M. The Council discussed the Planning Commission Appointments and the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department budget and . related Joint Powers Agreement issues. Mayor Love recessed the Work Session portion of the meeting at 10:05 P.M., and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 10:06 P.M. 13. ADJOURN Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of March 22, 2004, at 10:07 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. """') / ,( / \ _/{G Woody Love, Mayor -,,~,. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recordin2 Secretary .