Loading...
CCM 06/10/2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY JUNE 10, 2013 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL : MEMBERS PRESENT : Mayor Lund Councilmember Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT : Darin Nelson, Interim City Manager Julie Jones, Planning Manager James Kosluchar, Public Works Director Darcy Erickson, City Attorney PRESENTATION: CenterPointe Energy: Donation to Fridley Fire Department. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES : 1.City Council Meeting of May 6, 2013. APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS : 2. Resolution for a Final Plat, PS #12-01, by Carlson McCain, for William Fogerty, to Subdivide the Existing Large Lot into Three Separate Lots to Allow for Potential Future Development Opportunities on the Site, Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue (Ward 1) (Continued May 6, 2013). Darin Nelson , Interim City Manager, stated Mr. Fogerty is requesting an extension of the final plat review and approval to the June 24, 2013, City Council meeting, in order to provide the time necessary to complete the technical changes to the plat. Mr. Fogerty has signed a waiver pursuant to Minn. Stat §15.99 which allows this item to be continued beyond the 60- day period. Staff recommends Council’s approval. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 2 Councilmember Bolkcom asked what is the chance if at the June 24 meeting Mr. Fogerty again says he is not ready. Julie Jones , Planning Manager, stated they have no guarantee; but the change they need to make is very minor in nature. They just have a document that needs to be completed and signed and they will then be ready to execute the plat. Staff has every reason to believe they will be able to complete that by June 24. CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 24, 2013. NEW BUSINESS: 3.Vacation Request, SAV #13-02, by Carlson McCain for William Fogerty, to Vacate a Public Road Easement, Two Sanitary Sewer Easements, and a Water Main Easement on the Property Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue (Ward 1). Darin Nelson, Interim City Manager, stated Mr. Fogerty has requested to have the right-of- way easement and utility easement vacation request continue to the June 24 Council meeting. Both Mr. Fogerty and the petitioner have signed the waiver pursuant to Minn. Stat §15.99 in relation to the 60-day process requirement. Staff recommends Council’s approval. CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 24, 2013. 4. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15, 2013. RECEIVED. 5. Resolution Designating an Official Depository for the Year 2013. Darin Nelson, Interim City Manager, stated in January, the City Council approved Wells Fargo as the City’s official depository. With the appointment of Walter Wysopal as the new City Manager, the City needs to create a signature line for him on the Official Depository Resolution. Staff recommends Council’s approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2013-28. 6. Appointments: Police Officers. Darin Nelson, Interim City Manager, stated there are two police officers to be appointed. The first is Nicholas Steiger who is being recommended for hire to fill the patrol officer position of Barry Pankonin. Mr. Steiger has been employed as a St. Francis police officer for the last seven years, and prior to that he was a sworn patrol deputy for the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. He graduated with honors from Alexandria Technical College in 2004 with FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 3 an Associate’s Degree. Most recently, he graduated from Concordia University with a bachelor of arts in criminal justice with the honor of high distinction. Mr. Nelson stated the second officer is Kota Patton who is being recommended for hire. Mr. Patton fills a vacancy created by the upcoming retirement of Sergeant Richard Cesare at the end of this month. Mr. Patton is a native of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is a seven-year veteran of the Air Force where he served as a security police officer. His last assignment was with Andrews Air Force base where he provided the security for VIPs flying in and out of the base. He holds an Associate’s Degree in general studies with honors as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in business administration project management from Colorado Technical University. He is currently enrolled in a graduate program. If approved, both officers will start on Monday, June 24, 2013. APPROVED. 7. Claims (159486 - 159920). APPROVED. 8. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 9. Estimates. Ron Kassa Construction th 6005 East 250 Street Elko, MN 55020-9447 2013 Miscellaneous Concrete Project No. 429 Estimate No. 1..............................................$ 10,315.81 Central Roofing, Inc. 4550 Main Street NE Minneapolis, MN 55421 2012 Municipal Center Roof Replacement No. 418 FINAL ESTIMATE (Estimate No. 3 )......$ 11,206.79 APPROVED. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA : MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA : MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM : (No one from the audience spoke) NEW BUSINESS : 10. Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, LS #13-01, to Create a Buildable Single Family Lot, Generally Located at 925 Mississippi Street (Ward 1). Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated the petitioner is Shermer Homes on behalf of the property owner at 925 Mississippi Street. They are seeking a lot split to subdivide this single-family home property. The home that already exists on the southerly portion of the lot will remain in place, and the subdivision will allow for the construction of a new home on the northern portion of the lot. Ms. Jones stated the subject property is zoned R-1, single family, as are all of the surrounding properties. The existing home and garage on the site were constructed in 1950. Fridley City Code does require that single-family lots in the R-1 zoning district be a minimum of 75 feet in width and total lot area or square footage of 9,000 square feet. The subject property is quite large at almost 32,000 square feet in size. Ms. Jones stated the petitioner would like to split off the north 117 feet of the lot to allow the creation of a new single-family lot. After the split, the new lot will be 11,700 square feet in size and 117 feet wide. The lot with the existing home on it will be 21,000 square feet in size and 100 feet wide. Ms. Jones stated the lot for the existing home will continue to meet all of the required setbacks and lot coverage requirements. There is adequate room for the new home to comply with all of the code-required setbacks. Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this proposed lot split on May 15, 2013. A few neighbors did speak out against the proposed split request. The petitioner is trying to accommodate the neighbors’ concerns by constructing the new house as far south on the lot as possible. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 5 Ms. Jones stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the lot because it does meet the minimum standards set forth in the Zoning Code. City staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission with five stipulations. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Ms. Jones to summarize what the neighbors’ concerns are. One of them was safety as to the traffic and location of the driveway. Ms. Jones replied she did know one neighbor across the street was concerned about losing the trees and the park-like look they had across the street from them. Also, the neighbor to the northwest of the proposed lot was actually interested in buying part of the property themselves to create a more standard sized lot. Even if the lot split proceeds, she is not sure if they had any negotiations with the petitioner or the landowner and that would not preclude that from happening in the future. It would require a plat and would not just be a simple lot split. It would be a more complicated subdivision. Councilmember Bolkcom asked was there a question about drainage? Ms. Jones replied that she had not heard. Rick Shermer , Shermer Homes, stated the problem for the people’s property to the north is their front yard is only 12 feet wide from the front of the house to the property line. He proposed to push the garage all the way to the south. He wants to be neighborly. There will be no windows on that side, the garage will be on the right side, and the driveway will not interfere with the people coming off of Able Street. He is trying to be reasonable. Councilmember Bolkcom replied that is very reasonable. Mr. Shermer statedin the top northerly part there is a 12-foot high fence. He would like to take the fence down and push the house all the way over. He addressed the neighbors after the meeting and they had no concerns. He will be doing what he can do to keep the trees. He has to hook up the sewer and do a street cut. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Shermer if he knew how many trees will have to come down. Mr. Shermer replied he does not know where the sewer actually is. He is pushing the garage all the way to the south side, and will do a retaining wall. Councilmember Saefke stated he was by the property today. It is a beautiful lot. He thinks Mr. Shermer will be able to save a good number of the trees. From his perspective, if you meet the Code, legally you have every right to split that lot. There was some concern about drainage but there are materials and/or techniques to avoid problems. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 6 Mr. Shermer replied the drainage now runs towards the northeast portion of the lot. He is not going to affect any of the drainage, and the drainage is not going to affect this property. Councilmember Saefke stated all that stuff needs to be approved anyway. He does not think there is any problem with this at all. th Bart Douglas, 871 – 66 Avenue NE, stated he lives two doors down from the property. He met Charles, the new neighbor, and he also met Brian and Kathy Hove. He visited with them and got the approval he could represent them on a couple of issues. As to the lot, the Hoves th live on, 891 – 66 Avenue NE, he asked if anyone knew if that lot was originally owned by the City. Councilmember Barnette replied, the family who originally lived there was named Bernster, and to the best of his knowledge, they owned that entire lot. Mr. Douglas stated he is talking about the Hoves’ lot. The one that was on the curve. If it is true that it was never owned by the City, it is his understanding it was part of an existing, undeveloped area owned by the City. It seems it was the decision of the City maybe to put a house in there. He apologizes if that is wrong. In his view that was wrong from a neighborly point of view. Not that it was not meeting Code, etc. To him that was like a strike one. Going forward, people moving, and a fence goes up. He asked everybody to try and put themselves in the position of the Hoves. Now a fence is up in your front yard. Mr. Douglas stated he lives two doors down. It is quite irregular. He was asking his father if he knows of any other lot in the City like that where there is an irregular lot where you do not possess the property adjacent to your driveway to your front door. He could not think of one. Mr. Douglas stated, No. 1, in his view the City erred in putting that lot there and building a house. Yes, the Hoves knew when they moved there the property line was there; but there was no fence. It is one thing not to have a fence right outside your front door. Councilmember Bolkcom asked who put the fence there. Mr. Douglas stated, the second strike, is that the City is now going to put in a house. Not that it is not by Code, etc. It is not quite neighborly to do that. His final point is, he does not know what ordinances are in other cities but asked if they have an ordinance where if you move and purchase a property there could be a period of time you must dwell there before you are able to split the lot? In this housing climate, they are in with a lot of buying and selling and moving. In his view, if he drove to this place and he saw a ripe apple to pick, knowing he could make a quick $85,000 to $100,000 by splitting the lot, maybe he would go in there, live there a couple of years, sell it and go. Ms. Jones stated there are people who have lived in that area for 20 to 30 years. The Hoves have lived there 23 years. Now the new neighbors are coming in, they have a full right to do FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 7 that but, again, if you live there would we do that to our neighbor? He also would like to propose the City entertain such an ordinance, that they look at legal possibilities if it would be out of line to have a two to three-year moratorium on lot splits when somebody new moves in. Mayor Lund stated he would ask the City Attorney to weigh on that but his first reaction is no. Mr. Douglas is talking more about a morality type thing, rather than legality. Councilmember Bolkcom stated you can buy a property and never live in it and split the lot. Anyone can do that. th Councilmember Saefke stated if you go down on Jackson and 66 there is a house that is not quite square with the lot. That is the original farm house that used to own that whole property there. Typically what would happen when Fridley was being developed, the farmers who owned the property sold it to developers, and the developers were responsible for platting the property. The City probably never really owned that property. As far as ownership of private property, he can buy whatever he wants. Darcy Erickson , City Attorney, stated she is not aware of any city in the metro area or the state for that matter that has any kind of restraint on the alienation of property, the selling of property. Property rights are a bundle of sticks; and that is the right to rent it, the right use it, and the right to sell it. The law itself does not always favor putting restraints on alienation or sale of property. She does not believe there is any type of expectation anyone can have that the property is not going to be developed. Here it appears to be meeting all of the Code requirements and while it might be nice to have the view the neighborhood currently enjoys, there really is not a way to stop something. The person has the right to develop property assuming it meets the requirements of the Code. Mayor Lund stated when he looked at it he thought it was a little bit of an odd lot. Put yourself as if it were your house, he probably would have been talking to the neighbor that owned that property a long time ago. Maybe even before considering buying it. See about buying a little pie shape there. On an outside corner usually you do have a lot line that goes out at an angle. This one is very square into the front yard and cuts off. Mayor Lund said from Council’s viewpoint it meets all the setback requirements, and he does not see that they can stop this. He certainly understands the fact that it is an inconvenience and an unusual scenario. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Mr. Douglas made the comment that the City is doing this lot split. However, it is coming before them for approval. The City did not seek out this owner to split this lot and build a home. These lots split happen all over the place. This does meet the requirements. She said she does not believe the City has the legal right to deny this request, and would probably be sued for it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 8 Mr. Douglas replied he was not saying the City is soliciting it in any way. However, they do have the authority to grant or deny. In conclusion, the City gains by a “yes” and it loses by a “no” because it gets another taxpayer. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she has a legal obligation to protect the City also, and she does think the City would be sued. They have no reasonable reason to deny this request because it meets all Code requirements to have a lot split here. She is not doing it because they are going to get another property on the tax roll. Mr. Douglas replied he is not saying they would make a decision for that reason. He is just making an objective statement saying the City benefits by approving it. It loses by denying. The City does not have a legal standing to deny it unless instead of going by the letter of the law, they took also the second method of leadership which is to go by the spirit of the law and try to empathize with the people they are representing. Councilmember Bolkcom said she is not saying they would emphasize but they also gain because they are bringing in another single-family home and another family into the community. She would like the City Attorney to comment about legal rights vs. moral or empathetic reasons to do something. Attorney Erickson stated she thinks the City would be very hard-pressed to find a reason grounded in the law as a basis for denying the request. It puts the City into a precarious situation if it were to deny on those grounds. Reading through the City Code, she does not see any distinction between the spirits of the law vs. the letter of the law. The Code is drafted with various objective terms, square footage, minimum lot size for the dimensions of a lot setback, etc. Those guidelines are drafted with the intent of protecting the surrounding properties and making sure that properties are not being developed and houses are spaced too closely. There is thought given to those requirements. She does not see there is any friction between the letter of the law and the intent of the law. Those are harmonious. Councilmember Saefke stated as to spirit of the law, it is private property ownership and what you can do with that property. One aspect is a person living there already on a probably funny looking lot. However, take it from the vantage of the person who owns this larger lot. These laws, codes, etc. are there to protect people’s rights. When you purchase property, you have the right to do whatever is within the law. All the gentleman is asking for is his right to split the lot and, as long as it meets all the legal requirements, that is the spirit of the law. The City is legally bound to let him do that as long as it is within the law. Whenever there is change, there will be people who object to it as things will not look the same or be the same. Mayor Lund commented as to Mr. Douglas’ comment that, yes, the City gains and the other way it does not. He believes Mr. Douglas is saying that relates to financially with respect to property taxes. It adds another taxpayer. Mr. Douglas replied, correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 9 Mayor Lund stated that is a little incorrect. With another property taxpayer, everyone else who pays the property taxes benefits, not the City. The City has a levy, and if there is one less taxpayer who meets that cap or that levy, then everybody else pays a little bit more. Having one more taxpayer reaching that cap in the levy, it means they all pay a little less. Mr. Douglas stated the request the homeowner has made and the request the neighbors have made and the reason this should be denied is it would be an exception. The exception would be that it is on an irregular road. Whoever moves in next will say I want to move into that house, look at the weird front yard and there is a house right by it. Mayor Lund stated he gets the impression this lot split makes it a natural okay and the existing house with 12 feet from their house and their front yard seems to be the irregular one. It makes it more normal to have this new house coming in with the one that is already existing. He would have been talking to the property owner about buying a slice there to make it a little bit more normal. Councilmember Varichak stated she had the same situation a few years ago where she lived. She had nobody across the street from her. About 8-10 years ago, the property owner across the street decided to sell the land, split the lot 6 different ways and there were 6 new homes in that area. She lost the woods across the street, and she felt her privacy was invaded; but she now has two really nice neighbors and they all watch out for each other and take care of the neighborhood. It was very hard for her to adjust. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2013-29 with the following five stipulations: 1.All necessary permits shall be obtained prior to construction on new home. 2. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City’s engineering staff prior to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. 3. Property owner, at time of building permit application, shall provide proof that any existing wells or individual sewage treatment systems located on the site are properly capped or removed. 4. Property owner, at time of building permit application for the construction of the single family home, shall pay $750.00 required park dedication fee. 5. Property owner at time, of building permit application for the construction of the single family home, shall pay all water and sewer connection fees. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 10 11. Resolution Approving Antenna Site Lease Agreement between the City of Fridley and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for Cellular Communications Equipment and Facilities at Commons Park (Ward 1). James Kosluchar, , Public Works Directorstated this is for Water Tower No. 1 at the Commons Filtration Plant site. Verizon Wireless contacted the City some years ago in regards to leasing space for telecommunications equipment at this site, and they needed additional coverage because of technology, etc. The water tower at Commons Water Treatment Plant is the site proposed and is approved by the City telecommunications ordinance. The proposed equipment under the terms of the lease include a communications shelter, 12 antennas on Commons Park Water Tower No. 1, and 18 co-ax lines running through the shelter to the antennas. Mr. Kosluchar stated the shelter is located to the northeast of the water tower. The water st treatment plant faces 61 and the water tower is behind it. The proposed shelter location is to the northeast. Independent access would also be part of the lease. Access just east of the Commons Park treatment plant to that location would be fenced in and exclusively accessible by Verizon. There will be antennas on top of the tower which is something new. The City’s current antennas are on the rail halfway up the tower. Mr. Kosluchar stated, as to terms of the lease, the City started with the standard city lease that got modified. There were a number of terms modified and updated and customized for this site and this use. There is an initial five-year term and it is renewable for four additional terms of five years. Those are actually standard terms. The lease rate would start at $34,200 per year. Rates will be increased by 3 percent annual during the term of the lease. Mr. Kosluchar stated Verizon will have to have a building permit application review, a structural analysis will be provided, and non-interference terms in the lease. Verizon will provide an interference analysis. There are three existing private carriers on the site plus City communications right now. He recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution. Councilmember Saefke asked how long will the antennas be? Mr. Kosluchar replied he believed they are eight feet and about a foot wide. Dave Fisher , Buell Consulting, stated he knows they are not taller than eight feet. Councilmember Saefke asked how close together they were. Mr. Fisher replied there are four per site and there are three sectors. That is a standard configuration. All the carriers have them. Councilmember Saefke stated seeing how this is going to be on top of the water tower, will it obstruct the view of the aircraft light? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 11 Mr. Fisher replied, no, he did not believe it would. Mr. Kosluchar stated he recalled in the plans it showed the aircraft light being raised a couple feet. Councilmember Saefke asked what good would that do if the antennas are eight feet and the aircraft light is raised only two feet. Mr. Kosluchar stated the aircraft light right now extends beyond the rail and is still visible above the rail. The difference between the rail height and the antenna height is the aircraft light gets raised so it is visible. Mr. Fisher replied he is sure it has to be in compliance with the FAA regulations. Councilmember Saefke asked how close will the antennas be to the maintenance rail. Mr. Fisher replied they are mounted on structural components that hold up the antennas. Those are actually outside the rail. He cannot give a measurement offhand. Councilmember Saefke asked Mr. Fisher if he has been on top of the water tower. Mr. Fisher replied he has not. Councilmember Saefke stated if there are hooks there for future maintenance/painting to hang a screen to cover the tower while it is being painted or sandblasted. He asked if the brackets would interfere. He asked what would happen when they do paint the water tower and the tower is encapsulated. How would they temporarily mount them? Mr. Fisher replied that is typically taken into account. They have antennas on top of thousands of water towers, and they have the same situation where they want to make sure there is no interference. They will make sure to work closely with Mr. Kosluchar. Councilmember Saefke stated he does not object at all; however, his whole problem with this is aesthetically it does not look very good. The antennas up there now are mainly unobtrusive as they are on the outside rail about two-thirds of the way down and they are painted the same color as the tower. Most people do not even notice that. They will when they see eight-foot antennas on top of the tower, because he has seen them in other communities. It reminds him of a porcupine. Mr. Fisher replied, sure, and he would not argue that. Unfortunately, because of the height requirement, the spatial constraints, the lack of no other sites in the City, along with some other concerns, the only space is on the tower. At least they were able to utilize this existing structure rather than building a new one. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 12 Councilmember Saefke stated he believed there would be some possible future issues with painting maintenance. He asked if the antennas are able to be painted. Mr. Fisher stated they will do everything possible to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Councilmember Saefke asked if they have looked at Water Tower No. 2. Mr. Kosluchar replied there is a pending easement. That would be an additional site to their network. They have actually done their due diligence looking at all alternative sites. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is some other nearby community that has a water tower with these types of antennas on top. Mr. Fisher replied, he is sure there are hundreds. He cannot think of any off the top of his head. He has done this for 18 years and they have hundreds and hundreds of water towers. Whenever they cannot go on the catwalk and there are space constraints because of other carriers, etc., already there, they have to put it on top. Councilmember Bolkcom stated although this is a site that is approved in the City’s telecommunication ordinance, it does not automatically get approved. There is still an agreement they have to approve. Mr. Kosluchar replied, that is correct. The telecommunications ordinance is the first task that is required. The City does happen to own some of the approved sites. Mr. Fisher stated Verizon is in the process of executing an agreement. They would like to have a lease authorization for the Mayor and the City manager to sign so they do not have to come back before the City Council to be executed upon an approval by the City Attorney and Mr. Kosluchar of the construction drawing. Councilmember Bolkcom stated also in no way does this affect the City’s water tower. They have their own structure where they can go into and have their own fencing. It does not mean that anyone who works and maintains their antennas compromises any of the City’s structures. Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct. From a worker’s safety standpoint, there is going to be exposure and proximity to this equipment. The equipment stands off far enough where that exposure is reasonable. If there is long-term maintenance, such as tower painting, the equipment can be turned off. In addition, the lease document includes the requirement for the tenant to remove their equipment in the event the City needs to do maintenance. Councilmember Bolkcom stated also if they suddenly decide they do not want this anymore, they cannot just abandon it and leave the large antennas up there. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 10, 2013 PAGE 13 Mr. Kosluchar replied that is correct. The City Attorney has put some assurances in the agreement that there is a bond requirement Verizon would need to hold and that should take care of removal of any abandoned equipment. Darcy Erickson, City Attorney,stated they have the plans that are attached which are fine for the construction, but the City would request that in the event a tweak needs to be made because a nut, bolt, or something is in the way, the City Public Works Director can work with Verizon on it. Mayor Lund stated they just want to make sure that what is included in this lease is essentially correct. Attorney Erickson stated, yes, they have conceptual plans they believe are accurate. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt Resolution No. 2013-30. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor Lund