|
|
|
 |
ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado.
ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL
Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding
Vicki Stack
Cheryl Wise
Debbie Koop
Bob Murphy
Sue King
Ed Peterson
Doug Anderson
Ray Elliott
Diana Allen
Mike Stevens
Absent: None.
Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Roger Noonan, City Attorney
Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present.
ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
BOY SCOUT/GIRL SCOUT INTRODUCTION
Mayor Burkholder introduced a Girl Scout and Boy Scout present in the audience.
The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:
ITEM 4 - RESOLUTION 2007-6 - FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF A QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF 60 GOLF CARTS AND THREE RANGER CARTS FROM EZ-GO TEXTRON
ITEM 5 - ORDINANCE O-2007-5 - DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ACQUIRE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SOUTH SHERIDAN BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE TO VIRGINIA AVENUE FOR THE SHERIDAN SIDEWALK PROJECT CENTER AVENUE TO VIRGINIA AVENUE, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE INSTRUMENTS, AND CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS
ITEM 6 - ORDINANCE O-2007-6 - AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF AN EASEMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY FOR UTILITY LINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES TO PROVIDE UTILITY SERVICE TO THE REGIONAL PARKS MAINTENANCE BUILDING LOCATED IN THE BEAR CREEK LAKE PARK LOCATED AT 15660 MORRISON ROAD, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO
ITEM 7 - ORDINANCE O-2007-7 - REPEALING AND REENACTING TITLE 4 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S PERSONNEL POLICIES
ITEM 8 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Regular City Council Meeting, November 13, 2006
Regular City Council Meeting, November 27, 2006
Regular City Council Meeting, December 11, 2006
Regular City Council Meeting, January 8, 2007
Regular City Council Meeting, January 22, 2007
ITEM 9 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Planning Commission Meeting, April 5, 2006
Planning Commission Meeting, November 1, 2006
Planning Commission Meeting, November 15, 2006
Planning Commission Meeting, December 6, 2006
Youth Commission Meeting, November 21, 2006
Youth Commission Meeting, December 12, 2006
Commission on Cultural Diversity &
....and Human Relations Meeting, November 1, 2006
Housing Authority Meeting, November 27, 2006
Housing Authority Meeting, December 14, 2006
Public Comment: None.
Councilwoman Wise made a motion to accept the minutes of the boards and commissions, order all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published in the Rocky Mountain News and public hearings set for the date included in the ordinance, and adoption of resolutions, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda items introduced into the record by the City Clerk. It was seconded by Councilman Murphy.
Councilwoman Allen - Stated the Housing Division has been audited by the Office of the Inspector General. They found that all the Housing funds are appropriately used and accounted for. The Office of the Inspector General stated "it is unusual to see such a successful Housing Authority that is so creative and innovative without having to rely heavily on Federal funding." Stated Council is keeping an eye on the Housing Division.
Councilman Peterson - Stated he was present when the Inspector General gave their final report on the Lakewood Housing Authority. Stated he was very pleased with the report the Housing Authority prepared to City Council and even more impressed with the audit results from the Inspector General's Office. The Inspector General's Office stated they wish they had more housing authorities with the abilities and attributes that Lakewood's Housing Authority demonstrated through their operations and practices. Congratulated the Lakewood Housing Authority for the successful completion of the audit.
Councilwoman Stack - Stated she has a question on Item 4. Stated it has been 14 years since Lakewood has used EZ-GO Textron for golf carts. Asked Lakewood Regional Parks and Golf Manager, Bill Jewell, if there are bids being taken at this time.
Lakewood Regional Parks and Golf Manager - Bill Jewell - Stated they have not taken a bid. They watch the prices when they ask for a quote.
Vote on the Consent Agenda: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
Second Reading of Ordinances and Public Hearings
ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2007-2 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEEDS IN LIEU OF VACATION OF THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PORTION OF SOUTH FIELD STREET; FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Public Comment: None.
Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-2 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Vote on O-2007-2: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 11 - ORDINANCE O-2007-3 - AUTHORIZING OF AN EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES FOR UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE AND RELATED FACILITIES ACROSS A PORTION OF BEECH PARK TO GREEN MOUNTAIN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO
Public Comment: None.
Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-3 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Vote on O-2007-3: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 12 - ORDINANCE O-2007-4 - AMENDING THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING ARTICLE 22 CREATING THE TRANSIT MIXED USE (TMU) ZONE DISTRICT
Rob Smetana -Community Planning and Development Principal Planner
Entered into the record Case Number AO06-003. Asked that the Lakewood Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and all its Amendments
be included in the record. Asked City Council to accept all materials presented
during hearing. Stated they are requesting City Council approve Article 22,
the Transit Mixed Use Zone District as an Amendment to Lakewood's Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Smetana, Planning Commission Chair Rich Urbanowski, and Manager of Comprehensive Planning and Research Roger Wadnal, gave a PowerPoint presentation describing the overall intent of the TMU Zone District, a map showing the TMU areas, public input, Transit Oriented Development implementation steps, TMU Zone District purpose, public notification as well as residential, special, non-conforming and prohibited uses. Discussed Planning Commission's input, actions and recommended actions.
Public Comment:
Kathi Hasfjord - 5786 W. 8th Ave., Lakewood, CO
Stated she lives in a neighborhood impacted with three stops and two parking
garages due to the light rail. The TMU Zone District is a peek at the future
and it is important to have guidelines as to how the properties are developed
in this area. Stated she supports the passing of this ordinance.
Gary Edelen - 1320 Oak St., Lakewood, CO
Stated he supports the TMU Zone District and feels it will enhance the property
value in the area. He is concerned with the non-conforming use. Stated the Planning
Department has indicated there are only a few properties that are affected by
non-compliance and new TMU Zoning ordinances and he believes there is a lot
of ambiguous language within Article 16.
Mary Bindner - 2669 S. Wadsworth Cir., Lakewood, CO
Stated the Board of Directors of the West Colfax Community Association request
the passage of the proposed overlay zoning for the area around the light rail
stations at Sheridan and Wadsworth Boulevards and Oak and Union Streets. This
plan is a needed modification to the existing zoning.
Doug Stiverson - 7310 W. Colfax Ave., Lakewood, CO
Stated he supports what the Planning Commission has come up with. With the new
zoning, a property owner has the option of leaving his property the way it is
or expanding on options that are not currently allowed.
Fred Clifford - 11405 W. 17th Pl., Lakewood, CO
Stated he does not have a particular interest and is speaking on general principle.
He read some of the language from the ordinance and background information.
Stated he believes the purpose of the ordinance is backwards.
Marlin Severe - 8015 W. 12th Ave., Lakewood, CO
Stated he is opposed to the whole concept. Property values are not going to
go up because of this. Stated he will sell his property to a developer before
being pushed under by the thumb of the City. If the City goes after his property,
he will go after the City for 10 million dollars.
Brian Wareing - Unincorporated Jefferson County
Stated the original project was going to cost $4.7 billion. However, after debt
servicing and a construction schedule change that figure would be near $10 billion.
Stated the light rail would only be successful if people are forced to use it.
Alan Yehle - 11215 W. Center, Lakewood, CO
Stated he approves this Plan but has concerns. He is a fairly close neighbor
to the Union Station TMU and the transition zone. Stated a TMU Zone between
a 12-story building and residential property on Alameda is very abrupt.
Marty Flaum - 10023 Irving St., Lakewood, CO
Stated he is representing a landowner in the area, Jeff Bray. Thanked Councilwoman
Stack, along with Roger Wadnal and Rob Smetana from the Planning Department,
for helping them understand the situation. Stated these are things the City
needs to do to manage growth.
Fran Yehle - 1235 Everett Ct., Lakewood, CO
Stated she strongly supports the TMU Zone District. Commended the City on its
citizen involvement process. The ordinance protects the quality of life for
those who spend a lot of time in the area.
David Rothenburger - 1310 Garrison St., Lakewood, CO
Stated he is in favor of the rezoning process. He was involved in a lot of the
meetings during this process and stated it was a very open process. Stated the
City did not have a pre-conceived idea; they started the process with citizen
input. It is a more pedestrian driven area rather than automobile.
Ann Johnson - 10350 W. 13th Pl., Lakewood, CO
Stated that if this ordinance were passed with the current language and boundaries
her neighborhood would essentially be cut in half. Asked questions and commented
about medium density. Asked that the transition zones be reconsidered between
low density and medium density.
Camille Lipinski - 10355 W. 13th Pl., Lakewood, CO
Stated that although she is excited about the new light rail concept, she is
threatened by the zoning ordinance. Asked for a new ordinance or better definition
to local property owners and further opportunity to voice their opinions.
John Plotkin - Planning Commission Vice Chair - 2755 Taft Ct., Lakewood, CO
Stated he is in support of the ordinance. The Planning Commission put in a great
deal of effort with an eye towards protecting the landowners. Stated taking
people's property is not a part of this ordinance.
Diane Gotch - PO Box 1972, Evergreen, CO
Stated her family owns the property under Fordland. She disagrees with Mr. Plotkin
and stated that eminent domain is involved. Fordland was declared blighted in
the Urban Redevelopment Program. The six-month lapse for non-conforming use
is unreasonable and should be at least a year. Asked that the ordinance language
be reevaluated.
Joe Whitney - 1325 Vance St., Lakewood, CO
Stated he is here on behalf of the Grandville and Grandville owner, Oat Whitney.
Read a letter written by Oat Whitney. The letter stated they support the TMU
Zone District. Thanked City staff for their work on the TMU Zone District.
Jeff Gray - Lakewood Citizen
Stated at first he was concerned with the development but has realized that
he is happy with what has been planned.
Tracey Sheffield - 7280 W. 3rd Pl., Lakewood, CO
Stated he strongly supports the TMU Zone District. It has all the key elements
to move Lakewood into the future.
Natalie Menten - Ward 5
Stated there is a property that should be on the non-conforming list and is
not. Asked if there is a more complete list of non-conforming properties.
Bill Marino - Planning Commission -1320 S. Foothills Dr., Lakewood, CO
Stated that some years back he and the Planning Commission promised not to propose
a TMU Zone District until they were completely ready. They have now delivered
a TMU Zone that they believe will help to shape the future. Stated they purposely
excluded some prescriptive language because they cannot see the future.
Laura Green - Lakewood Citizen
Asked if eminent domain and urban renewal are not a part of this process. Asked
if it is in writing anywhere. Stated the apartments in the area should be considered.
Brian Poyer - Unincorporated Jefferson County
Stated the bottom line of this project is whether it serves the public.
Public Comment was closed.
Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-4 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Mayor Burkholder clarified this project is not an urban renewal project.
Councilwoman Stack asked why the City wouldn't shorten the footprint and stay out of the single-family homes if it were a conforming use in all zones. Why wouldn't the boundaries be moved away from single-family neighborhoods.
Roger Wadnal - Stated the boundaries are about a quarter mile away from the stations. Single-family homes are pretty much scattered throughout the whole area. It would be difficult to re-draw those lines without eliminating most everything else.
Councilwoman Stack - Stated she is discussing the single-family homes that are in neighborhoods with other single-family homes. There are areas where that is happening in this zoning, around the Cedar Crest and Sheridan Areas.
Roger Wadnal - Stated quite a bit of the project area, the Sheridan Area for example, are currently single-family homes. The idea was that the areas within close proximity to the stations had potential for redevelopment. Keeping the existing uses in place would allow someone to stay in their home with a conforming use indefinitely. Stated there are other uses that are added in. Most of the Sheridan area is either multi-family or single-family and the decision was to take the areas within a quarter mile.
Councilwoman Stack - Stated there are a lot of single-family homes in the Brentwood area, between 10th and 13th Avenues. They are bringing higher uses into an area that is currently zoned for 2R.
Roger Wadnal - Stated the boundaries were a result of a number of public meetings. It is a result of the process. Potentially they could redevelop and potentially they could stay the way they are.
Councilwoman Stack - Regarding the footprint, asked that if it were compared to something like Belmar would it be a larger footprint than Belmar? Asked Mr. Smetana to discuss the land mass and density level.
Roger Wadnal - Stated in terms of size, the areas would be somewhat larger than an area like Belmar. The densities would be, in some cases, higher near the stations. At the station core, it may be a little more dense but the outline areas would be on the low end in comparison to the lower density areas of Belmar.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked if he knows what the number of people being drawn to this area is.
Rob Smetana - For the station core they are looking at 35 units per acre and feathering out to three, four or five units per acre at the edge. Stated there is a broad mix of densities and that could have an impact on the number of residents that are there.
Councilwoman Stack - If replacements on restrictions are being made on zoning that are currently allowed, would it be something other than contract zoning.
Roger Wadnal - Stated this zoning ordinance is not contract zoning at all.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked what the difference is.
Roger Wadnal - Stated this is a zone district for an entire area. Contract zoning is where you enter into a contract with a property owner for a piece of property.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked if it would be considered spot zoning.
Roger Wadnal - Stated it is not spot zoning at all.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked if it was reiterated to the public what distance was being feathered out.
Rob Smetana - Stated it started with a boundary around each one of the four stations. The idea is that the area within the boundary changes the areas, which are mostly neighborhoods. Outside of the boundaries do not. There were discussions at each of the sessions. Stated there were over 450 people at the station meetings.
Councilman Elliott - Asked if something happened in a primary residential use, could it be replaced even if they were a non-conforming use.
Rob Smetana - Stated there would not be any residential uses that would be non-conforming. If it were a non-conforming business, they could rebuild.
Roger Wadnal - Single-family, detached residential structures are permitted in all of the categories where they exist today. They would be allowed replace or rebuild without any restrictions.
Councilman Elliott - Clarified that single-family housing, whether attached or detached, is allowed in every zone district. Asked if there are no non-conforming residential uses.
Roger Wadnal - There are no existing non-conforming residential uses. For new construction, there are some limits on where single-family detached can be built.
Councilman Elliott - Asked if a non-conforming business use structure were to be destroyed, would they be able to rebuild.
Roger Wadnal - Stated it would follow the current ordinance, there is a 60% destruction clause.
Councilman Elliott - Asked if there are any exceptions or options to the 180-day requirement.
Rob Smetana - If there is a valid business license still in effect, that use can continue beyond the 180-day point. He is not aware of any exceptions made in the past but will check into it.
City Manager Mike Rock - Stated that the City could revisit the non-conforming use ordinance. City Council and staff needs to be thoughtful about exceptions for different businesses.
Councilman Elliott - Stated if a business license is in effect, it could potentially be another six months before it lapses. Asked if there would be another six months before that license would lapse and in essence give 12 months.
Rob Smetana - If it were clear the business was gone and no longer operational, then the 180-day requirement would take effect.
Councilman Elliott - Asked who makes the determination of when the 180-day requirement begins.
Roger Wadnal - Stated it is an enforcement issue.
Councilman Elliott - Asked if it is a judgment call if it is obvious the business is vacated or the license has lapsed.
Roger Wadnal - Stated there is no one single issue. Ultimately it is the decision
of Code Enforcement based on all factors.
Councilman Elliott - Stated his concern is that currently there are 25 properties
that are conforming uses and they will be changed to non-conforming use.
Councilwoman Allen - Asked what happens on a neighborhood level if this passes and somebody wants to build. Asked if it would go to the Planning Commission.
Roger Wadnal - Stated some of these areas would be within the zoning rights and wouldn't go to a public hearing. There would have to be site plan approval but the performance based review process would kick in. That requires meetings with adjacent properties and development to be compatible with surrounding areas.
Councilwoman Allen - Clarified that property owners will have some input as to what could be built next to them.
Councilwoman Koop - Thanked all those involved in this process. Stated this was a very open public process. Asked if there are maps available of each of the station areas. Asked if they could display the station area maps for the public.
Rob Smetana - Displayed the station area maps and discussed the boundaries. Stated that each of the areas were adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked about housing in all zones that would not be a non-conforming use. Does that include those that are not owner occupied.
Rob Smetana - Stated the ownership status doesn't matter now.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked for someone to explain non-conforming use for vacant land because there may be an issue there.
Rob Smetana - Stated there should not be an issue there. Article 16 talks about non-conforming vacant land but it talks about it in dimensional requirements. He does not believe there would be any instances with these station areas where they would have non-conforming vacant land.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked what happens with non-conforming parcels of land that are a part of the urban renewal district.
Rob Smetana - Stated that this only deals with zoning. The non-conforming issue wouldn't be any different than the current zoning. Stated they are two different processes.
Councilwoman Stack - Clarified that they would not look at it when they are looking at the urban renewal.
Rob Smetana - Stated the steps to qualify the area have already been completed. The next step would be to identify a project.
Councilwoman Stack - Stated it could go outside those boundaries if needed.
Rob Smetana - Stressed that they are two different processes and this is zoning.
Councilman Stevens - Asked about the ambiguity of the development of the vacant land. Asked if it is left to the performance base review.
Rob Smetana - Stated performance base would be part of the overall process. The zoning district is set up so that there are no specific dimensional requirements for a particular lot like in other zone districts.
Councilman Stevens - Stated that it could be considered vague though it was purposely created that way so there could be some flexibility for future projects.
Rob Smetana - Stated the performance base review process would be used to access flexibility.
Councilman Stevens - Stated this is a new concept for everyone. Asked if the 25 properties are conforming now and will they be non-conforming under the new TMU Zone.
Rob Smetana - Stated there is a combination right now.
Councilman Murphy - Stated that there are two separate and distinct issues at hand. The issue is the creation of TMU Zone Districts around new light rail stations and creating a reinvestment area on Colfax Ave. They are doing this because light rail is going to bring change and they are going to try to direct the new densities. Stated they want to protect the character of the residential neighborhoods by keeping the densities out of these existing neighborhoods.
Councilman Peterson - Read from the last paragraph of 17-22-1. Stated this
paragraph speaks volumes for how they will use this particular rezoning of the
area to make sure that residents with inherent property rights are heard and
respected. Asked about the station core plan title TMUC. Stated that is the
only district that speaks about public parks and open space as a permitted use.
Asked why the wording was changed.
Roger Wadnal - Stated they are trying to encourage the highest densities in
those station areas while understanding the need for open space. They shifted
the open space requirement in those highest density areas to the private realm
by requiring open space as part of the development.
Councilman Peterson - Verified that the philosophy of development within the city requiring stand-alone projects to incorporate a certain level of open space won't change because of the density of the station area core plan.
Roger Wadnal - Stated that is correct. They will still require all development to provide open space, whether public or private.
Councilman Peterson - Stated there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that requires any mandatory eminent domain.
Rob Smetana - Stated this is strictly related to zoning. There is no language dealing with that subject in this ordinance.
Councilman Peterson - Asked if there is anything in this ordinance that indicates the expansion of the urban renewal district or any intent to do so.
Rob Smetana - No. It is strictly zoning.
Councilman Elliott - Concerned that business owners are going to be losing uses. Asked about the special use process.
Rob Smetana - Stated if there is a use that is currently permitted and falls under a special use, there is an exception in the ordinance that says "if an existing use under the new ordinance requires a special use, that particular use is exempt from that particular requirement." Any new use would require the special use which gives the opportunity to review any special aspects that may affect a neighborhood or property.
Councilman Elliott - Clarified that if they fall under the special use while they are coming in, it will be a permitted use and not a special use.
Rob Smetana - Stated that is correct.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked how often the performance based review process has been used in the past.
Rich Urbanowski - Planning Commission Chair - Stated every project that comes through to the Planning Commission involves the performance based review process. Prior to the adoption of the performance based review process the City staff was already utilizing that process to some degree.
Councilwoman Stack - She would like to see a report of some kind showing they had used the performance based review process since the adoption.
Rich Urbanowski - Stated he does not have a specific instance he can refer to at this time. They know the process is affecting most, if not all, of the developments that come through.
Roger Wadnal - Stated he does have an example. The Lakewood Self-Storage project was one that went before Planning Commission. They significantly altered their design due to concerns of property owners.
Councilwoman Stack - Clarified that if it were passed this evening, it would not come back before Council. Stressed the importance of the performance based review process. Concerned Council would not have the opportunity to participate in the rezoning process.
Roger Wadnal - One of the key elements of the performance based review process is public involvement of the affected neighborhood.
City Attorney Roger Noonan - Rezoning of property would still continue to come before City Council. City Council is the fact-finding body of rezoning; Planning Commission only makes a recommendation on zoning.
Councilwoman Stack - Stated she is looking for something to base a judgment on.
Roger Noonan - Clarified that rezoning always comes to City Council for approval or denial.
Councilwoman Stack - Asked if Council re-maps after creating a district or is it a City staff responsibility.
Roger Noonan - Stated the re-mapping is a unique legislative process that is the decision of City Council. Once Council makes the decision it would stay with City staff.
Councilman Anderson - Stated he would be voting in opposition of this ordinance due to the impact of the existing property owners. Respect and communication need to happen.
Councilman Peterson - Assured City Council and citizens that the staff and current Planning Commission members are committed to seeing that this process is adhered to. Stated he strongly supports this ordinance.
Vote on O-2007-4: 9 Ayes. 2 Nays (Stack, Anderson). The motion carried.
ITEM 13 - GENERAL BUSINESS
City Clerk Margy Greer - Reported that an Initiative Petition was received on January 2, 2007, by the City Clerk's Office. The petition was to rezone parcels of land within Springfield Green in Rooney Valley. She determined the petitions were insufficient and would not be moving forward with an election.
ITEM 14 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comments are not a verbatim transcription but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the City Clerk.
Benjamin Herrera - 1380 S. Depew St., Lakewood, CO
He and his neighbors are concerned with the lack of enforcement of zoning regulations
and fire codes; multiple families living in single family residences, excessive
traffic and noise.
Brian Wareing - Unincorporated Jefferson County
Stated he is displeased with the actions of City staff.
Public Comment was closed.
Councilwoman Wise - Stated the previous speaker is not even a citizen of Lakewood. Stated they should not have to sit and listen to the personal attacks on City Council.
Councilman Murphy - In response to Mr. Herrera, stated there are ordinances in place for all the concerns he discussed. Stated they will look into his concerns.
ITEM 15 - REPORTS
Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.
ITEM 16 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
