PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:10
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING AN AMENDED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR MARRONI’S IN THE TOWNE HALL
BUILDING AT
19 N. CENTER
STREET
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
O’Brien. Others present were: Judy
Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Steve Marroni, Reesea
Fought, Dragon Picalovski, Tracy Simms, Deblin Jennings, Frank Jennings, Tom
Leach, and others.
Mr. Schultz stated Marroni’s is replacing Grisini’s restaurant and they are requesting new signage. He stated they are introducing new colors on the signs that are different from the other signs that were approved for Towne Hall.
Mr. Marroni stated he hoped everyone had received the information showing the signs he proposed, and the colors he would like to use are black, green, and red, and he felt they portrayed the type of image he would like, which is a casual, fine dining establishment. Mr. Marroni stated the signs used by Towne Hall are black and gold and are difficult to see, and he believed the colors he is proposing will stand out, however, the colors are soft enough that they will blend in well with the surroundings. Mr. Marroni stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have.
There being no further comments, Mr. Blake declared the public hearing closed at 7:15 P.M., September 13, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
PUBLIC
HEARING
7:20
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING A COMPRHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR DEBLIN DESIGN AT 18 EAST COLUMBUS STREET
Mr. Blake
opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission present:
Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
O’Brien. Others present were: Judy
Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Steve Marroni, Reesea
Fought, Dragon Picalovski, Tracy Simms, Deblin Jennings, Frank Jennings, Tom
Leach, and others.
Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing to put an 18-1/2 square foot oval sign on the building. He stated back in 2004 this Commission approved the abandonment of a non-conforming projection sign at this location and agreed they would be allowed to have 36 square feet of signage for this building.
Mr. Jennings stated the sign would be navy blue and white letters and graphics and would have a matte finish. Mr. Jennings stated the sign would be affixed to the building.
There being no further comments, Mr. Blake declared the public hearing closed at 7:23 P.M., September 13, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Lance A. Schultz,
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning
CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake present. Mr. Binkley was absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Phil Hartmann, Reesea Fought, Dragon Picalovski, Tracy Sims, Deblin Jennings, Frank Jennings, Steve Marroni, Tom Leach, Steve Hermiller, Jack Reynolds, Roger Epperson, Matt Hobart, Dan Ryan, Jim Hiltz, Tim Krazinski, and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2005, Public Hearing regarding Sign Standards. Mr. Kramer moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2005, Public Hearing regarding Residential Design Standards. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2005, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve Final Plats for Section 2 – Phases 3 and 4 of the Spring Creek Subdivision (Dominion Homes). (TABLED, 06/14/05). Mr. Blake stated this would remain on the Table.
B. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Deblin Design at 18 East Columbus Street. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report submitted to the Commission and stated staff supports the request with the condition that the building sign letters and graphics have a matte finish. Mr. Frank Jennings stated he would answer any questions the board may have and Mr. Bosch clarified the applicant did not have a problem with the condition that the letters and graphics have a matte finish. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the condition set forth by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Town Hall Building (17-25 North Center Street) and Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Signage for Marroni’s at 19 North Center Street. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report submitted to the Commission, and stated staff supported the request with the conditions that the square footage and location of the proposed sign shall be the same as the former Grissini’s signs, and that the colors of the proposed Marroni’s sign shall be limited to tan, gold, black, and chocolate to be consistent with the other signs on the building. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant was requesting red lettering, a green border strip, with a black background and a white outer border. Mr. Steve Marroni stated he was requesting the green, red, and white colors in order to stay with the Italian theme. He stated he could eliminate the white color and stick with the green, red, and black. Mr. Marroni stated he felt this was a beautiful location for the type of restaurant he wants to put there, however, with the signs that are currently on the building, the colors make them really hard to read. Mr. Marroni stated he would appreciate this Commission’s consideration on the color change. Mr. Fix clarified that the changes to the Code regarding signs is still on Council floor. Mr. Fix further clarified that staff’s recommendations are consistent with the Code regarding the number of colors. Mr. Hartmann stated it was his understanding that the three color limitation does apply to the old downtown area. Mr. Fix stated it was staff’s recommendation to limit the colors to the ones that are already on the building today, and he wanted to know if it was within our Code to do that or if we could just limit him to three colors. Mr. Hartmann stated he did not believe there was any provision in the Code that would require the signs be limited to the colors on the building. Ms Gilleland stated it was in the purview of this Commission to require that. Mr. Schultz stated when the applicant applied for the Comprehensive Sign Plan a couple of years ago, they wanted to keep it within the same color range. Mr. Nicholas clarified that Mr. Marroni had provided a copy of the proposed sign to the owner of the building and he had indicated he liked the signs. Mr. Hartmann stated with regard to Mr. Fix’s question, the applicant, by Code, would be limited to three colors, however, there is no specific provision in the Code that requires the signs to comply with or be similar to other signs on the building. Mr. Fix further clarified that the applicant has not agreed to limit his sign colors to the colors of the signs that already exist on the building. Mr. Nicholas stated he agreed with the applicant that the sign for the previous business was hard to read and he would be in favor of the applicant’s proposed sign with the white being removed. Mr. Fix moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Towne Hall Building and Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Signage for Marroni’s at 19 North Center Street with staff recommendation that the square footage and location of the proposed signs shall be the same as the former Grissini’s signs, and with the three colors of red, black, and green; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch voting “Nay,” and Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.
D. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for Hunters Run Centre Phase IV Commercial Building (22,000 square feet) at 10501 and 10503 Blacklick Eastern Road for Plaza Properties. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report submitted to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated the light poles have already been installed with light fixtures that do match the existing lamps in the Hunters Run Centre. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant has submitted a letter explaining why the light poles were installed before approval by this Commission. He further stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness request for lighting. Mr. Jack Reynolds stated he was representing the applicant and he is the attorney who submitted the letter regarding the light poles. Mr. Reynolds stated their contractor has mistakenly installed the light poles prior to the approval and he apologized for that. Mr. Reynolds stated further once he was notified the poles had been mistakenly installed he notified the City, and he stated the lights will not be turned in until the approval is received. Mr. Reynolds stated he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Lighting for Hunters Run Centre Phase IV Commercial Building; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of appropriateness for Building Materials for an Awning for Pizza Hut at 810 Refugee Road. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report submitted to the Commission and stated staff did not support the Certificate of Appropriateness request for an awning. Reesea Fought stated she was present representing Pizza Hut. Ms Fought stated they have looked into other ideas other than putting the awning up. She stated since 1958 Pizza Hut has been known for their red roof, and anything else they would put up would take away from the red roof, and Ms Fought stated the awning would match the roof. She stated they are requesting the awning to screen the sunlight from the front portion of their facility. Mr. Blake stated if the purpose of the awning was to shade the sun, he did not understand how it would take away from the red roof. Mr. Schultz stated he would recommend an awning in a neutral color. Mr. Blake further stated his question was if the purpose of the awning was to shade the sun or to add an accent to the existing building. Ms Fought stated it was for the comfort of their customers who complained that this area was cold in the winter and hot in the summer. She stated if they had an awning it would alleviate the temperature changes during the seasons. Mr. Kramer questioned if this material would completely block the sun or shade it, and Ms Fought stated it was her understanding it would shade it. The representative from the sign company stated it would almost completely block the sun, and Mr. Kramer stated he felt that would take away from having the solarium out there. Ms Fought stated that was why they were only putting it halfway down, when you were seated at the tables you would be able to see out the windows. Mr. O’Brien stated this was an add-on to the building, it was not what would be covered under the red roof logo or trademark appearance. Mr. O’Brien inquired if the applicant had considered doing the awning in a color that would match the rails holding in the glass so it would blend in. Ms Fought stated their main concern was the road view as the red roof is the first thing you see. She stated if they put in a different color it would blend in with the facility, but there would be the problem of keeping it clean. Mr. Blake stated he agreed with Mr. O’Brien that a color that would blend in would look more appropriate. Mr. O’Brien stated the framework for the window appeared to be black or dark brown, and if they went with one of those colors for the material of the awning they would achieve blocking the sun, yet they would not be adding that much red, and that seemed to be the issue for the Commission. Mr. Bosch clarified that doing something like Mr. O’Brien had described would meet staff’s definition of a neutral color. Ms Fought clarified the Commission would rather the awning be a color other than the red. Mr. Blake ascertained the material for the awning is available in a color that is close to the framework. Mr. Schultz clarified the fabric was a vinyl material and vinyl is discouraged. Mr. Nicholas stated he appreciated what the applicant was trying to do, and he has seen a product by 3-M that is a film that goes on the glass. He stated this may be another option they could consider. Mr. Nicholas further stated our Code discourages the self-cleaning type vinyl. He stated if the awning were a fabric matching the framework, he felt the Commission would be in favor of that. Mr. Schultz stated the drawing presented to him states the awning would be fabric, however, on the phone it was indicated it would be vinyl. Ms Fought stated it was her understanding the Commission would be in favor of an awning that was of a fabric that would match the framework. She stated she was in favor of whatever would make her customers happy. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the awning for Pizza Hut, as the applicant has agreed, with the materials to be a fabric that matches the frame of the solarium, and it will be a fabric not vinyl; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
F. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Daycare for First Baptist Church of Pickerington at 521 North Center Street. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report as presented to the Commission and stated the applicant should indicate the location and size of the play area on their plans, and further all outdoor play areas must be enclosed by a six foot high fence. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the conditional uses permit with the condition that the outdoor play area shall be delineated on the plan, enclosed with a six-foot high fence. Pastor Roger Epperson stated he was present to answer any questions. He stated the play area would be located on the north end of the building and a fence would be installed. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Daycare at First Baptist Church of Pickerington contingent on the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz being complied with; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
G. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for an Expansion and Renovation to Kroger at 1045 Hill Road North. Mr. Schultz reviewed his report as presented to the Commission. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant would be required to meet the design and site plan requirements and conditions of the April 2005, approval for renovation and expansion. Mr. Schultz further stated there are two site plan issues he would like to address. First, there is an existing ground sign located on Windmiller Drive at the entrance to Kroger that has been in disrepair for some time. He stated that ground sign should be removed or have the appropriate sign panels installed. Mr. Schultz stated he had spoken to a Mr. Hodge at Kroger three or four months ago and he indicated they would renovate the sign when they opened the Marketplace, which would be September, and obviously that has not occurred as yet. Mr. Schultz stated further the City has been working with Regency and T&M regarding the property to the south where a commercial subdivision has been approved, for extending a roadway from S.R. 256 to Diley Road. He stated T&M has agreed to dedicate the land for the public road, and it is important that the City have control, by ownership or easement, of the roadway. Mr. Schultz stated in April when the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved for Kroger, at that same meeting, this Commission approved preliminary plans for the site plan for T&M. He stated at that time, Regency agreed to dedicate the roadway, however, a few days later the City received correspondence stating they wanted compensation for that and would not dedicate the roadway. Mr. Schultz stated the City worked in good faith at that time, believing they would do that, but they have changed their minds and are not inclined to dedicate it. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following four conditions:
(1) That the Kroger expansion to 21,680 square feet shall meet the site plan submitted.
(2) That the renovation expansion shall meet the building materials conditions of the April 12, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission approval.
(3) That the ground sign on Windmiller Drive at the entrance to Kroger shall be removed or shall have the appropriate sign panels installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Kroger expansion
(4) That the existing main entrance road and the proposed private road that accesses T&M’s outlots on Regency’s property shall be dedicated to the City or an ingress/egress easement shall be granted to the City.
Mr. Steve Hermiller stated he was employed by Woolpert and was representing the applicant. Mr. Hermiller stated he also had representatives from Kroger present this evening and they will answer any questions anyone might have. He continued that Kroger has agreed to upgrade the sign Mr. Schultz had referred to. He stated they would like some clarification regarding the conditions that were approved at the April 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Schultz stated the plan submitted at that meeting reflected a front elevation with a gabled roof and the Commission wanted that gable extended further back, they needed to screen the equipment from Windmiller Drive, and there were several other conditions. Mr. Schultz stated he could forward those conditions to Mr. Hermiller. Mr. Blake clarified they were requesting the building elevation modifications. Mr. Blake further clarified Kroger has agreed to renovate or remove the ground sign that is referenced in Condition 3, and questioned if they agreed with Condition 4 regarding the proposed roadway. Mr. Hermiller stated he cannot speak for Regency regarding the easement. He stated perhaps that could be made as a condition and move on with the approval. Mr. O’Brien questioned if Regency understood that nothing would move forward without meeting this condition, and Mr. Hermiller stated he hoped they understood that. Mr. Kramer stated he has brought this issue up several times over the past few months, and if that road is not there he will not vote in favor of this. He stated when the Fire Department has a concern, he has a concern, and it bothered him that they offered the road and then pulled it back. Mr. Kramer stated he has an issue with that. Mr. Hermiller stated at the meeting with T&M’s approval, it was stated that Mr. Hartmann would speak with Regency about getting together on accommodating some of those easements, and he did not know if that ever took place or not regarding that portion of the access road. Mr. Hartmann stated he and the City Manager had spoken with Regency and he felt it was very clear that the City was requesting dedication and Regency was not willing to dedicate it at that time. He stated he has had no additional conversations with Regency. Mr. Hermiller clarified that T&M was dedicating their portion, it was the portion on Regency property that was the problem. Mr. Hermiller stated the T&M portion would almost connect to Diley Road, with the final connection being made by the City. Mr. Schultz stated what is in question is the “L” portion and if it would be private or public, and the City would like to have it be dedicated or an easement to the City where we can protect ourselves so that it would remain open and one of the owner’s could not barricade it. Ms Gilleland stated we want to ensure that traffic has the right to travel on the roadway from S.R. 256 to Diley Road. Mr. Nicholas stated then, it was his understanding that Regency was not willing to dedicate an easement for that purpose on the “L” portion, and questioned if Mr. Hermiller knew of the reason they did not want to do that. Mr. Hermiller stated they apparently wanted monetary compensation for right-of-way square footage they would lose, which is valuable. Ms Gilleland stated they would not be losing any right-of-way because it is currently a roadway. Mr. Nicholas stated the end result is, if the City does not get it dedicated or get an easement, Regency, or a future owner, could block that off and we would not have it as a connector to S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated that is a possibility. Mr. Schultz stated this runs with the Kroger property, the Regency property and this approval. Mr. O’Brien stated the City has talked to Regency and to T&M, but questioned if T&M has spoken to Regency. Mr. Hermiller stated they have and they would like Regency to dedicate as they have done. Mr. O’Brien stated essentially our conditions are that we are making them dedicate the road and fix the sign, and if they fail to do that then none of the construction on the drawings this Commission has been looking at will take place. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Hermiller stated when the store is expanded, the signage on the building will change so, with regard to the ground sign, they would not want to improve that sign until they were putting in all of the new signage. Mr. Schultz stated a final occupancy will not be issued until that sign is complete. Mr. Blake clarified the applicant did not have a problem with that. A Kroger representative stated they cannot address the Regency issue, however, if they know what is required of Kroger, they can continue on with their building design and that work, and knowing there is a competitor going in across the street time is of the essence. He stated maybe they can get this dedication issue worked out before they actually are allowed to start construction, and they can put some pressure on Regency to satisfy the City’s requirements. Mr. Schultz stated Kroger is responsible for meeting the requirements approved by this Commission in April, and he will forward a copy of those requirements to Mr. Hermiller, and they are also responsible for meeting the conditions set forth this evening. Mr. Schultz further stated with regard to Condition 4 being discussed this evening, a zoning certificate cannot be issued before that occurs. Mr. Schultz stated when he and the City engineer met with T&M, Kroger, and Regency in April everyone was agreeable to the whole plan. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for an expansion and renovation to Kroger contingent upon all four staff conditions being complied with; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
Mr. Nicholas requested a brief recess prior to discussing the Design Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 8:25 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 8:33 P.M.
H. Review and request for a motion to approve a draft ordinance adopting Residential Development Design Standards (Section 1276.32) and amending Section 1276.22 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances. Ms Gilleland reviewed the revised Residential Development Design Standards that were prepared with the recommended changes from the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Ms Gilleland stated she had also distributed a memorandum from Mr. Jim Hiltz of the BIA that reflected suggestions they had for the Commission to consider.
Mr. Schultz stated he would review the revisions that had been made based on the last meeting. Mr. Schultz stated these guidelines would apply to new homes only, not to existing homes or remodeling of homes. Mr. Blake clarified that, as an example, should a home need repairs due to hail damage, it would not need to comply with the new guidelines but would comply with the guidelines that were in effect when it was constructed. Mr. Schultz stated the revisions were in bold print on the exhibit that had been distributed to the Commission, and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt our guidelines should be clear so there will not be any problems with builders trying to figure out what we want.
Mr. O’Brien stated in all fairness with regard to chimneys, if we are requiring a foundation under a chimney, and the chimney sticks out about three feet and there is a ten foot side easement, then that foundation should not be included in the setback requirements. Mr. Blake stated he felt that was a large issue with the lot sizes. Mr. Schultz stated with the way our Code is written that interpretation could be made, but he would have the law director review that section.
Mr. Nicholas presented a brief power point presentation showing photographs of various examples of issues being discussed in the draft design standards.
Mr. Hiltz, of the BIA, stated he had provided a memorandum with an alternative to the mandatory eight-inch overhang policy.
Mr. Schultz stated he would provide this Commission with a revised ordinance in their packets for the next meeting that reflects all of the recommendations made at this meeting. Mr. Blake stated he would like this item to remain on the agenda for the next meeting.
4. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were no cases in August and there were two cases on the agenda for September.
B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated Section 3, Phase I and II were approved for Meadowmore Subdivision.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Tree Commission. No report.
Mr. Hartmann stated he had looked into the issue regarding Group Homes in subdivisions as requested by Council. Mr. Hartmann stated after reviewing case law, Pickerington’s Code, and various other communities Codes, he found that we were about as far on the line as you can be and it would not be advisable to go any further because you would jeopardize the entire definition of family. He stated you would then create more problems, and it would be his suggestion to have our Code remain the way it currently is. Mr. O’Brien requested the residents from the last meeting be provided with a copy of the legal opinion that Mr. Hartmann had provided.
Mr. Blake stated he had been contacted by a developer requesting a meeting to go over an item they would be bringing before this Commission next month. Mr. Blake questioned if there was anything that defined whether this type of meeting was ethical or not. Mr. Hartmann stated he was not aware of anything that prohibited Commission members from speaking to a developer, however, he has had situations in the past where other Board or Commission members have had the same type of situation, basically being lobbied by a developer. Mr. Hartmann stated his concern would be that certain comments made by the Commission member could be construed to be in favor or against the development and then the developer would try to have them abstain because they have made a decision prior to being presented with all of the facts. Mr. Hartmann stated he would caution any Commission member, if they decide to meet with the developer, to be very careful about any comments they would make. He stated if the Commission members are not comfortable with this meeting just let them know they would be more comfortable hearing about it at a public meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 11:15 P.M., September 13, 2005.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz
Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning