PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
JULY 14, 2009
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL
CALL. Mr. Bosch called the meeting to
order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as follows:
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr.
Sauer were present. Mr. Blake was
absent. Others present were: Mayor O’Brien, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe
Henderson, Mitch Banschefsky, Jerry Schwartz, Crispin Alvarez, Jeff Rienhart,
Maria Gonzalez, Ismiel Rodriguez, Walter Riener, Maria Perez Robinson, and
others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 9, 2009 Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
Mr. Bosch stated Mr. Nicholas had requested permission to make a brief statement. Mr. Nicholas stated at the last meeting when making a comment in this meeting about a sign he was fully aware that Mrs. Evans was the owner of that business. He stated he meant no malice, however, Mrs. Evans took some offense to the comments that he made. Mr. Nicholas stated he and Mrs. Evans have spoken and he would like to make a public apology to Mrs. Evans as no offense was intended.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to
approve an amended Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Don Patron’s
Restaurant located at 1282 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the staff report provided to the Commission and
stated this Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor patio
in March 2009. He stated, however, it
was brought to staff’s attention that the patio was not being constructed in
accordance with the approved plans and the changes were substantial enough to
require Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is
proposing to amend the outdoor patio on the north side of Don Patron’s, located
in Brookview Center. These amendments
include changing a portion of he patio from a wood deck to a concrete pad which
includes a concrete curb barrier, changing the fencing form a black metal
railing to stone columns with black metal railing between the columns, and the
addition of lamp style lights around the perimeter on top of the columns. Mr. Henderson stated the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio on March
10, 2009, with the seven conditions listed in staff’s report. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
amended Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor patio for Don Patron’s Restaurant
that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following
conditions:
l. That
the outdoor furniture shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and
constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal.
2. That
no music speakers or any other type of sound amplification devices shall be
located in the patio.
3. That
no live entertainment shall be permitted on the outdoor patio after 10:00 P.M.
4. That
the lights on the columns shall comply with the minimum foot-candle
requirements at the property line.
5. That the Violet Township Fire
Department’s issues shall be addressed prior to zoning certificate approval.
6. That
the engineering issues shall be addressed prior to zoning certificate
approval.
Mr. Henderson stated when this was approved in March,
Planning and Zoning Commission had approved Condition 1 by adding the word
“mostly” before ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal, and
he would like to have that added back in so that Condition 1 reads as
follows: That the outdoor furniture
shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and constructed of mostly
ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal.
Mr. Walter Riener stated he is with the Brookview Village
Shopping Center, LLC. He stated he
usually does not appear at civic meetings but he is very concerned about this
process. He stated his tenants have bent
over backwards to do things over and above any other patio in the area so he is
very much in favor of what they have done.
He stated he realized there have been some glitches, but they were
basically an improvement where they changed from wood, which can deteriorate or
be a fire hazard, to concrete and metal railings. He stated they have also added lamps to make
it much more decorative and added concrete columns that are faced with stone. He stated he is very pleased with them as a
tenant and their construction work and hoped the Commission would recommend
approval of this. Mr. Riener stated he
has spoken to Mr. Schultz and what he would like to see is a quicker approval
process because you are in competition with surrounding communities. He stated he was here this evening to endorse
this outdoor patio.
Mr. Sauer stated he felt this was an improvement over the
plans that were improved in March and he had no problems with it. Mr. Hackworth clarified the lamps would be on
top of the stone posts and stated he had no other concerns. Mrs. Evans clarified the foot-candle
requirements would be met by the lamps.
Mr. Nicholas stated it really bothered him when something is approved
one way by this Commission and the City, and then something else is built. He stated, having said that, he agreed the
materials put in would outlast the wood that was approved and he felt the
overall design was an improvement, but it still bothered him that someone would
get something approved and then build something different and come in ask for
forgiveness, so to speak.
Maria Perez Robertson stated she is acquainted with the
owner of Don Patron’s and she is volunteering to translate for them. She stated she would like to say that when
they decided to make the changes they went to the Building Department instead
of to Planning and Zoning and they misunderstood a signature they
received. She stated she truly believed
that it was a language barrier when they decided to make that change because
they submitted it to the Building Department for review, but they misunderstood
that it was okay to go ahead and make the changes not understanding that they
still had to go to Planning and Zoning.
She stated from her conversations with them she did not feel they meant
to disrespect this Commission or to do something you would disapprove of. Mr. Nicholas stated he appreciated that, and
he was only stating the frustration that they got permission for the wood from
this Commission so why couldn’t they get permission for the concrete from here
rather than going right to the Building Department. Mr. Nicholas stated he would support this, it
is just a frustration. Mr. Sauer
moved to approve the amended Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio at Don
Patron’s Restaurant with staff recommendations, including adding the word
“mostly” before ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal, to
Condition No. 1; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Binkley voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. Review
and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor
Patio for La Fogata Grill located at 1849 Winderly Lane. Mr. Henderson stated there is no record of
the La Fogata site receiving approval for an outdoor patio, an upon inspection
they were unable to provide the Violet Township Fire Department a certificate
of occupancy for the outdoor patio. He
continued that upon further research, the Building Department could not locate
any approvals for the outdoor patio. Mr.
Henderson stated in order for La Fogata to occupy the outdoor patio they must
bring it into compliance, and the first step in that process is to get a
Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for an
outdoor patio. Mr. Henderson reviewed
the staff report provided to the Commission and stated staff supports the
Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio at La Fogata Grill that complies
with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That
the patio shall be surrounding by a black metal railing that shall be a minimum
of 36-inches in height.
2. That
the outdoor furniture shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and
constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal.
3. That
no sound from the patios emanating from loudspeakers or other such sound
amplification equipment shall be audible at the property line.
4. That
the patio shall be vacated at midnight.
Mr. Jerry Schwartz stated he was an attorney and was
representing the applicant. Mr. Schwartz
stated he only became aware of this situation yesterday afternoon, and he has
been trying to come up to speed on the situation. He stated the reason he got into this so late
in the game is because the report is dated July 9th so the people at
La Fogata were aware of the general of the general thinking of the situation
but were not aware of the specifics until recently. He stated he has spoken with Mr. Schultz and
Mr. Banschefsky about this situation and he did not feel this is a normal
situation. He stated by not being a
normal situation he meant that the fence was built in 2007, and it was built
prior to the conditional use applying to outdoor patios in service facilities. He stated at first blush his position would
be that it was a nonconforming use. He
further stated the applicants want to be good neighbors and they want to comply
as much as they can with the requirements of the City of Pickerington. Mr. Schwartz stated the history of the
situation is that the fence has already been built at a time when there were no
patio requirements, and if they go along with the staff recommendation they
have to tear down that fence and they would lose the investment they had in
that fence and they would have to replace it with a black metal railing. He stated he would question why it had to be
a black metal railing; because everyone else has one? He questioned if that would make it
aesthetically any better or more safe than what is there already? He stated, respectfully, they had an issue
with replacing it with black metal railing.
He also stated the way he read the conditions, any music that is played
outside cannot be heard any further than the property line. Mr. Schwartz stated La Fogata has continued
to maintain this outdoor patio almost continuously for the past three years and
it is his understanding that the nearest residential dwelling units are over
1500 feet away. He stated the City’s
code does not have any sound requirements such as so many decibels equaling
some kind of offense, and they do have music there. He stated staff has talked about closing the
patio at midnight and that is fine, and they would even go so far as to agree
to stop all music by 10:00 P.M. Mr.
Schwartz stated there are also comments in the report from the Fire Department
and the Building Department and his client has no problem with meeting those
requirements. Mr. Schwartz stated he
would answer any questions.
(Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to be excused as he had
just been notified he had a medical emergency and need to take his daughter to
the emergency room. Mr. Bosch excused
Mr. Hackworth at 8:05 P.M.)
Mr. Banschefsky stated he had spoken to Mr. Schwartz today,
and he understood he had only been involved in this for just over 24
hours. He stated he felt he would have
to agree to disagree with the nonconforming use status, and by that he meant
that to be a lawfully existing nonconforming use it had to have been legal when
it was installed. He stated it was his
understanding in speaking with Mr. Schultz under the code that existed prior to
the conditional use ordinance becoming effective in October 2007; there should
have been a Certificate of Appropriateness for the patio and the fence. He stated if there was no Certificate of
Appropriateness he felt the argument was that the fence and patio out there
might be nonconforming, but it was not legal at the time so there are no vested
rights in terms of what has been going on there for the past two and one-half
to three years. He stated he had
discussed the possibility of reviewing this under the code that was in place at
the time, but since what was there did not meet the existing code he did not
believe they had any rights to claim that they were still under that code and
it is his opinion that they must comply with the code that is in place
now. Mr. Banschefsky stated in terms of
the fence material, that is clearly in the sound discretion of the Commission
as to whether that fence is acceptable.
He stated he did not believe there was a mandated code provision that
the fences have to be metal; that is a policy the Commission has been using
when reviewing these type of uses of late.
Mr. Schultz stated he would like to add that not only was
there nothing from the Planning perspective, the Building Department could find
no record of an outdoor patio either and that is how we got to this point. He stated when the Fire Department had
requested the certificate of occupancy and found out there wasn’t one, so they
notified the Building Department.
Mr. Bosch stated in any further discussion as to whether
this is an issue for this Commission or not should occur between staff and the
applicant’s attorney. He stated he felt
this Commission should focus on the fact that it is an issue that needs to come
before this Commission and it should be addressed just as they would any other
issue. He stated with that he would like
to state that to his knowledge the fence material it is not part of the code
but one of the things this Commission has tried to do is be consistent, not
only with fences, but signs and everything else. He stated that way every applicant that comes
before them is treated the same in trying to weigh pluses and minuses so they
have tried to come up with something that meets the code, that is aesthetically
pleasing to what the vision for the City is, and then move forward as
consistently as they can. He continued
in that way the Commission is playing fair to everyone and it also gives the
applicants an idea of what this Commission is looking at.
Jeff Reinhart stated in La Fogata’s defense, the patio was
existing when this location was a steakhouse.
He questioned if there was no record of the patio at that time. Mr. Schultz stated that was the Montana
Mining restaurant and the records show the patio was very small. He stated the patio has been significantly
expanded since it was Montana Mining. Mr.
Reinhart stated what they were asking is for the chance to make the changes
that need to be made and they would prefer to keep the wood fence and still
make the changes that need to be made, because aesthetically the fence is not
an eyesore. He stated the City does
require black metal fencing now, but they were asking to be able to make the
changes without it being so drastic they will not be able to use the patio for
a month or however long it takes to get the changes made. He stated he was asking for the Commission’s
support as far as trying to make the changes that need to be made without major
construction of the patio because it is summer time and the patio is a huge
benefit to their business.
Mr. Nicholas stated when he saw this, the first question he
had asked himself was if it came before them as a new patio, as a new design,
would he approve it, and the answer immediately was no. He stated based on our recent history of
patios, they have designed the consistency of which they have approved
them. Mr. Nicholas stated he has
remained sensitive to the business operations, the cash flow, this economy, and
so forth. He stated he deals with
construction all the time and there are ways around interruption of service and
customers to get accomplished what staff is asking for, without a major
interruption of business operations. Mr.
Nicholas further questioned if there have been any noise complaints as far as
the outdoor patio, and Mr. Schultz stated there have been no complaints
officially submitted to the City, however, Mr. Holcomb, the Fire Inspector,
indicated that Hampton Inn has complained in the past. Mr. Nicholas clarified the complaints had
gone to the fire department. Mr.
Nicholas stated he did not think he could support this, however, if after
discussion a way is found through that, with regard to the condition regarding
audible at the property line, recently some patios had been approved that
extended the audible limit to the opposite side of the street. Mr. Henderson stated that condition is
similar to Rule (3) and Classic Pizza.
Mr. Nicholas stated if a way is found to consider this, he felt the
condition regarding audible at the property line should be considered to be
changed to the opposite side of the street.
Mr. Nicholas stated again, however, he did not know if he could support
this.
Mr. Binkley stated he would recuse himself from discussion
and voting based on a conflict of interest discussed with the law
director.
Mrs. Evans stated she hated to see the applicant go through
extra cost, however, when you have something built without meeting the code or
not meeting the requirements then everything is up for grabs, and she
appreciated that. Mrs. Evans stated her
first concern was the noise, and clarified that it was approximately 1500 feet
from the patio to the residential area, not the hotel. Mr. Schwartz stated there was no one from
Hampton Inn present to complain and Mr. Alvarez has spoken to the people at
Hampton Inn on several occasions, as recently as yesterday, and they told him
they did not have a problem. Mrs. Evans
stated she was only suggesting it would be nice to have information from
Hampton Inn to see if they had any problems.
Mr. Schultz stated when he heard this from the fire department he had
called and spoken to the Manager at Hampton Inn. The Manager stated he would call the owner to
see if they wanted to file a complaint and they were informed of tonight’s
meeting. Mr. Schultz stated he has not
heard back from the Hampton Inn. Mrs.
Evans stated perhaps since this just came up there may be a little more
investigation that should be done because she was a little concerned and would
like to hear from Hampton Inn that their paying customers do not have an issue
with it. Mr. Schultz stated he did
believe they had been given the opportunity to voice a complaint. Mr. Reinhart stated they do have a good
relationship with the Hampton Inn and he felt if they did have a problem they
would have let them know. Mrs. Evans
stated with regard to the fence she is concerned with the building report that
states the fence is between six and seven feet tall, but it doesn’t look like
that in the picture. Mr. Reinhart stated
it is not; there is an error in the measurement on there. Mr. Schultz stated the Building Department
reviewed the plans that were submitted and they do indicate the fence is seven
feet. Mr. Reinhart stated that is wrong
and needs to be modified. Mrs. Evans
clarified the Commission has been requiring the black metal railing since 2007,
and it is not in the nonresidential design guidelines but is a policy that
Planning and Zoning Commission has established.
Mrs. Evans stated her personal opinion would be to see if it could
comply by being painted black, and Mr. Reinhart stated they did not have a
problem painting it black. Mr. Reinhart
stated further they would prefer to keep the look that it has now with the
lattice as it is more private for the customers. Mrs. Evans stated she would lean toward
approval of the fence if it could get as close as to what the standards are
without costing the applicant a lot of money, but show that they were in
compliance that would be great. Mr.
Sauer clarified the structure, similar to a pergola, is attached to the
building. Mr. Sauer further clarified
that whole thing did not get a Certificate of Appropriateness when it was
originally being built, nobody approached the City when it was originally being
built, even when Montana Mining used to be there. Mr. Schultz stated in his review he found
Montana Mining had a small, perhaps 10’ x 10’ patio. Mr. Sauer stated that would not have included
the structure that was attached to the building, and Mr. Schultz stated that is
very likely, he thought it was outdoor only.
Mr. Sauer stated he was hoping that structure has been inspected because
his concern was how we would know whether or not it was built to
specifications. Mr. Schultz stated when
the fire department notified his office, he requested building plans and that
is why the Building Department reviewed this on occupancy and other things. They have not gone out there and inspected it
yet, however, from an occupancy perspective they have enough restrooms to have
the numbers they have out there, and that was our primary concern. He stated from a structural perspective if
this is approved and we move forward, we will go out there and inspect it. Mr. Sauer stated with regard to the fence and
the patio, as Mr. Nicholas had stated if this was coming to us fresh, he would
probably lean toward not approving it.
He stated, however, given it is already there it creates a whole
different situation which forces him to take into consideration the City’s
concerns as well as the applicant’s concerns.
Mr. Sauer stated we have a process that is set up to protect the
integrity of the community, the look of the community, and the safety of the
community. He stated he also understood
that they have a business to run and he respected that, so finding a middle
ground was the tricky part. Mr. Schultz
stated this Commission is the first step in the process, and the fire department
and building department will not approve it until it meets their minimum
requirements. Mr. Sauer stated with
regard to the fence, if it comes in under the six feet indicated on the
drawings, if it is a uniform color, if it were black and it came close to what
we require with the metal fences, he could almost accept it. He stated he has a hard time with this
because we have a process in place and anytime something is being built he
would expect that the City would be contacted so that the proper channels could
be gone through to make sure it is put in correctly. He stated what he also hated to put them
through the expense of completely ripping it out, and what he would like to see
happen is that it could be muted as much as possible to blend in with the
building and look as close as possible to what we have in the community. Mr. Sauer stated with regard to the noise,
and the fact that the City apparently has no record of any complaints from the
hotels around there it has obviously not been a problem. Mr. Schultz stated the attorney had stated
earlier they would be willing to stop all music by 10:00 P.M. Mr. Reinhart stated that would not be a
problem and because they do refer people to the hotels they want to be
considerate to their customers because they are their customers as well. Mr. Sauer stated it does bother him because
we do have a process and he wanted to make sure it is being respected. Mr. Schwartz stated in the requirements that
were in place at the time it was built there is no mention of anything to do
with patios, so how could the applicant be blamed for not complying. Mr. Schultz stated he would disagree because
it did state that a Certificate of Appropriateness was required for any
significant alteration to any building and his interpretation of any patio
would be an alteration to any building.
Mr. Sauer stated what he would like to see on this would be the paint
color of the fence and the lattice, and the structure that is attached to the
building, because it would be odd to have those two different colors and then
compliance with what the fire department and building department require.
Mr. Bosch stated as a point of clarification so everyone
understands when we come to a vote, with Mr. Binkley recusing himself it would
require three out of four positive votes to go forward.
Mr. Schwartz inquired if the applicant would have the option
to come back when there was a full panel of the Commission and what the voting
requirements would be then. Mr.
Banschefsky stated the requirement was for a majority out of the members
present and voting, and Mr. Schultz stated it would require four out of seven
if we had a full quorum. Mr. Banschefsky
stated the applicant could certainly ask to have their case continued, and Mr.
Schultz stated with Mr. Binkley not voting, the vote would require four out of
six if everyone were present. Mr.
Schwartz requested a brief recess to speak with his client and Mr. Bosch stated
there would be no problem with that.
Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 8:40 P.M., and
reconvened in open session at 8:43 P.M.
Mr. Schwartz stated he had conferred with his client and
they would like to move forward with a vote tonight.
Mr. Bosch stated with regard to the fence, he liked
consistency and he wanted to see the fence changed to a black metal fence; keep
the 4’x4’ posts and put the black metal railing between them. He stated he had no problem working with
staff to allow some time considerations so they would not be asked to do this
right at the peak time for using the patio, and he did not want to shut down a
thriving business at this time to meet some requirements. He stated he felt the noise issue, if there
is one, if they were willing to close it at 10:00 P.M., from his standpoint
that issue would go away. Mr. Bosch
stated at this point he did not see any big issue other than the fence and it
appeared there were some Commission members that felt it should be changed and
some that felt it did not.
Mr. Paul Woodruff stated he is the architectural design
consultant for the City, and for the record he wanted to clarify anytime you
have a fence that is below six feet on an enclosed occupied space he felt the
plans examiner would want to see that and review it primarily for egress
issues. Mr. Woodruff stated according to
the building code the hotel is a residential use. He further stated with regard to the design
of the fence, one option might be to get a design professional to take a look
at it to see if there is anything they can do without tearing it down and
putting in new railings.
Mr. Nicholas stated after listening to all the discussion
this evening he still could not bring himself to give this a positive vote this
evening. Mrs. Evans inquired if the
applicant has done any kind of cost estimate on replacing the fence, and Mr.
Reinhart stated they do not know exactly, but think it would be about
$15,000.
Mr. Sauer moved to approve a Conditional
Use Permit for an outdoor patio for La Fogata Grill that complies with the
minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That
the fence around the patio, including the lattice, and the structure attached
to the building, shall be painted black in its entirety.
2. That
the outdoor furniture shall be reserved and subdued in style and color and
constructed of ferrous (iron based) or non-ferrous (aluminum, etc.) metal.
3. That
the patio shall be vacated at 10:00 P.M.
4. That
the Violet Township Fire Department’s issues shall be addressed prior to zoning
certificate approval.
5. That the Building Department issues shall be addressed prior
to zoning certificate approval;
Mrs. Evans seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley abstaining, Mr. Nicholas and Mr.
Bosch voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Evans and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 2-2.
Mr. Bosch stated he wanted to clarify that the applicant was
aware he could resubmit and come back to the Commission next month proposing a
different fence. Mr. Bosch further
clarified that currently the patio does not have an occupancy permit, and that
is a health and safety violation, and that is not contingent upon whatever the
Planning Commission does. Mr.
Banschefsky stated he would recommend they take care of that right away. Mr. Banschefsky stated in terms of a zoning
violation that would have to go through an enforcement process and every day
would constitute another violation. He
stated, however, it is the City’s policy to look for compliance and conformance
with the Code rather than trying to enforce that. Mr. Schultz stated he would highly suggest they
resubmit for next month with a revised plan.
Mr. Bosch summarized that before they can legally open the patio they
must get an occupancy permit. He stated
once they get that it is a matter of not being in compliance with the zoning
code.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA met
on June 25th and denied the variances requested 101 Hill Road North.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Schultz stated the Fairfield Regional
Planning Commission did not have an agenda last month so they did not
meet.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Outdoor
Patio Discussion. Mr. Schultz stated he
was not sure if the Commission members wanted to discuss this issue this
evening or wait until there is a full contingent of members. Mr. Bosch stated he felt a full body should
be present for this discussion and requested this be continued on the agenda
for next month.
B. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Nicholas questioned the
status of Firestone’s dumpster and Mr. Schultz stated he had sent them a letter
and they have until the first of August to comply. Mr. Nicholas stated with regard to commercial
property maintenance, especially with regard to the former Big Bear shopping
center and the Walgreen’s location. Mr.
Schultz stated the first priority on S.R. 256 is to try and keep the grass to
six inches and our Code Enforcement Officer has a database of the vacant
lots. Mr. Schultz stated he felt we were
doing a good job of keeping that cut, however, Walgreen’s did not cut the grass
between the curb and the street. He
further stated that is city property, but it is the responsibility of the owner
to cut it, so he will be getting with them.
Mr. Schultz stated the City is a little upset that that construction
site is a little unkempt, however, there have been delays on the traffic
improvements on Refugee Road. He stated
the gas line has to be lowered and the gas company has to lower it, and it
looks like another two weeks before they do that, and Walgreen’s contractor has
been put on hold until that project is done because they do not want to open
until all the improvements are done.
Mr. Bosch stated when he was exiting the parking lot at Beef
O’Brady’s on S. R. 256, he noticed one of the old original signs is still in
the parking lot that says you must exit to the right, no left turns. He stated he felt Mr. Schultz would know who
to contact to take care of that. Mr.
Schultz stated he would contact the shopping center.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Binkley, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mrs. Evans voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:45 P.M., July 14, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk