REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

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. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien were present. Mr. Smith was absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Don McMillen, Nick Volman, David Hodge, Paul McKnight, Tom Morris, Tom Devine, Bob Schorr, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 13, 2004, Public Hearing regarding zone text amendment for storage buildings (shed). Mr. Blake moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. There being no questions or comments, the minutes were approved.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 13, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. There being no questions or comments, the minutes were approved.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for CVS Pharmacy at 1100 Hill Road North. (TABLED, 4/13/04). Mr. Fix moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Schultz stated CVS would like to add a “24 Hour” sign to each of their facades facing Refugee Road and S.R. 256. He stated this would add an additional nine square feet of signage and staff did not support that. Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting the Commission had indicated if the applicant would remove other signage from the building, they would consider approving the addition of the “24 Hour” signs. Mr. Schultz stated he had spoken to the sign company today and they had indicated that could happen. Mr. Schorr stated it was the intent of CVS to remove the two sets of “Food Mart” letters, which are 13-1/2 square feet each, so that would be 27 square feet of total signage they would be willing to remove so they can add the “24 Hour” signs. Mr. Bosch clarified the square footage of the “24 Hour” signs would total 18 square feet. Mr. Fix clarified the neon signs inside the windows that say “Open 24 Hours” would be removed. Mr. Nicholas clarified Mr. Schultz would not have a problem with the request contingent upon the Food Mart signage and the neon signs in the windows being removed, and the “24 Hour” signs going up were no more than nine square feet each. Mr. Nicholas stated he would move to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan with the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

B. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a 3,700 square foot retail building for The State Route 256 Company on approximately 0.724 acres located just south of Advanced Auto Parts (Morris property) (TABLED, 4/13/04) Mr. O’Brien moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Schultz stated the applicant was proposing to construct a 3,700 square foot retail building on this property, and access would be through an access road located to the east of the proposed building, and two curb cuts would be provided from the access road. He further stated the retail use requires 19 parking spaces (1 space per 200 square feet of retail area) and 18 are provided. Further, stormwater would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet the building and parking setback requirements, however, a variance for a rear yard building setback on the extreme southeastern portion of the building and for one parking space would be required. He stated there appears to be sufficient area to accommodate the interior and perimeter landscaping requirements. Mr. Schultz stated the site has frontage on S.R. 256, but access would be provided by a shared access drive that serves Advanced Auto Parts, the medical facility, and the nursing home. This access point is signalized. Mr. Schultz stated a 35-foot building setback is required in the rear yard. He stated the owner dedicated a 30-foot easement for the access drive to provide controlled access at the traffic light for both this property and the nursing home, so the curb cut for the nursing home would be eliminated. He stated staff would support the variance request for the rear yard building setback. Mr. Schultz further stated 19 parking spaces are required, and 18 are proposed. He stated staff would support the variance for the required parking spaces as the owner did give 30 feet of his property for the easement and one parking space would be a minimal issue. Mr. Schultz stated there is a grouping of trees on the site that must be identified, sized, and replaced, per the City’s tree preservation ordinance. He stated this information would be detailed on the landscape plan. Mr. Schultz stated the elevation fronting S.R. 256 would have a gabled entrance with the majority of the elevation comprised of stucco stone veneer, hardy plank siding on each end of the building, one bay of entrance doors with windows would be located beneath the gable and serve as the main entrance into the building. A bay of windows divided into six window panes would be located on each side of the entrance and the windows would extend to the finish floor elevation. Mr. Schultz stated staff recommends installing (extending) a watermark of stucco stone veneer instead of extending the windows to finish floor elevation. He continued a forest green fabric awning would be installed above the entrance door and the two bays of windows, and the pitched roof would have dimensional shingles. Mr. Schultz stated colors have not been identified, however, the applicant is present tonight and can address that. Mr. Schultz stated the majority of the rear of the building would be comprised of hardy plank siding, a stucco stone veneer watermark would run the length of the elevation, two service doors would be located on this elevation, however, the materials of the doors have not been identified. He continued the majority of the side elevations would also be comprised of hardy plank siding, with a stucco stone veneer watermark running the length of the elevations. Two windows divided into grids would be on each elevation. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials with the following conditions:

(1) The Board of Zoning Appeals approval of the rear yard building setback and reduction of required parking spaces from 19 to 18;

(2) The development shall be constructed per the site plan and building materials as submitted or as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission;

(3) The dumpster shall be screened as indicated on the plans; and,

(4) That a watermark of stucco stone veneer shall be run the length of the front elevation.

Mr. Morris, the applicant, and Mr. Tom Devine stated they were proposing the siding to be a Certainteed product, clay on the color chart, and the trim would be a light grey. He continued the stone is called River Valley and has a blue vein in it, and they were proposing a dark blue awning although if the City desired, they would not be opposed to the green fabric. Mr. Nicholas stated he felt the blue awning would look better than green with the scope of colors proposed. Mr. Devine stated they were looking at a dimensional shingle in a dark quarry grey. Mr. Schultz stated based on the Commission’s questions at the last meeting, the Hunter’s Run center and Marcus Theaters do have fabric awnings. Mr. Nicholas clarified the awnings would be a solid color. Mr. Nicholas stated this Commission does not typically approve glass to the finish floor other than at the door, and questioned if the applicant would be willing to extend the watermark all the way through and eliminate some of the glass. Mr. Morris stated he did not have a problem with that. Mr. Schultz clarified the two bays of windows with six panes were the areas this Commission would like to have the watermark extend through, however, the entrance doors and the two windows on either side of the doors would have glass to the finish floor. Mr. Nicholas ascertained for the dumpster the gates would be attached to a treated wood post. Mr. Schultz stated a certificate of appropriateness for landscaping, signage, and lighting will be required. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials conditioned on the watermark extending through the side fields of glass and not at the entry, that the dumpster gates be attached to 6’ x 6’ wood posts that are a part of the fence, the awnings be Sumbrella manufacture in the color of either Captain Navy or Navy, the siding main field color be a Certainteed weatherboard in the color clay and the trim color be light grey, the stone is river valley and the color is river valley with a blue vein, and the shingles be Owens Corning dimensional shingle, quarry grey in color, that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the rear yard setback and reduction in parking spaces, and that the development be constructed per the building materials as approved by this Commission, and the dumpster be screened as indicated on the plans; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a 1,700 square foot building expansion for Hermann & Henry Eyecare, Inc., at 650 Hill Road North. Mr. Schultz stated the owners were proposing an addition to the existing 3,004 square foot office building with access through an existing curb cut on S.R. 256. He stated the expansion would require 22 parking spaces, which is the current amount of parking spaces on the site, and stormwater would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet the building and parking setback requirements. He stated the north and south elevations (sides) would be constructed of brick to match the existing building, the south elevation would have three windows while the north elevation would have none, and the pitched roof would have asphalt shingles to match the existing roof. He stated the gutters and downspouts would match the existing ones as well. The east elevation (rear) would mainly be comprised of siding with a color not identified, a metal door would be located on this elevation, and the gutters and downspouts would match the existing ones. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the request conditioned on the addition being constructed per the site plan and building materials as submitted or approved by Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Paul McKnight stated he was representing the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions. He stated they were basically just extending the building out to the back and they would match the existing brick and shingles. He stated the rear of the existing building is sided and that is what they are proposing to do now as well and it would be the same color as is now on the building. Mr. Fix stated he thought this extension was already under construction. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant was issued a building permit before he was aware of it, and the slab has been poured. Mr. McKnight stated that was correct, and he understood there would be no finish materials until approved by this Commission. Mr. Fix clarified this was not the standard process. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials with the condition it be constructed per the site plan and building materials as submitted or approved by this Commission; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a 22,000 square foot retail building for Plaza Properties on an approximate 2.551 acre Marcus Theater out lot on S.R. 204. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing to build a 22,000 square foot retail building and the primary access point would be from a signalized curb cut (Freedom Way) on S.R. 204. He stated the site plan identifies 139 parking spaces on the site and 56 new parking spaces on the Marcus Theater parking lot just east of the site, for a total of 195 parking spaces. Storm water detention is not shown on the plan, but is required. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet all the zoning requirements except for the front yard parking setback, and there appears to be sufficient area for interior landscaping. Mr. Schultz stated a 30-foot parking setback is required along S.R. 204 and a 10-foot setback is being proposed. Mr. Schultz stated the Board of Zoning Appeals would have to approve such a variance. He further stated the variance can be justified because the right-of-way is reduced by 20 feet in front of the site due to the road widening. There would be approximately 40-feet of green space from the parking lot to the edge of pavement, and required landscaping would have to be located in the 10-foot setback and not in the right-of-way. Mr. Schultz continued the applicant should be aware that restaurant uses require 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and retail uses require five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the entire 22,000 square feet of the building could not be used entirely for restaurant uses unless a parking cross easement is established with Marcus Theater, and parking islands are required to be landscaped. Further, the distance from S.R. 204 and the proposed curb cut on the access drive needs to be increased. The preferred distance is 300 feet from the nearest intersection or width of the subject lot. The Marcus Theater and Hunters Run Center out lots, which include Steak’n’Shake, Bob Evans, Long Horn, and Uno’s have their access points at or near the rear of the buildings (facing the Marcus Theater and Hunters Run Center parking lot) which is approximately 200 feet (width of lot) from S.R. 256. Therefore, the only curb cut to the out lot from the access road should be the proposed southern most curb cut (approximately 250 feet from S.R. 204) or a new curb cut from the parking lot access road. There are no significant trees on the site. The retail building is proposed to match the design and building materials of Hunter’s Run Center. The front elevation (S.R. 204) would have nine entrance locations and associated windows. A fabric awning would be located above each bay of windows with the color of fabric not being identified. Brick veneer with stucco sign areas above each window comprises the majority of the elevation, and a brick watermark extends the length of the elevation. Also brick course accents run along the length of the elevation with colors to match Hunter’s Run Center. Three dormers would be located in the center of the building to highlight the roofline, and tower features with a pitched roof bookend the elevation. The building is 32 feet at its highest point, and the pitched roof would have shingles to match Hunter’s Run Center. The south elevation would mirror the front elevation. The side elevations (east and west) would be comprised mainly of brick veneer with brick course accents. Tower features with a pitched roof would bookend the elevation, and a brick watermark would extend the length of the elevation. Two entrance features with windows and fabric awning would be located at each end of the elevation, and a bay of windows would be located on each end of the elevation. A service door would be located in the center of the elevation, and the pitched roof would have shingles to match Hunter’s Run Center. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the request with the following conditions:

(1) That the Board of Zoning Appeals approve a parking setback variance

(2) That development shall be constructed per the site plan and building materials as submitted or as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission

(3) That the dumpsters be screened with a fence comprised of brick or wood

(4) That the curb cut to the out lot on the access road shall be located a minimum of 250 feet from S.R. 204.

Mr. Schultz stated a certificate of appropriateness for landscaping, lighting, and signage will be required.

Mr. Nick Volman stated he was present representing the applicant and they are the same developers that developed Hunter’s Run. He stated they were currently negotiating with an upscale restaurant to go into this location. Mr. Volman stated they were looking at using the existing drainage at Marcus with some modifications. He stated he understood the access issues and they do have a cross access agreement with Marcus Theater. Mr. Volman stated this building would be of the same architectural style and colors that are currently in Hunter’s Run, and the same brick as well. Mr. Mapes stated Mr. Volman indicated they have a cross access agreement with Marcus Theater, and we have an agreement to use part of the parking lot for a Park and Ride area. Mr. Volman stated they are not actually buying the access road, they are getting an easement from Marcus to use it. Mr. Mapes stated then there would be no effect on our current agreements. Mr. Schultz stated the lot splits have not been filed with the County, and this will be a condition of the lot splits. Mr. Bosch clarified this approval would be only for the one building, but also for the access point for the entire five acre parcel. Mr. Bosch stated he concurred with the 250-foot requirement, but if that is going to be the main access off of 204, there is already a two-way intersection at about 25 feet. Mr. Schultz stated he had discussed that with the engineer and they felt it was more important to get the access back 250 feet than how close that intersection was. Mr. Schultz stated we have the same issue at Steak-n-Shake, and Mr. Bosch stated that was exactly his point. He stated since we do not know what is going in these buildings, if there is a large amount of traffic, we will have problems with people trying to enter or exit the site. Mr. Bosch inquired if there were any thoughts, while this property is being developed, to have that access road straightened out so it comes straight in. Mr. Schultz clarified that the access road is owned by Marcus Theaters and is a private road. Mr. Bosch clarified the request was to do away with the three front drives and approve the two back ones. Mr. Fix inquired if there had been any thought of taking the parking lot just to the east of the western lot, and instead of taking the access road east, take it south. Mr. Volman stated they have not gotten into the planning on that yet, but they can look at it when they come in for the approval of that lot. Mr. Bosch stated the City is always needing additional right-of-way for utility work and things like that, and he questioned if this would be the ideal time to square up the right-of-way to the end of the applicant’s property. Mr. Bosch stated while they are developing the site plan, and not planning on using that space, would it be easier to have them dedicate that now rather than having them put some little feature out there and the City asking them to move it later. He stated he felt this might be the opportunity to square that corner off. Mr. Schultz stated he would talk to our engineer to see if that would be something we could use. Mr. Schultz inquired if it would be possible to work with Marcus and take that 10-feet of right-of-way all the way down to the end of the Marcus property line rather than just squaring up this applicant’s property line. Mr. Volman stated he would speak to Marcus if this Commission desired. Mr. O’Brien clarified what they were approving was the curb cut to the east. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for a 22,000 square foot retail building for Plaza Properties contingent upon the deletion of the access point closest to S.R. 204, that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves a parking setback variance, that the development be constructed per the site plan and building materials as submitted or approved by this Commission, that the dumpster be screened and fenced with materials comprised of brick or wood, and that the curb cut to the out lot on the access road be located a minimum of 250 feet from S.R. 204, and if the engineer deems it is to the City’s best interest and is possible, that the additional right-of-way be dedicated; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Fix stated he was still concerned that with this access point we were creating a five-point intersection that would be a nightmare. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to ask Mr. Schultz have the engineer meet with this developer and Marcus Theater to look at this situation and see if there is a better way to do this. Mr. Bosch stated if we can help out the traffic situation we would be helping everyone. Mr. Schultz stated he would see what could be done on this. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

E. Review and request for motion to approve abandonment of non-conforming sign located at 18 East Columbus Street (McMillen property). Mr. Mapes stated he has had some conversations with Mr. McMillen and he is not adverse to removing the sign, however, his concern was having approval for signage to replace it. Mr. Mapes stated all of the businesses around him have signage ranging from 21 to 28 square feet, and one has 52 square feet. Mr. Mapes stated the current sign is 26 square feet, and Mr. McMillen would like to have a sign of that size. Mr. Schultz stated our Code provides for 12 square feet, and additional for buildings that have double frontage. Mr. Mapes stated Mr. McMillen has a zero lot line, and if you look at the history he made an application for a sign through the Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Commission, and there was some conflict with some of the administration at that time. Mr. Mapes stated Planning and Zoning now makes the decisions on signs in the old downtown. Mr. Mapes stated there are two businesses in this building, with the possibility of a third business, and Mr. McMillen would like signage for all of those. Mr. Mapes stated he would like some dialogue from this Commission on what is acceptable. Mr. McMillen stated when he originally applied for the sign he was told they did not like the colors he selected or the font on the sign, etc. He stated after several attempts he told Mrs. Bushman, the City Manager, that if she would provide him with a sheet telling him what square footage he was allowed, what fonts, what colors, etc. then he would come back with a proposed sign, and he never received anything. Mr. McMillen stated he would like to preserve the amount of square footage of signage he is allowed and if that is approved to be grandfathered, he would remove the aluminum sign frame. Mr. Fix clarified Mr. McMillen is in the process of selling his share of one of the businesses currently in there, but he wants them to be allowed to have the same square footage of signage that has been there. Mr. McMillen stated he has not been able to find any conforming sign in the whole downtown district and he has found no criteria listed anywhere on what is allowed. Mr. Mapes stated signs cannot have more than three colors, but this Commission does not limit those colors. Mr. Bosch stated this Commission would look at the structure, the color scheme, the style, and try to match the sign to that. Mr. Mapes stated since there are two businesses, Mr. McMillen may be better off having two 13 square foot signs rather than one 26 square foot sign. Mr. Mapes stated Mr. McMillen had indicated he would like flat signs rather than a large projected sign and then a small projected sign. Mr. Fix clarified that currently for a new business coming in we allow 12 square feet, but when there are multiple businesses we allow more than that. Mr. Fix stated then, if there are two businesses in this building we would allow 24 square feet of signage, and he now has 26 square feet of signage. Mr. McMillen stated he would like to retain the 26 square feet of signage and a small projected sign. Mr. Bosch stated he did not see a problem with allowing 12 square feet per business for the signs that go flush on the building, and then accommodate a reasonable sized projection sign in accordance with some of the other ones in the area. Mr. O’Brien stated he would like to clarify that if this is approved, the aluminum frame will come down. Mr. McMillen stated he did not have a problem bringing that down, but he wanted assurance he would be allowed the same square footage first. Mr. Bosch stated if this Commission came up with a generic set of guidelines, like two 12-foot signs and a projection sign of “x” square footage, then Mr. McMillen would remove the aluminum sign. Mr. McMillen stated he would rather have a total amount of square footage approved because there may not always be two businesses in the building. Mr. Fix stated since this group is willing to work with Mr. McMillen, what would be a reasonable date to expect the aluminum frame to come down? Mr. Mapes stated in order to help Mr. McMillen with his tenants, the issue of the abandonment could be tabled, and a motion made that if the sign is removed by the next meeting this Commission would entertain some criteria he could provide the tenants. Mr. Schultz stated as there can be three businesses in the building, he would recommend this Commission approve a total of 36 square feet, and how he divides that up between tenants and wall and projection signs is up to him. Mr. Schultz stated if this Commission approves a maximum of 36 square feet of signage, when the tenants want to do their individual signs they must come back to this Commission for approval. Mr. Mapes stated this Commission could table the motion to approve the abandonment of the sign and then make a motion stating what would be approved once the aluminum frame was removed. Mr. Fix moved to Table; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nicholas voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0. (TABLED)

Mr. Nicholas moved that upon proper application, this Commission will approve signage for 18 E. Columbus Street up to a maximum of 36 square feet, which will include one projection sign that can have multiple businesses on it, in addition to wall mounted signs, with the usual restrictions of being made of wood or polyurethane that looks like wood, no more than three colors, and conditioned upon Mr. McMillen removing the aluminum frame prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 8, 2004; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there was one case for a detached garage approved last month. He stated this month there will be four cases, two from the meeting this evening, a fence, and a setback for a screened porch.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated the Commission approved a re-plat for the entire development of Sycamore Plaza, which is the Kroger by the new high school, and they also approved a text amendment to the Violet Township Zoning Code.

C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated they are still working on future land uses for certain areas in the Township.

5. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Tree Commission. No report.

B. Review and discussion regarding an Ordinance to Enact Chapter 1480 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances Relative to the Preservation of Notable Structures within the City. Mr. Schultz stated he hoped to have the proper mapping sometime this summer.

Mr. Schultz stated this Commission had approved a draft ordinance regarding storage sheds and he was requesting a minor modification before it goes to Service and Council. Mr. Schultz stated the modification dealt with Section 1296.03, Foundations. He stated it currently reads “every residential building or structure...” and he would like to strike “or structure.” Mr. Schultz stated as our Code is written, the building department is required to determine if a structure should have a continuous foundation or pier type. He stated it is defined that all habitable structures shall have a continuous foundation and inhabitable does not. He stated this will ensure it does not conflict with other sections in the Code. Mr. Nicholas stated he felt it should also be clarified that buildings with 120 square feet of floor space or less should have a ratio of 60-40. Mr. Bosch stated he felt this should be added for buildings with more than 120 square feet as well. Mr. Schultz stated he would ensure these two changes were made to the ordinance.

Mr. Blake stated he would also like some clarification regarding restricting the parking of utility trailers in residential subdivisions. Mr. Blake stated the Building Department stated this is a grey area and they cannot enforce it. Mr. Schultz stated we do not have anything in the Code that we can show an owner, in writing, that the utility trailer should not be there. The Commission asked Mr. Schultz to bring a draft amendment to the Code on this issue to the next meeting for them to review.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:38 P.M., May 11, 2004.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning