REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Bosch called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr. O’Brien was absent due to an Executive Session being held by Council. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Nick Vollman, David Hodge, Jackie Rosiak, Bob Nelson, Russell Henestofel, Jim Harkin, Daryl Lavert, Jack Reynolds, and others. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to welcome Mr. Kramer to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 11, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. Blake moved to approve; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. There being no questions or comments, the minutes were approved.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve abandonment of non-conforming sign located at 18 East Columbus Street (McMillen property). (TABLED, 5-11-04.) Mr. Fix moved to remove from the Table; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Bosch stated the sign has been removed and the property owner has met all the conditions requested by the Commission. Mr. Fix moved to adopt. Motion failed for lack of a second.

B. Review and request for motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for a building sign and ground sign for Kohl’s Department Store at 175 Postage Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to install a building sign for Kohl’s and a ground sign that would be shared by Kohl’s and Staples. He stated one building sign facing S.R. 256 is proposed, with approximately 193 square feet of sign area. The sign area would be consistent with Kroger’s, which has approximately 80,000 square feet of floor area, while Kohl’s has approximately 95,000 square feet of floor area, and it appears to be consistent with other Kohl’s signs in the Columbus area. The sign would have individual illuminated white letters installed directly on the brick façade, and would be centered vertically over the accent bands. Mr. Schultz continued that signage is not being proposed on Postage Drive and staff believes signage is not appropriate along the road because Postage Drive is a dead end street that accesses condominiums and lighting from a sign on Postage Drive would likely illuminate into the condominium development. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed ground sign would be 12 feet tall and 16 feet wide. He stated the two other frontage lots on S.R. 256 would have individual ground signs. Mr. Schultz continued the sign would total 100 square feet with Kohl’s having a 64 square foot panel and Staples would have a 36 square foot panel. The Kohl’s sign would have white letters with a burgundy background and Staples would have white letters with a red background. The signs would be internally illuminated, and “Fairfield Square” would be installed on the top of the sign. The unidentified building material would be beige and bricks would encase the Staples sign panel but not the Kohl’s sign panel. Mr. Schultz stated staff has a concern that the brick is not extended up each side of the sign as in the other large shopping center signs, such as Windmiller Square, Hunters Run Center, Shoppes at Turnberry, etc. Further, staff anticipates additional large signs in the future and is concerned about consistency and setting a precedent. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Comprehensive Sign Plan request with the conditions that no building sign shall be permitted on the building elevation fronting Postage Drive, that the ground sign shall be located outside the site triangle and five feet from the property line, that the brick shall be extended to the top or near the top of the ground sign, and that the brick on the ground sign shall match the brick on the Kohl’s building. Mr. Schultz stated a Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping and lighting will be required. Ms Jackie Rosiak stated she was present representing Kohl’s and their only objection was that by bringing the brick all the way up the sign, it would reduce their text space, as she understands the sign is at the maximum width that is allowed. Ms Rosiak stated by putting the brick on each side, it would add another 18 inches on each side and their sign space would be reduced by that amount. Mr. Schultz stated most of the larger signs in the City are 12 to 14 feet wide, however, they are 18 to 20 feet high and this sign is 12 feet tall. Mr. Fix clarified the City allows 50 square feet for each commercial building for ground signs. Mr. Schultz stated together, Kohl’s and Staples will have 100 square feet, Kohl’s is just a little larger than Staples. Mr. Bosch stated this Commission has taken great pains to get the signs to be uniform in there, and he would not like to see them back down on this one. Mr. Bob Nelson stated he was representing Noble Properties, the co-developer of this property. Mr. Nelson stated he would suggest that if the size is increased by 32 inches, then the sign will remain the same size and the brick the City wants would be there. Ms Rosiak stated if that were done, then the brick up the sides would be the lighter color of brick rather than the darker color. Mr. Bosch stated he would be concerned going from 16 to almost 20 feet wide, and questioned if Kohl’s would reduce the size of the lettering. Ms Rosiak stated Kohl’s would not be willing to do that because their sign text would not be larger than Staples. She stated Kohl’s would rather have their own free standing sign than to reduce the sign space because they did not want to be fighting for attention with the Staples sign. Mr. Nicholas stated if the sign were bigger than 16 feet, he agreed a precedent would be set. Mr. Nelson stated if Kohl’s sign space was reduced to put in the brick, it would put their sign way below the 50 square feet they would be allowed if they did not share the sign with Staples. Mr. Nicholas clarified that it was the understanding that Staples would not reduce the size of their sign. Mr. Fix clarified if there were two separate signs, each would be allowed 50 square feet. He stated then it was his understanding that the alternatives were to allow the sign to be larger than 16 feet to include the brick on each side or have two separate signs in two separate places. Mr. Schultz stated Staples and the out lots in front of Staples would have a sign, Kohl’s would have a sign, and then the other out lot would have sign. He stated that would be three signs. Mr. Schultz stated with this scenario there would be one sign for Staples and Kohl’s, one for the out lot in front of Staples, and one for the out lot in front of Kohl’s. Mr. Fix stated whatever we do, we have three signs. Mr. Bosch stated then it would be either Kohl’s and Staples combining their signs or Kohl’s gets their sign and then Staples and the other out lot get their signs. Mr. Bosch stated he was not in favor of the sign being any bigger than 16 feet, however, we do need to keep the number of signs down. Mr. Fix stated he understands the issues that Kohl’s has with reducing their signage in a way that would diminish their presence as it applies to another retail spot that is significantly smaller. He stated while we do have limitations and do not want to set precedence, he was struggling to understand the benefits weighed against the cost. He stated if the City’s requirement to add the brick on the sides would lower the square footage they were allowed, he felt it would be appropriate to add the 16 inches of brick to each side and let the sign remain as they proposed. Mr. Smith stated if Kohl’s gets their own 50 square foot sign, then down the road we would have another sign for Staples and another tenant on the out lot. Mr. Smith stated further if we put the brick on the sign, he preferred the darker brick on the sides. Mr. Blake clarified it was his understanding that the brick on the side has always been included in the size allowed for signs even though it is not technically a part of the sign. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Nelson stated the ground sign directly across the street for the Shops at the Parkway does not have brick on the side. Mr. Schultz stated that is in the process of trying to be remedied. Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to point out that the finish on the signs cannot be glossy, it must be a mat finish. Mr. Nicholas stated he did not feel he could support the sign being wider than 16 feet. Mr. Bosch stated as a compromise if the sign were allowed to be 18.8 feet wide to allow for 16 inches of brick on each side, and the darker brick were used, would that be acceptable to Kohl’s. Ms Rosiak stated it would tie into the color on the building. Mr. Smith moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for a ground and building sign for Kohl’s Department Store at 175 Postage Drive adding 16 inches of brick to each side, in the darker color brick, for a total width of 18.8 feet, with a mat finish, and the conditions that no building signage shall be permitted on the building elevation fronting Postage Drive, the ground sign shall be located outside the site triangle and five feet from the property line, and the brick shall be extended to the top or near the top of the ground sign and architecturally blended with the Fairfield Square feature; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas voting “Nay,” and Mr. Kramer, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.

C. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping and Lighting for Kohl’s Department Store at 175 Postage Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing a 96,077 square foot building with 537 parking spaces. For the landscaping, perimeter buffering is required to the west and south of the site, mounding and fencing is already installed adjacent to the condominium development to the west and the owner is installing 13 additional trees in this area. To the south the owner is proposing eight Honey Locust and three Colorado Green Spruce trees along the property line, and these should be extended adjacent to the building along the southern perimeter. He stated streetscape buffering adjacent to S.R. 256 and Postage Drive is required. On S.R. 256 there is approximately 120 feet adjacent to S.R. 256 and the proposed plan does not show any buffering in this area. Mounding to a height of two to three feet, landscaped with trees and shrubs, should be installed in this area. The remainder of the frontage in this area is a separate out parcel and it would be the responsibility of that particular development to continue the mounding and landscaping. On Postage Drive there are approximately 20 existing street trees and the owner is proposing seven Red Maples and four Serviceberry trees along the road. He stated staff recommends a two to three foot high mound be installed along Postage Drive with additional shrubs and flowers in order to block views into the parking lot. Mr. Schultz continued that interior landscaping is required throughout the parking lot and the owner is proposing several parking islands with landscaping that appears to meet the zoning code requirements. For lighting, a revised lighting plan was presented this evening and the owner is proposing 14 light poles throughout the parking lot that would be dark bronze light boxes that are the cut-off type and round in shape. The proposed light poles are 40 feet high while the City permits 37 foot high poles. There are six wall-mounted lights with four on the western wall elevation and two on the southern elevation that appear to be mounted approximately 20 feet high on the building. The foot candle illumination is within the requirements. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping and lighting with the conditions that mounding and landscaping be installed along S.R. 256, that a two to three foot high mound shall be installed along Postage Drive with the installation of additional shrubs and flowers, and that the height of the light poles be reduced from 40 to 37 feet. Mr. Russell Henestofel stated he was representing the owner for this application. Mr. Henestofel stated they do intend to have the mounding required along S.R. 256; that is not a problem. He stated with regard to the mounding along Postage Drive there is an issue of a site distance problem and a grading problem at one point, however, for the rest of the area they do plan on installing the mounding. He stated they do not have a problem with installing additional shrubs, however, there is no irrigation so instead of flowers they will install additional shrubs. Mr. Henestofel stated they have been unable to find a manufacturer that makes 37 foot light poles. He stated they originally proposed 40 foot poles and after speaking to Mr. Schultz they did find a manufacturer that makes 39 foot poles and the lighting plan submitted tonight was based on the 39 foot poles. Mr. Bosch inquired where our 37 foot requirement came from or was it something that is outdated and should be changed. Mr. Schultz stated he was unaware of how the requirement came about, but he would research this issue and see if we need to update the code. Mr. Bosch clarified that the developer does intend to comply with the mounding requirement on Postage Drive, just reducing it in the area where there is a site distance issue. Mr. Nicholas clarified the light poles would be mounted on 30 inch concrete piers, so with a 39 foot pole, it will reach 41-1/2 feet. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping and Lighting for Kohl’s Department Store at 175 Postage Drive allowing for 39 foot light poles, and conditioned on the mounding and landscaping being installed along S.R. 256, and that a two to three foot high mound be stalled along Postage Drive; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for Staples on Postage Drive (just north of Kohl’s). Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a 19,300 square foot building with three curb cuts from Postage Drive, which is a private street. He stated the site plan identifies 97 parking spaces while 78 are required and storm water would be detained in the existing retention/detention ponds located on the condominium development just west of the site. He stated the site plan appears to meet all the zoning requirements and there appears to be sufficient area for perimeter and interior landscaping. Mr. Schultz stated on the access plan there are three curb cuts from Postage Drive and the eastern curb cut will provide access to Staples and the future out lot to the east. The middle curb cut is located approximately 150 feet from the eastern curb cut, and meets the minimum distance standards. The western curb cut is adjacent to Kohl’s delivery access curb cut and primarily used for delivery truck access. He stated staff is concerned that the location could cause conflict with motorists in the condominium development and semi-truck delivery to Staples. He stated he would suggest that they require all delivery trucks to enter at the middle curb cut and exit at the western cut, or reduce the size of the western cut and move it further east and install a sign in the condominium development warning motorists of truck delivery access. Mr. Schultz stated for building materials the east (front) elevation would be comprised of bricks with accent bands to match Kohl’s. A large sign area of approximately 768 square feet is located above the entrance doors and windows and it appears the sign area is comprised of a red metal material. The metal material does not meet building material standards and should be comprised of brick. The red sign area would be about the size of one-half of a billboard and would be comprised of individual white letters installed on a brick base. He continued a red metal banding with signage extends the length of the elevation and the metal does not meet building material standards and should be replaced with brick, and an awning would be located above the windows and door, however, the color and materials of the awning have not been identified. On the south (side) elevation facing Postage Drive the majority of the front elevation would be comprised of bricks with accent bands to match Kohl’s, and a red metal banding with signage extends the length of the elevation. A sign area of approximately 240 square feet is located near the midpoint of the elevation and it appears the sign area is comprised of a red metal material. There is one service door on this elevation and the loading dock is comprised of split face block with a metal overhead door. The west (rear) elevation would be comprised of split face block painted to match Kohl’s and a chain link fence would be located above the loading dock area, with one service door on this elevation. The north elevation (adjacent to the Overlook at CrossCreek Condominiums) would be comprised of split face block painted to match Kohl’s, and a red metal band extends the length of the elevation. The split face block does not meet the building material standards of brick. Kohl’s was approved with split face block on the north and west elevations, and the rear elevation of Hunters Run Center is constructed of split face block. Mr. Schultz stated it is likely there will be future large commercial buildings in the City and the Commission needs to determine if split face block is an appropriate alternative to brick in some circumstances, and perhaps a building size threshold could be used to determine if split face block can be substituted for brick on non-road elevations. The owner is proposing a flat roof, which is acceptable if the building has appropriate architectural features on the elevations. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for site plan/building materials with the conditions that the eastern most access curb cut shall be the only access to the out lot east of Staples; that all delivery trucks shall enter at the middle curb cut and exit at the western curb cut or that the western curb cut be moved to the east and reduced in size to help mitigate congestion with the condominium motorists; that a sign indicating a truck entrance and deliveries be installed along the road in the condominium development; that the dumpster be screened with a fence comprised of brick or wood; that the fence above the loading dock be constructed of solid wood; that the large sign area on the Front elevation facing S.R. 256 be constructed of brick; and, that the red metal banding on the north, south, and east elevations be eliminated and replaced with brick. A Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping, lighting, and signage will be required. Mr. Nelson stated he was the co-developer of this property and they are currently working with Staples and two other high quality tenants are interested in the two out parcel sites. Mr. Nelson stated the Staples site is set back 600 feet from S.R. 256 and they have matched the brick on the east and south side to Kohl’s and the west and north side have CMU split face masonry that will be painted in a non-glare paint to match the masonry on Kohl’s. He stated they are exceeding the required parking and the eastern most access curb is designed for joint use and he did not understand the concern about the truck traffic and the condominiums. Mr. Schultz stated there should be a sign somewhere indicating to traffic from the condominium development that there may be truck traffic at that loading dock. Mr. Nelson stated that was no problem and they could do that. Mr. Nelson stated they intend to enclose the dumpster area with brick on three sides and a wooden gate on the last side. Mr. Nelson stated they had intended to put a chain link fence at the loading dock and wood would not hold up well there. If the City does not like the chain link, they would make it out of masonry block with a cap. He stated if a truck touched a wooden fence one time, it would be gone. Mr. Nelson stated the large red sign on the front area is the Staples logo and if they cannot get the sign they will not come here. Mr. Schultz stated the problem was with the red metal material not meeting our standards. Mr. Nelson stated the awning material would be standing seam green metal that projects out over the building. Mr. Bosch clarified the white letters would abut to the metal. Mr. Nelson stated he could agree to take the red metal banding off the north elevation and on the south elevation he would propose the band only occur on the front 50 percent of the building. Mr. Smith stated as he understood it, the first four conditions listed by Mr. Schultz are non-issues, on the fifth condition they would construct the fence from block, the sixth condition cannot be done in brick, and regarding the seventh, the north elevation is a non-issue and the south elevation could be reduced 50 percent. Mr. Nelson stated that was correct. Mr. Schultz stated the banding being constructed out of metal appears to be a part of the structure of the building, and the signage would come later. He stated it seemed on the elevation he saw, the banding was part of the signage. Mr. Schultz stated the issue was that the metal did not meet the Commercial Design Guideline standards, which are basically brick and wood materials. Mr. Nelson inquired if efis could be used. Mr. Bosch stated that was his point, if there is a material that meets our standards and allows Staples to still have the red, then he felt that should be discussed. Mr. Nelson stated the only other type of material they could use would be an efis material, which is a textured stucco type material, that could be painted the bright red and have the lettering added on. Mr. Schultz stated his concern was if this efis area is approved at this size, it will be red, and then you will have a 260 square foot Staples sign, and that is very large. Mr. Bosch inquired if Staples would be willing to scale the size back a little so there is not so much red. Mr. Nelson stated they would agree to take the sign down half the distance on each side between the letter S and the edge of the sign. Mr. Smith clarified this would line the red up with the triple windows, and Mr. Bosch clarified then the awning and everything would be reduced to match that. Mr. Henestofel stated the height would remain at 23 feet. Mr. Bosch inquired if the two red bands on the front could be one continuous red band then the sign area could be dealt with when the signage request came in. Mr. Henestofel stated Staples would want keep the red bands as they are now. Mr. Smith stated then they should be treated as red architectural features. Mr. Nicholas stated as he understood it, as it relates to the front Staples sign, he agreed the text itself is too big and exceeds our guidelines for signage. Mr. Nicholas inquired if the red area is decreased, will that increase the size of the brick piers that are on either side of the storefront. Mr. Henestofel stated the piers would be moved over and not increased in size. Mr. Nicholas stated the Staples sign is a nationally recognized logo, and he understood that, but he wasn’t sure if text was necessary on those red bands. Mr. Nicholas stated he felt very strongly against having the red banding on any elevation other than the east. Mr. Nicholas stated if he lived in those condominiums he would not want to look at split face block and inquired if there could be some sort of concession to have 12 courses of the block and then start with brick. Mr. Nelson stated the block was already approved for Kohl’s, and Mr. Nicholas stated their building was much larger. Mr. Henestofel stated he felt consistency was the better approach. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed, he did not think having block and then brick would look very good. Mr. Fix stated there are certain aspects of any retail building that are considered part of their brand image. He stated he felt we should tread lightly when we start asking a well established business to alter their brand image. Mr. Henestofel stated with the red banding being constructed of the stucco type material, it will be the same material as that used on Kohl’s, and they would both be consistent. Mr. Bosch stated he agreed, and the only problem this Commission would have is that with Kohl’s there is no signage added into the banding. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for Staples on Postage Drive as submitted with the following caveats: That the easternmost access curb cut shall be the only access to the out lot east of Staples; that a sign indicating truck entrance and delivery shall be installed along the road in the condominium development; that the dumpster shall be screened with a fence comprised of brick or wood material; the fence along the loading dock shall be constructed of solid block; that the large red area on the front elevation facing S.R. 256 shall be constructed of efis and reduced as agreed upon earlier; that the red banding on the south and east elevation shall also be comprised of the efis and the sign area on the south elevation be reduced by 50 percent and that the red banding will be eliminated on the north elevation; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Nicholas voting “Nay,” and Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.

E. Review and request for motion to approve Comprehensive Sign Plan for building signage for the flex office building at 773 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing four signs located over each bay of windows of the west elevation facing Windmiller Drive. Each sign would have a total of 30.8 square feet and the backplate and letters would be a light green/beige, the recessed area and highlights would be olive green, and the sign panel would be a darker green. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the request with the condition that the only signs permitted shall be located on the west building elevation and that each tenant shall be required to be in compliance with the approved color scheme. He further stated a sign permit will be required for each sign. Mr. Lavert stated he was present representing the owner and he did not see any problem with complying with the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz. Mr. Smith moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for building signage with the conditions stated by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were four cases in May that were approved and there are no cases scheduled for June.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting there were no cases in Violet Township.

C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated they are finalizing their land use designations and updating their thoroughfare plan. He stated they will likely have a public meeting in approximately two months.

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 move forward with this yet this summer.

C. Marcus Theater Out lot Access Alternatives. Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting the Commission requested he meet with the engineer and look at some alternatives for access. Mr. Schultz stated they had looked at two alternatives, the first being to straighten out the access road, bring it in to a three way stop, and access the out lots from the rear. He stated this would create a three-way intersection instead of five-way and would straighten out the access road, however, Marcus Theater would have to make some revisions since this is in their parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated he was not sure the City had the authority to have them make that modification, he was not sure who would have to pay for the modification, and it would also reduce the number of parking spaces for Marcus Theater by 13. Mr. Schultz stated the second alternative was to keep the same access road alignment, create a three-way stop, and access the out lots from the rear. He stated this would keep the Marcus Theater parking lot in the same configuration, it would not have as much separation as the first alternative, but it would affect only Plaza Properties and Marcus Theater would not be involved. Mr. Schultz stated he has discussed these alternatives with the applicant and he is present this evening. Mr. Nick Vollman stated he was present representing Plaza Properties. He stated he had faxed these alternatives to Marcus Theaters, but he has not had a chance to talk to them about it. Mr. Jack Reynolds, also representing Plaza Properties, stated when the curb cut was put in at the light, the thinking was there would be access points midway down the street and that would take away the three-way intersection. Mr. Reynolds stated they are not sure who would pay for straightening out the access road, they would sit down and talk to the City, but in terms of a short term solution the drawing that was done back in 2001 makes sense. He stated they are more than willing to sit down with Mr. Schultz and the City’s engineer to discuss what makes the best case scenario for accessing these sites. Mr. Schultz stated in speaking with the engineer the best case scenario was to keep it as far away from S.R. 204 as possible, but then we had the conflict of the five-way intersection. He stated they had tried to mitigate that to make it a three-way intersection and that is how they came up with the two alternatives. He stated he felt the second alternative is probably the best we can get without requiring Marcus Theater to realign the road. Mr. Bosch clarified that Plaza Properties did not like the two options presented this evening by Mr. Schultz. Mr. Vollman stated it may be worth taking the time to sit down and discuss this further and try to reach a solution that everyone can live with. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to continue this on the agenda to allow for more discussion between the developer and the City.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Smith, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, and Mr. Kramer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 10:20 P.M., June 8, 2004.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning