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. Kramer, Mr. Bosch and Mr. O’Brien were present. Mr. Smith and Mr. Nicholas were absent. Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Bob Mapes, Dennis Meacham, Kevin South, Mark Swanson, Eric Ross, Ira Weiss, Steve Luchtenberg, Rick Baker, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 8, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. There being no discussion, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Kramer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 13, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. There being no discussion, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve amended Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Building Materials for an Awning for Beef O’Brady’s at 797 Hill Road North (Drug Mart Center). Mr. Schultz stated in May 2004, this Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for an outdoor patio and walk-in cooler. He stated at that time the applicant indicated they would like to put in an awning and this Commission stated they would like to review that prior to it’s being put in. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing to construct an awning over the outdoor patio on the southern end of the building, and it would be a spruce or forest green canvas awning supported by four square steel posts. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness application. Mr. Eric Ross stated he was present representing Beef O’Brady’s and they were just requesting the awning to cover the outdoor patio. Mr. Blake moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the awning; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Drug Mart Center at 845 Hill Road North (Beef O’Brady’s). Mr. Schultz stated this Commission approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire Drug Mart Center in June 2001, with the signs facing Hill Road. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing a sign on the canopy over the outdoor patio on the southern elevation. Mr. Schultz stated our zoning code allows for a wall sign to be erected on a building that faces a street, parking lot, or service drive, and such signs may not be extended beyond the setback lines. Mr. Schultz stated the awning does not face a street or parking lot, and he was not sure the sign would have much exposure to S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz further stated permitting signage on building elevations with only service road exposure would likely lead to such requests from other businesses and compromise the City’s sign policies (i.e., signs on all sides of buildings that can be seen from a road or parking lot.) Mr. Schultz stated staff does not support the Comprehensive Sign Plan request for those reasons. Mr. Eric Ross stated what they were requesting was basically to put their business logo on the awning. Mr. Fix clarified the logo would make the business more recognizable. Mr. Ross stated it would be visible from S.R. 256. Mr. O’Brien stated it would only be visible to vehicles traveling northbound on S.R. 256, and there is already signage on the front of the building and out by the street. Mr. Fix clarified that our code allows for signage on street frontage, a parking lot or a service drive. Mr. Bosch stated if there were parking on both sides of the building, or as the facility changes or adjusts and that parking is added, at that point he would have no problem with approving this request. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Drug Mart Center at 845 Hill Road North (Beef O’Brady’s); Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Blake voting “Nay.” Motion failed 5-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve amended Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Building Materials for an Awning for Cup O’Joe on Lot 2 of the Creek Bend Business Park (Shoppes on the Parkway). Mr. Schultz stated in June 2003, we approved the building materials for Lot 2, and the tenant is proposing an awning over the existing drive thru window. He stated the awning would be six feet wide and four feet high, and would be made of black fabric. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness for the awning. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch clarified the awning would just cover the drive thru window. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer voting “Nay,” and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-1.

D. Review and request for motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Lot 2 of the Creek Bend business Park (Cup O’Joe). Mr. Schultz stated in October 2003, a Comprehensive Sign Plan was approved for Lots 1 and 2 of the business park. He stated the tenant is proposing a revision to the sign colors on the west elevation and additional signs on the north and east elevations. Mr. Schultz stated the Comprehensive Sign Plan approved signage on the west elevation, fronting S.R. 256, in October 2003. Mr. Schultz stated the approved Comprehensive Sign Plan indicates all signs would have a green background, white routed letters/numbers/pictures, and a cardinal red border. Also, all signs would be lit by external lighting. He stated the tenant is requesting the “Cup O’Joe” logo to be in black with white lettering. The remainder of the sign would have a green background, white lettering, and a cardinal border. Mr. Schultz stated staff recommended the sign have a green background with white lettering and a cardinal border as originally approved. He further stated on the north elevation, the “Cup O’Joe” logo would be located on the canopy with the lettering on the drive thru, and the canopy would be black with white lettering. He stated this proposal appears to be appropriate, and there would also be a clearance sign that would be black with white lettering. For the east elevation, the applicant is proposing a drive thru menu board that would be 6’x6’, and would be black with white lettering. Further, a 2’x1.5’ “Cup O’Joe” logo would be located above the menu board that would be black with white lettering. Mr. Schultz stated staff believed the menu board colors and the proposed new sign are appropriate. He stated the additional signage on the north and east elevations can be justified because they are for a drive thru that has frontage on a street (Clint Drive), and the black color on these signs is justified because they will not clash with other signs on the elevation. Mr. Schultz stated the intent of the original Comprehensive Sign Plan was to promote common, consistent, and aesthetically pleasing signage for each building and the business park as a whole. He continued that deviations from the sign plan would likely create a retail/office center with haphazard, multi-color signage that is not visually pleasing, and there are seven more lots with several more buildings to be constructed in the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan with the conditions that the sign on the west elevation be green with white lettering and a cardinal border; the canopy on the north elevation be black with white lettering; the menu board on the east elevation be black with white lettering; and, the sign above the menu board on the east elevation be black with white lettering. Mr. Fix clarified the only issue with the request was the coloring on the sign on the west elevation. Mr. Mark Swanson stated he was present representing Cup O’Joe, and they were just asking to use their nationally registered trademark logo, which is a black and white logo. He stated amending that logo has other implications for them, and they cannot change their logo. He stated when they signed the lease they did not understand there would be this strict of a guideline, and they were respectfully just asking to use their logo. Mr. Swanson stated no-one else in the neighborhood has changed their logo so they were not aware this would be an issue. Mr. Bosch clarified that we only allow three colors on a sign. Mr. Schultz stated he has discussed this with the applicant, and he feels the black signage on the north and east elevations would be appropriate, however, he did feel the signage on the west elevation should have a green background. Mr. O’Brien clarified this building can have signage on three sides since it does front a street. Mr. Bosch stated he has an issue with the north elevation because the drawing he received has a wall- mounted sign and now they also want to put the signage on the canopy. Mr. Schultz stated they have agreed to take the wall-mounted sign off of the north elevation. Mr. Fix clarified if the logo were put on with a green background, white lettering, and a cardinal boarder, that would be allowed. Mr. Swanson stated he cannot change the logo. Mr. Bosch stated then, the sign on the storefront would just have the name, “Cup O’Joe” in white lettering with a green background and cardinal border. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct. Mr. Bosch further stated on the east elevation the menu board with the logo is fine, and on the north elevation the wall sign will be eliminated, the clearance sign will remain, and the logo will be on the black awning. Mr. Schultz stated that was also correct. Mr. O’Brien stated he felt the agent for the property should make the potential clients aware that there were limitations on signage. Mr. Schultz stated in the original contract he had seen, that was made clear. Mr. Swanson stated it was not clear in the lease they signed. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan with the sign on the storefront having the name, “Cup O’Joe” in white lettering with a green background and cardinal border, on the east elevation the menu board with the logo, and on the north elevation the wall sign will be eliminated, the clearance sign will remain, and the logo will be on the black awning; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

E. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru for a 4,500 square foot retail building on Lot 4 of the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a 4,500 square foot retail building on the one-acre site, with access from a single curb cut on Clint Drive. He stated a drive thru is proposed on the southern portion of the building. Mr. Schultz stated a drive thru facility requires a conditional use permit and must meet the requirements of Chapter 1286.16(a-c) of our Code. Mr. Schultz stated these requirements include direct access to a primary arterial, stacking area for seven vehicles, and segregation of parking. He stated the access requirement is met as they have access to Clint Drive. He stated further the proposed drive thru area has approximately 55 feet of stacking space which does not meet the minimum 154 feet in our code. Further, the drive thru is oriented in a clockwise orientation that will cause traffic to cross each other causing congestion and dangerous situations in the parking lot. Efficient drive thru’s are oriented in a counter clockwise orientation. If approved, a limit on the number of trips to the drive thru would need to be determined to keep the existing and future commercial uses to a low intensity use (i.e., no fast food, banks, etc.). Mr. Schultz further stated customer and employee parking shall be segregated and customer parking shall be located in an area with the highest accessibility to the main retail entrance. Mr. Schultz stated the parking is not segregated and if the drive thru stacks more than three cars, the internal circulation of the parking lot could be disrupted and back onto Clint Drive. He stated for those two reasons, staff did not support the conditional use request for the drive thru as proposed. Mr. Dennis Meacham stated he was representing the applicant, and he felt the question was the intensity of use. Mr. Meacham stated Swan Cleaners was going in there, and they have stated the most cars they ever get at their drive thru’s is one car at the window and one waiting, therefore, they felt that stacking four cars was plenty based on the amount of use. Mr. Meacham stated they will not get a lot of traffic picking up dry cleaning. He stated further, across the street, Grater’s has a drive thru and this would have more stacking distance than they have. Mr. Meacham stated he understood they did not meet the seven cars stacking qualifications, but he did not feel that would be a problem. Mr. Bosch stated with regard to the segregation of parking, would customers be walking through the traffic at the drive thru? Mr. Meacham stated customers would walk across the drive thru lane, but he did not anticipate a problem with that. Mr. Bosch stated this Commission has put conditions on drive thru’s in the past as far as the number of vehicles per hour. Mr. Schultz stated he had spoken to our engineer, and there are no traffic counts as it relates to dry cleaners. He stated another issue was if this business sold, another business could go in that would need additional stacking space. Mr. Meacham stated a food situation could never go in there because of it cannot meet the parking requirements. Mr. Bosch inquired if it would be possible to approve this with a condition such as the use of the drive thru is only valid if there is less than fifty cars an hour using it. Mr. Mapes stated that has been done on other drive thru’s. Mr. Bosch stated the number he stated was just a hypothetical number, and perhaps we could get some statistics from a similar facility. Mr. Blake stated he is familiar with this type of a drive thru and he did not see it being a problem. Mr. Bosch stated he would be comfortable if they could give us some sort of traffic count on the drive thru usage at one of their other facilities, and that was attached as a condition to the approval. Mr. Schultz clarified that once a drive thru is approved he did not believe that it had to be approved again should another business go into this facility in the future. Mr. Schultz stated if this is a commercial use, we cannot restrict the type of commercial use. Mr. Meacham stated again they had asked Swan Cleaners what the average usage was and they stated the most traffic they normally have would be one vehicle at the drive thru window and one waiting in line. Mr. Fix stated given the parking restrictions and the way the building is set up, the likelihood this would be turned into anything else is very small. Mr. Schultz stated he could get with the engineer to come up with a number that we could put on the restriction. Mr. Bosch stated he would not have a problem approving this request and allowing staff to come up with the maximum number of vehicle usage per hour based upon the engineer’s opinion. He stated staff could inform this Commission of what that number was and if they did not concur, the condition could be amended. Mr. Kramer inquired what could be done if this restriction was exceeded once the business was open, and Mr. Mapes stated there is a procedure for revocation of conditional use permits. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru for a 4,500 square foot retail building on Lot 4 of the Creek Bend Business Park with the condition that a restriction of the number of vehicles allowed per hour as determined by the city’s engineer be attached; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

F. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and Lighting for a 4,500 square foot retail building on Lot 4 of the Creek Bend Business Park. Mr. Schultz stated this is the same site as just discussed. He stated the building is located in the center with parking lots on both sides, and there are 23 parking spaces in front. He stated restaurant uses would not be permitted due to the lack of parking. He continued a dumpster would be located on the southeastern portion of the site and stormwater would likely be detained in the parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet all zoning requirements, there is sufficient area to accommodate the interior and perimeter landscaping requirements, and the site would have access from a single curb cut on Clint Drive. Mr. Schultz stated the front elevation has three individual entrance doors, and would be a combination of red brick, white limestone, with beige fiber-cement siding and trim. This elevation would match the existing two buildings on lots 1 and 2, as well as lot 3 this Commission approved last month. He continued that a stone veneer watermark would extend the length of the elevation and three bays of aluminum storefront windows would be located on this elevation. Mr. Schultz stated the north elevation, (rear elevation), would be comprised of stucco, there would be three service doors to access the building, and a fence is to be located on the roof to screen the mechanical equipment. The east and west elevations (side elevations), would be comprised of brick veneer with a stone veneer watermark, and the roof would have dimensional shingles to match the other buildings. He stated the owner is proposing four light poles throughout the parking lot that are 20 feet in height, four wall mounted fixtures are proposed, two on the front elevation and one on each of the side elevations, and the light boxes and poles shall match the ones installed on lots 1 and 2 of the business park. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions that the dumpster be screened with a brick material, that the light poles shall be 20 feet in height, and the light boxes shall match the ones installed on lots 1 and 2 of the business park. Mr. Meacham stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have, and they do not have any problems with any of the conditions Mr. Schultz had listed. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant will have to come back in to have landscaping and signage approved. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials and lighting for a 4,500 square foot retail building on Lot 4 of the Creek Bend Business Park with the conditions that the dumpster be screened with a brick material, the light poles shall be 20 feet in height, and the light boxes shall match the ones installed on lots 1 and 2 of the business park; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch clarified the dumpster shall be screened with brick with wooden gates. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

G. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru for Fairfield National Bank located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Courtright Drive (Bell Property.) Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a 2,941 square foot bank with a four bay drive thru with an escape lane on the 1.22 acre site. He stated there would be a single curb cut from Courtright Drive accessing the site and the plan identifies 22 parking spaces while 15 are required. He stated there are eight conditions for a drive thru bank and this site plan meets all eight of those conditions. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that a six-foot high wood opaque fence be installed along the northern property line to shield views and vehicular lights into the adjacent commercial/residential property. He stated additional buffering may be required as part of the Certificate of Appropriateness for Landscaping. Mr. Steve Luchtenberg stated he was the architect for the applicant and he would like to make the Commission aware there is a fairly dense line of evergreens on the property line. He stated they would like the opportunity to consider mounding with an opaque row of shrubbery as opposed to a solid fence. Mr. Schultz stated he has discussed this with the applicant and it makes sense, however, they have not got that far yet. He stated his concern is to make sure there is some kind of buffering. Mr. Bosch clarified they do not know as yet if the evergreens are on the applicant’s property. He stated if they are not on their property he would like to make sure there is some buffering on their property. Mr. Schultz stated that still needs to be identified. Mr. O’Brien stated Council has been discussing the area between Refugee Road and the railroad tracks on S.R. 256, and they were going to be very critical on any accesses in that area. Mr. Schultz stated this access is the best location in the opinion of our engineer. Mr. O’Brien moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru for Fairfield National Bank located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Courtright Drive contingent upon staff’s approval of the buffering to be installed along the property line; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Kramer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

H. Review and request for motion to approve Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials for Fairfield National Bank located on the northwest corner of Courtright Drive (Bell Property). Mr. Schultz stated this is the same site as just discussed for the 2,941 square foot bank. He stated there is an issue regarding the piece of property owned by the applicant on Courtright, and the piece of property at Courtright and S.R. 256 that is owned by the City of Pickerington. Mr. Schultz stated the property owner has agreed to exchange the .0774 acres of land where the City constructed realigned Courtright Dive for the .1837 acres of excess land from the old Courtright Road alignment. Mr. Schultz stated this was basically a housekeeping item to clean up an existing situation. He further stated staff recommends prior to approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, City Council and the property owner agree to the property exchange. He stated the proposed building lines are based on the property lines after this exchange has been accomplished. Mr. Schultz stated the site plan appears to meet all the zoning requirements and there appears to be sufficient area for interior and perimeter landscaping, and a Type A buffer would be required adjacent to the residents to the west and landscaping will be required adjacent to the north property line as just discussed. Mr. Schultz stated that will be taken care of with the Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping, but he was just making sure the applicant was aware of it now. Mr. Schultz further stated access would be from a single curb cut to Courtright Drive and would be located approximately 150 feet west of the curb cut to Dairy Queen and approximately 40 feet from the rear curb cut into the shopping center and the animal hospital. Mr. Schultz stated the city’s engineer has indicated the curb cut should not be adjacent to the curb cut into the Diary Queen because that would cause congestion at the traffic signal and the curb cut should be located as far away from the traffic light as possible. Mr. Schultz stated there are a few significant trees on the property and if they are taken down they must be replaced. He stated the front elevation (east) would have a gabled canopy with glass doors, and a bay of windows with black shutters would be located on each side of the entrance doors. The building would be brick veneer to match the surrounding buildings and the gable would be comprised of vinyl siding with fiberglass columns. Four drive thru lanes with a pitched roof would be located on the northern portion of the elevation and the pitched roof would have black asphalt dimensional shingles. The south elevation (facing Courtright Road) would have two gables, one with vinyl siding and one comprised of brick veneer. He continued the brick veneer would comprise the remainder of the elevation and there would be five bays of windows with black shutters, and the pitched roof would have black asphalt dimensional shingles. The north elevation (adjacent to Embroidery Barn) would be comprised of brick with three windows for the drive thru tellers, a vinyl gabled roof would cover the drive thru’s with fiberglass columns supporting the gabled roof; an ATM machine would be located on the building wall with access from the first drive-thru, and the pitched roof would have black asphalt dimensional shingles. The west elevation (adjacent to the residence) would be comprised of brick veneer with a single door, four drive thru lanes with a pitched roof located on the northern portion of the elevation, and the pitched roof would have black asphalt dimensional shingles. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions that the land exchange between the owner of the property and the City shall be accepted by City Council prior to the start of construction, that the building brick veneer color shall match the surrounding buildings and should be specifically identified, and that the dumpster be screened with a brick enclosure. Mr. O’Brien stated Council is aware of the land exchange issue and that should not be a problem. Mr. Luchtenberg stated he would like to know who he should specify the color of the brick to and when. He further stated they have not started the construction as yet, and he would just like to know the color that is preferred as they are leaning toward a red brick. Mr. Mapes stated this Commission can tentatively approve the project with the condition that the applicant come back to get the brick approved when they are at that point. Mr. Bosch stated that would be appropriate as this Commission would approve the roof shingles, etc., at that time. Mr. Fix moved to approve the Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan/building materials for Fairfield National Bank located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Courtright Drive (Bell Property) with the condition that the land exchange between the owner of the property and the City be accepted by City Council prior to the start of construction, the understanding that this board will approve the color of the brick at a later time, and that the dumpster be screened with a brick enclosure; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Fix, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

I. Review and request for motion to approve amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for a ground sign at the Shoppes at Turnberry (BankOne). Mr. Schultz stated the Comprehensive Sign Plan for ground signs in the shopping center was approved in November 2003. He stated BankOne is proposing to replace the existing pylon sign with a ground sign and the sign panel would have the new BankOne design. Mr. Schultz stated the existing pylon sign has approximately 48 square feet of signage and is approximately 15 feet high. He stated the proposed ground sign would have approximately 42 square feet of sign area (10.7’ x 4’), would have brick up both sides of the sign, approximately 4 feet of brick from the ground to the bottom of the sign area, and the proposed sign meets City standards and is replacing a sign that does not meet today’s standards. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the amended comprehensive sign plan with the condition that the ground sign shall be located five feet from the property line and outside the site triangle. Mr. Schultz further stated ground signs require footer inspection from the building department and a sign permit is required. Mr. Fix moved to approve the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for a ground sign at the Shoppes at Turnberry (BankOne) with the condition that it be located five feet from the property line and outside the site triangle; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Kramer, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fix, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

4. REPORTS:

A. Planning and Zoning Director - Lance Schultz

(1) BZA Report. Mr. Schultz stated there were no cases in July and there are no cases scheduled for August.

B. FCRPC - Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated at the last meeting two plan extensions, one final plat, and one re-plat in Violet Township were approved.

C. Violet Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update – Lance Schultz. Mr. Schultz stated a meeting is scheduled for the end of August and the final draft has been submitted to the Steering Committee for review.

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 a contract has just been signed with Fairfield County to do GIS mapping so hopefully he can start moving forward on this project in the near future.

Mr. O’Brien inquired if the downtown businesses were complying with the new sign regulations that were just adopted as it appeared to him that some of the signs were not in compliance. Mr. Schultz stated one owner had come in and indicated they could not find any plastic signs that were brown wooden textured as is required. Mr. Bosch stated the business owners were the ones who had indicated they could get that, and Mr. Schultz stated now they are saying they cannot find it. Mr. Schultz stated there are also other signs that do not comply and those issues have not been addressed as yet by Code Enforcement. Mr. Bosch stated as this Commission had taken a great deal of time in determining this regulation, and the downtown businesses participated in that process, he felt they should be enforced. Mr. Schultz stated the regulations were adopted on June 3, 2004, and he had sent out notices giving them until July 1, 2004, to come in for permits. He stated since that time he has just not had the time to enforce this, but he hoped to do something in the next month or so. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to have an update on this issue at the next meeting.

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Fix voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:45 P.M., August 10, 2004.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________ ___________________________

Lynda D. Yartin Lance A. Schultz

Municipal Clerk Director, Planning and Zoning