PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 FEBRUARY 2004

7:00 P.M.

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, Tom Vanover, Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 13 JANUARY 2004
  6. Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that Council had a public hearing on the Kemper Pond project at Chesterdale and Kemper Road (IHOP and another use that Planning recommended to them). The presentation was made, and there was a misunderstanding about what happens when you change the zoning to PUD. The applicant was under the impression that if you didnít come in with a final plan the property would revert to its own zoning, and there were some concerns about the transfer of ownership and whether or not the owner would approve that. That was tabled, and we look forward to seeing them next Wednesday.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė December 16, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė January 25, 2004
    5. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Winter 2004

    Mr. Syfert said there was a Guide for New Members on the back of the journal. Is that of interest to anyone? If so we could send for a couple of copies of it. Ms. McBride volunteered to check in her office for a copy of it.

    Mr. Galster said I talked to Ms. McBride about having a workshop; is there any update? Ms. McBride responded that she had asked Mr. Dale for possible dates, and I will e mail with you this week to try to get some dates coordinated. Mr. Galster asked if she had heard from Mr. Schneiderís office to coordinate this. He would like to be in attendance as well. Ms. McBride had not heard from him, and Mr. Galster said he would coordinate with Mr. Schneider.

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    10 FEBRUARY 2004

    PAGE TWO

  8. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Proposed Sign Change at Provident Bank, 11525 Springfield Pike Ė tabled January 13, 2004

Andrea Ward of Holthaus Signs said we are proposing to replace the wall signs with three new wall signs. They would total 90 s.f and we would replace the faces on the existing monument sign. We would not change the size, just the faces. The fascia banding around the building would go from the existing colors to the blue and the gold.

Mr. Okum asked if there was a gold band around the blue, and Ms. Ward indicated that there was, adding that it is about a half inch of gold band that will wrap around the building on the blue panels. Mr. Okum asked if it would be only on the bottom of the panel or totally around the panel. Ms. Ward answered that it is around the whole bottom of every blue panel on all sides. Mr. Okum asked if the gold was the same color as that on the sign and Ms. Ward confirmed that it was.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to install three new box signs on the existing structure, one on the east side of the building (front), one on the south side and one on the west side (back). They are a box type sign. Existing today are channel letter type signs. They also are proposing to paint a blue fascia color around the building over the windows. The property itself is located in a General Business District and in Subarea C of the Route 4 Corridor District. The proposed signs are 2 Ĺí x 12í. The wall signs are 90 s.f. and 32 s.f. for the existing ground sign or a total of 132 s.f., and they are permitted 223 s.f.

Mr. Hawkins asked the applicant if this would be uniform with all of the Provident Banks in Greater Cincinnati, and Ms. Ward answered that it would be.

Ms. McBride reported that Subarea C of the Route 4 Corridor District study promotes earth tone colors. However, there is a provision in there that indicates that additional colors can be used to accent or provide interest to a building. So I think it is within keeping with regards to the blue proposed by the applicant.

Additionally the Corridor Review District requires ground-mounted signage. The applicant already has a ground-mounted sign, and they are just changing the panel on it. They are adding an additional sign to the west elevation as well as replacing signage on two other elevations.

We only got elevations on the east west and south. Does that mean that the blue band will not be continued around on the north elevation? Ms. Ward responded that the blue band would continue on the north elevation. Wherever the banding is currently, it will be extended around.

Ms. McBride asked if all of the other Provident signs in the Cincinnati market would be changed. So there wonít be any other signage.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE THREE

V A SIGN CHANGE Ė PROVIDENT BANK Ė 11525 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. Ward answered nothing that will be marked. There will be two types of signage, the channel letters that remain on the building currently and the box sign that they are proposing today. Color wise and style wise, they will all be the same. There are four locations that are not changed to date, and Dayton will be changed within a month.

Mr. Galster asked if there were a reason not to have channel letters on this building. Ms. Ward said no, and Mr. Galster wondered if she would have any objection to putting channel letters instead of the boxes, and Ms. Ward indicated that she would not have any objection.

Mr. Galster asked about the roof color of the existing building. We have a green roof, and I went by your retrofit on Paxton. That building is very similar to this one, with the same tin roof. You just had the band up, not the sign, and the blue band against that green tin roof was not very attractive. Are you saying there will be no change to the roof color here and weíll end up with that same look? Ms. Ward responded unless you prefer otherwise, which I would be more than happy to propose to them. They have painted one roof off Wooster Pike. It was a light blue, and they painted it the dark blue on the Provident sign. It was a solid white building.

Mr. Galster said for the boardís information, I am concerned, and I know at one point Mr. Osborn had expressed a concern, about the clashing of those two colors. I would think light gray or something like that would be good, but I wouldnít like to see that same blue that we are having a problem with. That would be my suggestion.

Mr. Okum said the box sign on the pole on East Kemper Road, at night when it is lit the background is black. Is that what we should anticipate on this building, or if we go to channel lit letters we wouldnít have to worry about that issue.

Ms. Ward said the face of the monument sign will be like that at Tri-County. The background does not illuminate and the letters themselves illuminate. The channel letters would be Provident Bank and they would light up as well. The box sign will be the same as you saw in Tri-County; the background is dark. Mr. Okum said so the ground mounted sign that is currently there would be the same as the pole mounted sign on East Kemper, which at nighttime is black with white letters and some gold. So we get a dramatically different look at night time than we do in the day time. I donít have a problem with that; I just want to make sure that the commission understands that at night time blue is not critical to this elevation at all.

I would be more concerned if they painted a dark blue roof on that building. Then it would be a predominant color to the building elevation, and I would have some real concerns about that. I understand the contrast; all I can say is I am glad that there is a beige drivitt band separating it that hopefully would not change.

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE FOUR

V A SIGN CHANGE Ė PROVIDENT BANK Ė 11525 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Okum said the drive through where the ATM is has white decorative plates around the columns. Will you be painting them blue? Mr. Okum responded I want to make sure that the columns stay white and are not blue. Ms. Ward said the brick columns from the building to the drive through will not be painted. It is just the current panels that adhere to the building. Mr. Galster said only the panels that have the red and blue stripe are getting painted blue; is that correct? Ms. Ward confirmed that.

Ms. McBride said you have a bank in Waterstone, in Deerfield Township. Your free standing sign, which is a part of the PUD, is burgundy and green and it will remain burgundy and green. Ms. Ward answered that it is currently green, but you are correct. That is part of a directional sign throughout that complex that is the same, and all of those will remain the same. The multi tenant pole sign by the street did change.

Mr. Sherry said you will have this lighter blue color as well, and it will be on all four sides, is that correct? Ms. Ward answered not necessarily. It actually will only be on two sides, the east and west. The lighter blue is a trademark for them as well; they call it a water mark. In an elevation like this with similar buildings, you wonít see it throughout.

Mr. Sherry asked the purpose of the new sign on the west elevation (back of the building). Is there a need for that? Ms. Ward answered they wanted some identification for the traffic going behind the building. They have it in a few of the other locations.

Mr. Galster said forgetting about the drive through side, because I canít tell how many panels are actually there, the other three sides of the building have three blue panels. The front of the building (east) and the one that faces the parking lot (south) have the signage on the middle panel of the three, but on the west elevation you are moving it off center and putting it on the left hand side.

Ms. Ward responded we were debating this, and there is an air vent behind that and depending on the outcome, I am concerned that the sign would block the vent. Mr. Galster asked if the channel letters would block it, and Ms. Ward responded that either way a sign would. Channel letters more than likely would not block it. The channel cabinet we are proposing, which is 2í x 12í would block it, and I noted that driving over here.

Mr. Galster commented that it just looks unbalanced if the west elevation is not consistent with the other elevations.

Mr. Syfert asked if the ATMs would be the big blue also, and Ms. Ward confirmed this. Mr. Syfert added I havenít changed my opinion from what I saw on East Kemper Road. I still donít like the color, but somebody knows more than I do.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE FIVE

V A SIGN CHANGE Ė PROVIDENT BANK Ė 11525 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Galster moved to approve the applicantís request to change the signage with the following comments and conditions:

    1. That the box signs on the building be changed to channel letters;
    2. That the west elevation be in the center of the three panels;
    3. That the roof be repainted a light gray that would meet the approval of staff to go with the new color scheme, not the blue color scheme but something much more earthtone and residential looking as the Route 4 Corridor requires;
    4. That all the bands on top of the brick columns remain as they are.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Ms. Ward asked for clarification on the last comment, and Mr. Galster said that the bands around the columns which are clad in some kind of metal remain the colors that they are and not get the blue. In other words, no more than what is presented.

I will modify that motion to add that if in fact Provident Bank does install signage at any other location that is different from this standard color scheme that is being presented at all locations, the City of Springdale would have the option to have this location changed to that other color scheme. Basically it is carrying the same stipulation that Council put on the previous overrule. Mr. Okum seconded the modification.

Mr. Okum said on the roof panel system that is for staff review, it should be earthtone colors of a lighter gray-blue type. Mr. Galster added that it should have a very residential flavor and color. Mr. Okum said I think it should be a flat finish rather than a glossy. Mr. Galster modified his motion to include that the roof should be with a flat finish, and Mr. Okum seconded that modification.

Mr. Okum commented that with the additional items that Mr. Galster has added, it makes it a little bit more palatable. They are limiting the amount of blue on the building. It certainly is stretching somewhat the intent of the Corridor Review District. On the other hand, situations of accent colors have been granted on a number of businesses in the Corridor Review District. I am not happy with the change, that we are placing this much of a predominant color on this building. On the other hand, I can understand the situation and I do accept this as an accent color to the existing base colors. In this particular situation, because they havenít carried it out into the drive through area, I think it is on a limited basis. So I will be supporting this request, considering this as not part of the PUD and I believe it is a part of the Corridor Review District allowing for certain accent colors.

Mr. Sherry said I need clarification on the channel letters. The raceway will be behind the letters, is that correct, and your white and gold logo will be part of the channel letter system. Is that what we are saying? Mr. Galster added I would assume that you are going to paint out that raceway to match the blue banding. Ms. Ward confirmed this.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE SIX

V A SIGN CHANGE Ė PROVIDENT BANK Ė 11525 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Okum said based on what was presented here, there is no signage on the north elevation, is that correct? Ms. Ward confirmed this.

On the motion to approve, all voted aye, except Mr. Syfert who voted no, and the approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative vote.

Mr. Galster asked the applicant to send Mr. McErlane color samples and copies of any other installations that are non-standard.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Approval of Landscaping, Tree Removal Lighting, Signs, and Plat Approval of Crossings at the Park, 12110 Princeton Pike

    Glenn Shepherd, Shepherd Industries reported that we would like to only consider the plat approval tonight and consider the landscaping, tree removal, lighting and signs at the next meeting.

    Mr. Galster said I have a quick comment. The landscape drawings in this size are extremely tough to read.

    Mr. Shepherd responded we have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow to find out exactly how you want it, any revisions, etc. Mr. Galster added I have talked to a couple of people about this, and we try to make sure that we are prepared when we come to this meeting, and the colors start blotching together and it is tough to read.

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that one of the items that need to be included on the plat is the "riparian buffer" which was discussed at Planning Commission. There was a note indicating that it was 30 feet back from the top of the bank. However that area is considered in a different location, so it was viewed that this would best be determined in the field, picked up by the surveyors and added to the plat along with the appropriate language which will be sent out under separate cover.

    We have compared the grade separation project which is occurring with some of the easements that were researched as a part of that. What is known is the utility easement which encompasses the storm sewer and runs parallel to the railroad and is not on the plan. That needs to be included.

    We want to remind everybody that The "Ingress-Egress and Utility Easement" which is shown and encompasses the temporary access to 747 that it is temporary. As the next portion of the project comes on after the grade separation project is completed and the permanent access point is developed that will have to be changed to encompass the permanent location.

     

     

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    10 FEBRUARY 2004

    PAGE SEVEN

    VI A PLAT APPROVAL CROSSINGS AT THE PARK 12110 PRINCETON PK

    Mr. Shvegzda added that since a portion of Phase 1 of this development is in registered land, and a portion of it is not, the applicant will need to go through the Registered Land Office and County Recorderís Office to have both separate portions recorded.

    For the transfer of the property, there should be various signature blocks added to this plat.

    Mr. Shepherd said I brought Tom Abercrombie our civil engineer to address some of the issues.

    Mr. Abercrombie said this is a cut up plat which just gets recorded through the surveyorís office, and it is under state statutes since it is over five acres. Our cut up is a parcel that fronts on an easement which is allowed under state statute. We are a little confused about your item 5 and why we would have signature blocks and lien holders on a cut up. That is normally required on a record plat.

    Mr. Shvegzda responded I guess we were confused as to the purpose of this plat. So at this point it is just to create a separate parcel and not to transfer a title? Mr. Abercrombie answered we are transferring title but we are doing a cut up plat to cut one parcel out of the tract, not recording the record plat. This plat gets recorded in the surveyorís office and not in the recorderís office.

    Mr. Shvegzda said that is correct, so it is not required..

    Mr. Abercrombie stated on the first item, where we are going to locate this riparian buffer. We donít mind doing that and adding it to the survey document, but that survey plat is not something that is recorded in the recorderís office. It can be shown on the survey plat and recorded in the surveyorís office but I donít believe that it becomes a legal document unless it is described by a description.

    Mr. Shvegzda responded so you are saying that at this point you would just as soon have this added to another document and recorded at a later date. Mr. Abercrombie said if we can do that, sure.

    Mr. Abercrombie stated that we agree with your other three items. They are items that we need to follow up on.

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that Mr. McErlane brought up the question on the actual recording of the temporary access easement in terms of this being a document to describe the new parcel. How is that going to be of record?

    Mr. Abercrombie stated that the state statute requires on five acre tracts that the parcel front on an easement, so we are going to create an easement over the existing driveways now that are there and front this parcel on that easement. Later on when the driveway gets moved, we will have to alter the easement or the description so it has frontage on an easement again. It always will have to have frontage on an easement or frontage on a highway.

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    10 FEBRUARY 2004

    PAGE EIGHT

    VI A PLAT APPROVAL CROSSINGS AT THE PARK 12110 PRINCETON PK

    Mr. Abercrombie reported that eventually Mr. Shepherd will be buying additional parcels which will move him right up to the highway so when it is all added together, they will all have frontage. Mr. McErlane added if they are consolidated; otherwise, they are separate parcels.

    Mr. Abercrombie stated that the recorderís office will not let us record anything unless it has the proper frontage.

    Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda if this all made sense, and Mr. Shvegzda indicated that it does.

    Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum said if this is for purposes of

    a survey plat, how does this commission distinguish in its motion the difference? Is it a survey plat and not a recorded plat or a deeded plat? I want to make sure we are not doing something that would give approval of the permanent deeded plat, because there are still issues like the covenants. Does this change any of that?

    If we just say survey plat approval, is that correct? Are we superseding something that is ultimately part of the deed?

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that essentially all we are doing is creating that parcel. That is all we are doing.

    Mr. Okum asked if the covenants should be recorded prior to that, since there are conditions set forth for the entire PUD.

    Mr. McErlane responded that even if they were not recorded with a cut up, they would need to be recorded before we would actually finally approve the development plan and the engineering plans. They will need to be in place before we issue the permits. Mr. Okum commented so this would not circumvent that process.

    Mr. McErlane added it sounds like Planning is actually approving a cut up and not necessarily the plat. Planning Commission does approve every cut up that comes in, even if it is two parcels in an existing subdivision, but the Planning Commission chairman signs the deed. This isnít a whole lot different from that. It is not a subdivision plat; it is a survey plat, and a deed will be drawn up to cut that out, and we will stamp the deed and the Planning Commission secretary signs the deed, instead of signing the plat itself.

    Mr. Sherry said I am confused, particularly with the wording in Parcel B where you are saying it is a transfer between adjoining lot owners. I donít think it is. You are in fact creating additional building sites, and it is less than five acres. I donít get it.

    Mr. Coleman said I am confused as well. Are we here discussing a cut up or a potential recorded plat? Mr. Abercrombie answered we are here for a cut up.

    Mr. Okum said I am going to defer to Mr. McErlane when he finishes looking something up in the code.

    Planning took a five-minute recess at 7:50 p.m.

  2. DISCUSSION
  3. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
  4. ADJOURNMENT

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

10 FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE NINE

VI A PLAT APPROVAL CROSSINGS AT THE PARK 12110 PRINCETON PIKE

Planning reconvened at 7:55 p.m.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that they were looking back through the subdivision regulations, and there are two sections that provide exemption from a plat. One wouldnít apply because it mentions a parcel of land along the existing public street. The other reads, "not involving the opening or extending of any streets or easement of access". That is the primary wording. We are not opening or extending the street and the question is about the easement of access. I was interpreting that as being a public easement of access in which there would be public improvements etc. We are not sure; we need to do a little more research on that. What we would suggest is that the cut up plat be approved, and we can still take a look at that verbiage. If in fact this exemption wouldnít apply, they would have to come back and add the language and signature blocks to the same document.

Mr. McErlane added we are not suggesting that they need to come back here for an additional approval, because the only difference is that it would be the approval of a plat instead of the cut up deeds. Basically you are looking at the same thing. It is just a different method of recording the property.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant understood this, and Mr. Abercrombie responded that if his interpretation is that we need a record plat as opposed to a cut up, we will prepare the record plat. The property still will be the same. We are in agreement with that.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the requested survey plat, otherwise known as cut up plat with the conditions that staff review it and make sure that all parts are applicable to the code. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. DISCUSSION
    2. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
      1. Jenny Craig, 433 East Kemper Road Ė Wall Sign
      2. Wimbledons Apartments Ė 12000 Lawnview Ave. Ė Monument Sign
      3. Roxzzzzz Night Club Ė 11911 Sheraton Lane Ė Wall Sign

      Mr. Galster asked if the Wimbledons Apartment sign on Lawnview Avenue is the permanent sign. I drove by it about a week ago, and it really jumped out at me. It looks like retail signage. It doesnít look like a property identification sign or anything like that. I was hoping that sign would come down.

      Mr. McErlane reported that they intend it to be their permanent sign, and it complies with code. Actually it is permitted to be 50 s.f. in size, and it is approximately 40 s.f.

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 FEBRUARY 2004

      PAGE TEN

      Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Galster his objection to it, and Mr. Galster responded that it is big, it is white and it reaches up into the trees. It is on two poles, so it is up off the ground, and it looks like a site sign put out in front of a commercial development. It just says CMC Properties and a phone number. It looks just like the for lease sign that you see out in front of the Wimbledons Plaza retail center. If it had been similar to the WImbledons Apartment sign that is out here, that would have been okay. I could have lived with that, but this is like a billboard that is gigantic. I could hide my whole family behind it, play Hide and Seek and never catch up to them.

      Mr. Galster asked the Mayor if he had seen it, and Mayor Webster responded that he had, and I canít believe it is the permanent sign. It is like the construction sign for the bank I am building, "Coming Spring of 2004".

      Mr. Galster commented that if in fact it is the permanent sign, we need to do some serious work on the code to somehow not making that permissible.

      Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride if there was any way we could bend an ear. I would rather have them bend an ear there than put up an "I support Issue 2" sign. I would like to see a decent identification marker sign out there that would be a complement to their buildings, rather than what is out there now.

      Ms. McBride responded if someone that is sitting up here this evening happened to represent other people in other communities, we could potentially take some of the comments that we heard expressed this evening back to other people and see what we can do.

      Mr. Okum said I think the code needs some tuning, and we have delayed it until all the appointments were made. The mayor and staff have given us permission to get things moving, and we need to get those things going.

      We can do this with Ms. McBrideís firm. She doesnít need to submit a separate proposal, does she? Mr. Galster responded that she has submitted proposals for pretty much all of the work that we have done. Mr. Okum commented this is just typical code review and update. Mr. Galster said you mean whether or not it is handled under existing contractual services? Mr. Okum said right, and I think that is the way it should be handled. We need to move forward on it. When we were in committee and writing the new code, we expected that it would evolve and things would come up that would need to be changed.

      This is one of those things, and I have to agree with Mr. Galster, but in defense of the chairman, if the Building Department says this request meets code, it is a little hard for the chairman to not allow them to put the sign up.

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 FEBRUARY 2004

      PAGE ELEVEN

      Mr. Galster responded then we need to make a motion tonight that says any permanent building sign needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

      Mr. Okum said you canít go by content. Mr. Galster said then make it architectural details for permanent signage. I understand that you canít regulate yard signs and so on but this is a major issue. Mr. Okum said this is a permanent sign made of site sign material. I wouldnít like to see that happen frequently.

      Mr. Galster said I understand the chairmanís position. You have to approve it if you donít have any other choice, but letís give him another choice, and if we can do that right now, letís do it, submit it to Council, get Council to approve it and have a public hearing. Letís not wait until three months from now. If in fact we can allow this kind of thing to be built, I think we have to do that on its own and get this rectified.

      Mayor Webster asked that the definition of monument sign be read from the Zoning Code. My interpretation of a monument sign is what we have out front of our municipal building, and what they have on Route 4. That is not what they have on Lawnview Avenue. They have two poles supporting a sign.

      Mr. Okum commented I believe that was the same term that was used when we were presented with the Pentecostal Church sign on I-275. You basically have a huge sign mounted on two poles. Iím not particularly happy with that outcome, because I think it needs something. Mr. Webster said there is no comparison between that sign and this one.

      Mr. Galster commented that maybe it is as simple as changing the definition of what a monument sign is; I donít know. But whatever it is, we need to make sure that those donít start popping up tomorrow at The Knolls or over here or over there. Iíll pay the guy to take it down; thatís how bad it is.

      Mr. Okum commented it is a commercial sign placed in a residential neighborhood.

      Mr. Galster said if we can try to control the blue that Provident Bank is putting on their sign in a retail area, we surely should be able to make sure that kind of sign isnít put up in a residential area.

      Mr. McErlane said I want to report on the sign approval process. Apjproval of signs, other than panel changes on signs, is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission conferred that responsibility on the chairman. If he so chooses, the chairman can require an application to come before the entire Planning Commission for approval.

       

       

      PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

      10 FEBRUARY 2004

      PAGE TWELVE

      Mr. McErlane reported that monument signs are not defined in the code. We refer to them as permanent ground signs, which only defines them by height and the height of the supporting members. Mr. Galster said letís change that tomorrow.

      Mr. Sherry asked about the night club, and Mr. Syfert indicated that it is at the Best Western.

      Mr. Okum said we gave him permission to place a storage trailer in the back, conditional on his dealing with the lights on the poles, and I havenít seen any action.

      Mr. McErlane reported that he met with him the week after he was before Planning Commission and talked to him about the container in addition to the lighting. I suggested that he get with a lighting consultant, and we could get together on it. I havenít heard anything from him since then. I need to contact him.

    3. .ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

__________________,2004 ____________________

William Syfert, Chairman

 

__________________,2004 _____________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary