7:00 P.M.



I.                     CALL MEETING TO ORDER


The meeting was called to order at 6:59 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


II.                   ROLL CALL


Members Present:             Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster,

                                             Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, Tom

Vanover and Chairman Syfert


Others Present                   Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

                                             Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director

                                             Bill McErlane, Building Official

                                             Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

                                             Anne McBride, City Planner




Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.  By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.


IV.               CORRESPONDENCE


A.          Report on Council


Mr. Galster reported that Council passed updates to the Zoning Code and approved the Transitional Overlay District on West Kemper Road as well as the updates for the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan.


B.          Zoning Bulletin – January 10, 2005

C.          Zoning Bulletin – January 25, 2005

D.          Planning Partnership Training – March 2, 2005

E.          Planning and Zoning Workshop Schedule – February 11, 2005


V.                 OLD BUSINESS


VI.               NEW BUSINESS


A.          Approval of Proposed Sprint/PCS Antenna on Howard Johnson Sign, 400 Glensprings Drive and Conditional Use Permit for Access Through a Residential Property (Knolls Apartments)


Mr. Syfert said we have a Conditional Use Permit for this, so we will follow procedure.  The applicant will give us his presentation, we will have staff comments and then we will open the public hearing.


Eric Graves of United Acquisitions Services and representing Sprint/PCS said I have been working on this project since January 4, 2004.    At that time Sprint came to us to find an antenna location.  They told us in Springdale on I-275 between 747 and Winton Road they were having numerous customer complaints on coverage, that it was a terrain problem. 










                        Mr. Graves added we also examined several other tall structures in

the area, the Springdale Hotel, the Showcase sign, the Cross Country Inn and Extended Stay signs which were not tall enough and too much further east.  Finally we looked at Pictoria Tower which is too close to their present site at S.R. 747. 


The landowner at Howard Johnson’s was interested in the deal, but the problem was that there was no easement for access to the utilities that ran with the property.  The box is at the northwestern edge of the Howard Johnson property, and the only way to enter that site is through the adjacent owner’s property, the Knolls Apartments.


We worked on the access from May to November of last year and we have an agreement with them so we have an access and utility easement.  We need the Conditional Use permit because this property is residential and the property of our site is zoned Motor Service. 


It is an uninhabited site, and there will be no shelter on the site.  The outdoor cabinets will be shielded by an eight-foot high wooden fence with evergreen plantings around that should make it unrecognizable by the residents of the apartments.


The only time the technicians would go out there would be whenever there is an emergency but for normal maintenance purposes it would be at four to six week intervals.  So there should be little traffic noticed by the residents.


He showed photographs of the antenna, which is 30 inch in diameter and 7 ½ feet tall, and went through the various shots of the site.  He reported that the antenna will protrude about 7 ½ feet over the right hand leg of the sign, and will have a three-foot lightning rod attached to the top, so we fall within the 15-foot stipulation for antenna height.


The fence is eight feet high, and eight-foot arbor vitae to be planted five feet on center.


Mr. Galster said when we wrote our ordinance about these towers, we wanted to make sure they collocated.  I believe this applicant has done his due diligence in trying to find suitable locations rather than building a new structure, and I thank him for that. 


Mr. Graves reported that their radial engineers had identified the site that we are proposing tonight, the Howard Johnson sign, as the alternative.  They felt it was potentially tall enough so that a stealth antenna could be camouflaged on top of the sign.


Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Motor Service and the applicant is proposing to locate a cylindrical shaped antenna housing on top of the existing 110-foot high pole sign and install the associated ground-mounted equipment, which are cabinets that are mounted on a slab.  He proposes to surround that with an eight-foot high privacy fence and plant eight-foot high arbor vitae five foot on center.








Mr. McErlane reported that Section 153.495 ( C ) (1) of our Zoning Code allows communication antennae where they are mounted to existing tall structures as a permitted use.  If the antenna was greater than 15 feet higher than the existing structure, it would have required a Conditional Use Permit for the use. 


However, we are in a situation where a  Conditional Use Permit is needed because the applicant needs to gain access to the antenna through a residentially zoned property.


As Mr. Graves indicated, it was a year ago that he first made contact with us, and initially he was looking at locating on that sign.    Howard Johnson’s currently has to access that sign through the residential property as well, and I think Mr. Graves was having some difficulty finding any existing easements that allowed them to do that.  Mr. Graves was persistent enough to acquire the easement, we have a copy of an executed easement for access and utilities for this site.  So I have to commend him as well for being persistent for a year and accomplishing this. 


In the interim, I received a call from ODOT suggesting a monopole in the interchange right of way for that antenna.  Fortunately through his persistence we were able to get it where we would like to see it.  


Ms. McBride stated to collocate on an existing tall structure is a principal permitted use in the MS District.  Staff’s initial comments back to the applicant said we wanted to see a board on board fence surrounding the equipment area; they did that.  We also said that we wanted to see evergreen material around that fence, and they have done that in the form of arbor vitae eight feet in height and planted five feet on center, a total of 13.


Mr. Shvegzda reported all the access and other easements go through the residential property and those have been executed.  In terms of the access way through the parking lot and into the site itself, there is a 35-foot gap between the edge of the parking lot and where the facility is.  Normally for that access way we would recommend that an improved surface be constructed, usually of asphalt or concrete.  In this area, since it will be infrequently utilized, some type of pervious improved surface would suffice.  There are types of concrete stone type arrangements where the grasses grow up through it yet it supports vehicles. 


On the construction itself, some type of sediment control measures must be taken in this area, particularly since it is adjacent to the creek. 


Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing.  No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.


Mr. Okum moved to grant the Conditional Use Permit and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. 








Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster asked if he had any problem with the surface for the access drive recommended by the engineer. 


Mr. Graves answered that he didn’t think it would be a problem.  He added that he had not had an opportunity to discuss that with his Sprint contact.  Mr. Galster commented that the cost shouldn’t be too much with that 35-foot length and I would like to make that a condition of the approval.


Mr. Hawkins asked if the color of the housing of the antenna would be white as it is in the picture, or a darker color to match. Mr. Graves answered that it will be painted to match the color the existing tower, a charcoal or black, so it doesn’t stand out. 


Mr. Okum said I am very pleased to see you got it in a location that would make good use of that tall pole, but I am a little concerned that the residents of the apartments will see the front gates.  It is nice to have arbor vitae around where the expressway rush is, but the three sides of the unit that will be wrapped, except for the south side, will not be seen by virtually anyone.    Can you do anything to the front that might help?  I would suggest you shift the trees more toward the west side.


Mr. Graves responded I assume that the landowner would not have a problem with us proposing to plant something else to shield that, and I think Sprint would be amenable to that as long as they could access it easily.   Mr. Okum commented I am not asking you to increase the landscaping, maybe just shift it around a little bit, as long as the elevations of the enclosure where they are seen are planted with some type of green. 


Mr. Graves answered I don’t think Sprint would have any problem with doing that., but you probably need to keep in mind that this sign must be over 20 years old, and the records were pretty incomplete.  It was only through Mr. McErlane that we were able to get structural analysis which was very helpful.  Apparently there has been an agreement in place with the previous landowner of the apartments to grant access and easement to the landowner of the hotel for that sign.  Sprint didn’t have the rights to use that same access and that is why Spring got an exclusive access and utility. 


My point is that the hotel owner still must access that sign to maintain it, which they do fairly infrequently with a boom truck.  So we are pretty limited with what we can do and that is the reason we put the lease area on the side that we did and the reason we turned it the way we did, so that the maintenance company for the sign can skirt that and get around to both sides of the sign.  So I think Sprint would be okay with that, but whether or not the landowner can allow us to put some trees in to accomplish what you are wanting and still have access for a fairly large truck, I don’t know.  Sprint’s people will walk to the site from the existing apartment, because once it is built, they only do some tweaking.  The major mechanical and maintenance work does not require a truck.  I can

report back to staff in terms of what the landowner thinks is possible, if that is acceptable. 








Mr. Okum said it says that you have a 10 to 12-foot wide gate.  With a 21-foot wide enclosure, you have room in front on each side to carry the arbor vitae around to the west side and flank those corners.  Then you could leave your gate access open. 


Who is responsible for the maintenance of the fence?  Mr. Graves answered Sprint will maintain it.  In the agreement it states that they are responsible for the maintenance of their lease area, so the fence would be covered under that general statement. 


Mr. Okum asked if the fence would be painted or stained.  Mr. Graves answered I don’t know.  Does the staff have any preference?  Mr. Okum asked if they would have any problem with staining it out to complement the rest of the wood on the development.  Mr. Graves responded I am not sure that any of us have looked there.  Mr. Okum commented all of the buildings and the enclosures in that development are all stained, and it would be nice to have this tie in with it so it doesn’t show the aging as the raw wood will. 


Mr. Okum asked if the conduit going up to the antennae would be painted out.  Mr. Graves answered that the antenna would be painted as well as the attachment to the existing pole would be done by Sprint.  It is going up through the inside of the pole.


Mr. Vanover commented you are coming off that existing transformer pad at the apartments.  Are you setting a new power pad at the base?  Mr. Graves answered there is a meter board in the lease area that will be accessible on the back side of the sign (the east side), so they will have their own separate meter. 


Mr. Vanover asked if the trees would be in jeopardy.  Mr. McErlane answered I can’t say that I looked at the trees.  There aren’t a whole lot of them in the general area.  Mr. Vanover commented they aren’t extremely attractive, but there are a couple in that photo on page 6.  Mr. McErlane reported potentially they could sever the root system; it is hard to tell from the photographs.   


Mr. Coleman asked if additional use of the transformer requires any soundproofing or noise reducing type of material.  Mr. Graves answered that each of the outdoor cabinets makes a sound like a refrigerator.  I don’t think these will be noticed by the residents because they are so quiet. 


Mr. Okum said I would like to amend my motion to include the following conditions:


1.      The existing arbor vitae shall be shifted around to aid in shielding the west side of the fenced enclosure.

2.      The drive access shall be modified to include suggestions and recommendations of our city engineer.

3.      The antenna shall be painted out to be the same color as the monopole currently is.

4.      The fence around the unit shall be stained to match The Knolls development colors and shall be maintained at all times by Sprint.








Mr. Galster seconded the motion to amend.


Mr. Graves said in terms of the additional landscaping, would it be acceptable to use the arbor vitae on the I-275 side which would not be seen and move it.  Mr. Okum said I said it should be shifted to give you some latitude.  Staff could help you with that. 


On the motion to amend all voted aye.  On the motion to approve, all voted aye and the approval was granted unanimously.


Mr. Graves thanked the board and especially Mr. McErlane and his staff and Ms. McBride.  They all have been very helpful;  probably we wouldn’t have gotten this far without their help.


Mr. McErlane reported that it is probably appropriate to call for a motion on the Conditional Use Permit as well.  We need a separate motion for that.  Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the Conditional Use Permit was granted unanimously.


 B.    Approval of driveway with four driveway connections to the street – 11475 Walnut Street


         Mr. Galster said from the correspondence that we have the applicant has requested that we table this to the March meeting, so I move that this be tabled.  Mr. Okum seconded the motion.  By voice vote all voted aye, and it was tabled to March 8, 2005.


C      Approval of Proposed Sign, National City Bank, 495 East Kemper



Andrea Ward of Holthaus Signs reported that with the merger, they are proposing to remove the existing Provident Bank sign and change it to National City Bank.


The square footage meets with the zoning requirements.  Mr. McErlane requested that we obtain the signature on the owner’s affidavit, and we did get that today. 


Mr. Galster asked if the band is gone and would it continue to be gone and Ms. Ward indicated that it is.  Mr. Galster asked if that would be the standard at all locations and Ms. Ward said so far, yes. 


Mr. Galster commented that it looked like the ATMs were painted out white and Ms. Ward indicated that they are as far as I know.  Mr. Galster asked if they would be white at all locations, and Ms. Ward reported that her company is not handling the ATMs yet, but they will say National City Bank, and she passed out photographs.


Mr. McErlane reported that this property is zoned PUD and is a part of the Springdale Plaza PUD.   We received an owner’s affidavit today.











Mr. McErlane added that they are proposing four wall signs at 27.16 s.f. apiece for a total of 91.04 s.f.  The pole sign will have a new face.  The pole sign itself is 6’ x 15’ or 90 s.f. for a total sign area of 181.04 s.f.  The allowable sign area for the facility is 188.5 s.f. so it is within the allowable. 


Although there are notes on the drawings that indicate that the fascia would be painted, it didn’t indicate a color but it already has been painted white to match the rest of the building.


The question came up about the color of the ATM, and I am not really sure I understood what we think will happen with the color of the ATM.


Mr. Okum commented it would be inappropriate for us to discuss building colors, so I won’t.  Your drawing does indicate “repaint fascia and band” and I would assume we would have to accept that based on the photo provided.  Mr. McErlane said in lieu of a color pallet, yes.


Mr. Okum moved to approve the sign package based on staff comments and the drawings number 55996 submitted by the applicant.  Mr. Galster seconded the motion.  All voted aye and the approval was granted unanimously.


D.     Approval of Proposed Macy’s Sign, 11700 Princeton Pike (formerly Lazarus)


Allen Pettit and Julius Crocker of Image Resource representing Federated Department Stores approached the commission.  Mr. Crocker stated that granting this variance is necessary to let us enjoy the rights of some of the other people who are in the area, so we would like to have that.


When we first came in, our sign was a larger sign so we do have included options and we are asking you to consider granting one of the options.  Granting the variance will not cause any detriment on any other properties or owners, and will not hurt the public welfare. 


Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Planned Unit Development and is part of the Tri-County Mall PUD.  The applicant proposes to replace Lazarus signs with Macy’s signs on the building.  Existing signs are the same signs that were approved by the Planning Commission as part of the Tri-County Mall PUD in the late 80’s.  What is existing on the south wall is a 4’ x 37’ sign at 148 s.f.   


There are two options being proposed.    One is a sign with five-foot letters and the overall height of 8 /2 feet and overall length of  3 ½ feet for a total of 269 s.f.  Option B is with four-foot letters, an overall height of 6.8’ and overall length of 25.2 feet for a total of 172 s.f.











Mr. McErlane reported that what currently exists on the west wall facing Princeton Pike is six-foot high letters by 32 foot long for 192 s.f.  The applicant in his package did not include a drawing of the west wall sign that he proposes.  He had submitted that previously to the Building Department when we were talking about reducing the wall sign size.  What he has currently proposed for that side is 6.8’ x 25.2’ which is the same as Option B on the south wall, or 172 s.f.


Currently on the north wall facing I-275 is an 8’ high by 40’ long Lazarus sign at 320 s.f.  Option A proposes to use seven-foot high letters for a total height of 11.9’ x 44.2’ long, which is 527 s.f.  Option B is with six-foot high letters, an overall height of 10.2’ x 37.9 feet long for a total square footage of 387 s.f.


If we just look at combining what is proposed for Option A, it totals up to 968 s.f.  If we look at what is proposed for Option B, it is 731 s.f.  What is currently on the building is 660 s.f.


Keep in mind that the numbers for square footage are increased for their signs because we measure from the bottom of the “y” to the top of the star.   


The total allowable sign area for Lazarus per the Zoning Code is 638 s.f.   In the late 80’s when we approved Lazarus, we approved a small overage in sign square footage.


Mr. Galster commented regardless of the package that we approve for Macy’s tonight, if a new tenant came in 20 years down the road, regardless of the square footage, would they still need to come back, or would they be approved with the same square footage?


Mr. McErlane reported that if they are within the same total square footage and the sign areas individually are the same or less, the chairman could sign off on it without having to bring it to the Planning Commission, if the chairman chose to do that.


Mr. Galster said when I look at these signs for Macy’s, I think the bigger sign looks better.  I am not usually one who advocates a large sign package, but the Macy’s layout with the star and the y is what is inflating the number.  I don’t have a problem with the actual height of the letters, and I don’t think the smaller sign fits the building properly.  The larger sign fits it better.  The weight of the letters is nowhere near the same as the weight of the Lazarus letters.  I think it is more attractive with the larger sign.


Mr. Butrum concurred adding if you look at the typography on the Lazarus sign, it is much thicker and bulkier.  If you look at the overall white space, it is a lot cleaner design.


I’d be a little bit concerned if another store went in there with a different sign layout that gobbled up that white space which would look pretty bulky.  But the way this is, the larger sign looks better.










Mr. Okum said I agree 100%, but I am very concerned about what would happen if another development would come in and want to put a box up.


I wonder if we made the motion in terms of specific wording being “net square foot with an additional allowance for extensions for a star and a y”  someone else coming in wouldn’t have a star and y and that would take care of it.  So we would be varying from the allowable square footage but we are giving them the latitude that is appropriate based on their design.   Could we come up with the square footage that we have, without the star and y?


Ms. McBride said you would be approving a square footage, a modification that would increase the amount of square footage for that building from the 638 that it was originally allowed to have, from the 660 square feet that previously was approved for Lazarus and you are suggesting that it be given 968 s.f. 


All I am saying to you is that you are approving that number in conjunction with this signage, but it makes it very difficult if another store would buy Macy’s and want to utilize that 968 s.f.  I want to make sure that the commission is aware that what you are approving this evening could end up looking very different from what you are looking at this evening.  It could look more massive than what you are considering this evening.


Mr. Okum responded that is why I deferred to you to tell me how I can allow a star and the tail of the y to be excluded from our calculations since we are considering a variance in the PUD area.


Ms. McBride answered I don’t think you can exclude the tail of the y and the star because when Walgreen’s comes back in and they want you to exclude the top of their W and the bottom of their G, on what basis are you going to not exclude theirs when you excluded Macy’s.


Mr. Butrum said so the only way we can measure square footage is the bounding box that would be the overall side.  Ms. McBride stated we have a definition in our Zoning Code that says Sign Area, and that is exactly what it says, that you box that out.


Mr. Galster said based on the square footage, does it help us to limit the maximum text height of a certain amount?  Mr. McErlane responded to a certain degree, but you could make the text longer if you didn’t have the same situation.  Mr. Galster commented on that building, text being longer is better than higher.   I am thinking of the next user if there is one..  It would be pretty hard to come in with a name that is much shorter.  If we allow the square footage with the main characters not to exceed the seven foot and six foot as shown on those elevations, we might end up with the square footage, but it wouldn’t be a big block. 












Mr. Coleman said I am looking at this from the standpoint that if the letters were bigger and more visually appealing, it would make it seem more attractive.  But I have to believe that the name Macy’s in and of itself carries a lot of recognition, and I would defer to the advertising department to make Macy’s stand out in this market more than the size of any sign.   Therefore I would be inclined to agree with Ms. McBride and say that I don’t believe it requires us to go outside our code to make Macy’s more appealing and attractive to the consumers in this market.


Mr. Okum said I have to agree that outside advertising is necessary but I also have to put aside the fact that Macy’s is a name that everybody knows.    One thing I learned in one of these planning workshops is that content is not an item that should drive a decision


I have to agree with Ms. McBride in terms of having a situation if Walgreen’s comes in.   The only thing I can say is that we have a PUD site, and we are asking for a modification to the PUD which includes all of the other development on that PUD, and the amount of signage that the entire PUD encompasses.  We have a situation where an applicant has a design in a sign that, based on the visual effect of the sign, will be smaller than the existing sign on the building. 


My feeling is that we need to find a way to suspend the rule of measurement due to this being a unique situation and being in  PUD, and that this is a modification to the PUD and not just a modification to the Lazarus store sign.   Since PUD signage is in the hands of this board, shouldn’t we be able to suspend the rule of measurement for this  particular application.  Can we do that? 


Ms. McBride answered no.  I don’t think that this commission has the ability to vary from the definitions of the Zoning Code.  I think that is an issue that goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals if someone would like to challenge the definition of how sign area is calculated.


Mr. Syfert commented as far as I know for the 30-some years that I have been around, we have never varied how we measure signs, and I don’t think we should even think about it. 


Mr. Butrum said my only concern is that even Option B requires a variance, and a pretty hefty one at that, almost 100 s.f.  It is a shame that we are stuck with a definition.  If I were to add all the white space up, this sign would feel smaller than the existing Lazarus sign. My biggest concern is just the nature of the Macy’s logo.  If we tried to bring it down too much, this type of logo will be lost on that building.


Mr. Syfert said I agree with you 100% on the north side.  I believe the bigger option, Option A is the best.  When I looked at the south and west sides, I thought Option B would be more appropriate for those two.  I am not against this commission varying what is put over there.  If we can defend what we are doing, I think we can defend whatever comes down the road as well.  So I would be in favor of A on the north and B on the south and west.







Mr. Galster said we base our decisions on signs all the time on the aesthetic value in what we see.  Even though we are not always successful, we try to control color, because of its aesthetic appeal in our corridor for example.  The idea that just because it is square footage on a building is not the same as whether or not the sign is appropriate for the building.


We are looking at a modification to the PUD for the allowable signage on this particular building.  Does that bump the entire Tri-County Mall square footage allowable, or is this using other Tri-County Mall square footage in its totality.


Mr. McErlane reported that in the PUD application initially, we looked at the anchor stores separate from the mall signage.  Most of the anchor store signage was there at the time that we considered the PUD.  When we looked at the sign package, we looked at what was existing on the anchor stores, but didn’t consider anything relative to what was being proposed for the mall sign package.


Mr. Vanover said while I do agree that the nature of the sign does present itself to a special circumstance, and I don’t have a problem with that.  As a matter of fact, if we would approve Option B on the south and west walls as submitted, and take Option A for the north wall, it would be 771 s.f. total, which is still an overage, but a livable one.  I agree with you Mr. Chairman.  The north wall is the one that definitely needs the address and is the statement.  It is the most visible. 


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said hearing all the discussion, what would you like for the building right now? 


Mr. Pettit said I am in agreement with Option A for the north wall and B for the west and south walls.  We could live with Option B, but when you have 70 mph traffic on I-275 anything any smaller than Option A would not be seen from the north wall.  Mr. Crocker added that one of the main issues is the fact that Macy’s has never had a logo until now.  It is new and more attractive and the sign would be put up with material that is considerably less than what is there now.  So from the standpoint of withstanding storms, you have something much safer.


Mr. McErlane said for clarification, if Option B is chosen on the south wall, Option A is on the north wall and the west wall is as presented previously, the total square footage would be 871 s.f.


Mr. Galster moved to approve Option B for the south wall, Option A for the north wall and 172 s.f. for the west wall as presented for a total of 871 s.f.  Mr. Okum seconded the motion. 


Mr. Okum stated I will be supporting the motion, based on the fact that this is a unique property within a large PUD that allows for itself being just one piece of that big PUD.  Mr. Coleman said after reviewing and listening further, I can support the motion. 


All voted aye and the approval was granted unanimously.





VII.              DISCUSSION


A.          Mr. Galster said I wanted to discuss the video display board we put into our Zoning Code last year for large regional shopping centers.  We also can announce that the Tri-County Mall was officially sold today and they have plans for redevelopment of the mall.  City Council also approved an ordinance setting up a tax incentive district within the mall to make some improvements.  Part of those improvements is a video display board.  Council also approved Jeff Tulloch and my going to a conference to view seven major video board manufacturers.  If anybody has any questions comments or concerns, please submit those to me and I’ll incorporate that in our packet of information that we are trying to gather. 


Mr. McErlane said I need to bring up an issue with regard to the other Provident Bank changeover to National City on Springfield Pike.  In error I gave the sign package to Mr. Syfert to sign off on based on allowable signage and was reminded that at the May 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Planning voted to allow the roof to not be painted until March of 2005, at which time they would come back before Planning Commission with a new sign package or address the repainting of the roof. 


They have come back with a new sign package, but it did not come before this board.  They have painted the background (previously blue fascias on the building) the beige color that matches the existing building.  The signs are the same type of sign you saw tonight on the other location. 


Mr. Galster said I don’t think that the roof will be an issue based on the new color of the signage.  I don’t think we will match the sign color on the roof, nor do I know that is really our desire.  At least it will not clash like the green and the blue did with the Provident Bank, so I think we are okay with that.


Mr. Galster moved to remove the requirement from the applicant, and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.  By voice vote all voted aye, and the motion was adopted unanimously.




A.          Springdale Cleaners – 241 Northland Boulevard – Wall Sign


IX.               ADJOURNMENT


Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:21 p.m.


                                                                     Respectfully submitted,




________________________,2005     __________________________

                                                                     William G. Syfert, Chairman



________________________,2005     __________________________

                                                                     Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary