7:00 P.M.



  2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman William Syfert at 7:09 p.m.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, David Okum, Robert

Seaman, Councilman Tom Vanover, James Young

and Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent: Richard Huddleston

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner


Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By

Voice vote, all present, except Mr. Vanover and Mr. Seaman who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster stated to update you on the new Zoning Code, we are anticipating a meeting tomorrow morning with the legal people. There was an indication that the Zoning Code Review Board might be able to have a meeting within two to three weeks.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė August 10, 1998
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė August 25, 1998
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė July 21,1998

Mr. Galster asked if the sign package for Kemper Square will need to be brought back before the board. Mr. Okum answered we told them we preferred non obtrusive color, and it would go through the Building Department for the permit. Mr. Galster said so it is two ground signs seven feet high and no pole sign. Mr. Okum added it is a full box to be landscaped around, and the base is the same color as the sign material.

    1. Approval of Proposed Sign Package, Kemper Square, 107-139 Wet Kemper Road Ė tabled 8/11/98

Since this was handled at the Board of Zoning Appeals, Mr. Galster moved to remove it from the agenda, and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and this was removed from the agenda.


A. Approval of Proposed Tree Replacement Plan for Wendyís, 400 Northland Boulevard

Mr. Dan Carducci, of Wendyís International stated with me is Tony Garcia of Wendyís and Adam Waits, landscape designer with Thornton Company.





Mr. Carducci added I am not sure about protocol, but I will begin and let you tell me when I have done something wrong. I feel there is not a whole lot more I can do wrong than what has already taken place.

The real purpose for our presence is to seek some guidance from the Commission in terms of potential alternatives to comply with your tree ordinance. With the plan that has been submitted, I think we go from a bad situation to another bad situation by complying with this kind of plan for a couple of reasons. Those trees were installed prior to the trees that were planted along the sidewalk. With the trees that are there now and the trees that were there, the visibility from the street to the store was almost non existent. One of our operations people saw that, decided the store would look better without the trees, didnít consult with anyone and the next thing we know is the trees are down and we get a letter of violation.

Now that the trees are gone and we are trying to fix there is the security standpoint to consider. Our general manager and district manager have been concerned over the last several months about the crime situation in the general area. There is a lot more security felt by our employees if they know that when the police patrol, they can see in the windows from the street. We did not have that with those trees since they were low branching.

We would like to look at some alternatives, one of which is the plan in front of you, which is in compliance. This proposes 16 sunset maples with an average 4 inch trunk. I am told that those trees as they mature will grow into a 40 foot crown. Mr. Waits added we usually plant those trees on a 40 foot center because the mature canopy will be 40 feet across. The drawing in front of you shows them on a 20 foot center.

Mr. Carducci continued if this plan is accepted, we probably would be back asking to get rid of some of the trees, so my request is for an option or alternative to the 16 trees and having a forest that wouldnít do us a whole lot of good nor would it beautify the streets.

I would like to ask your consideration to allow us to come up with a plan that would not necessarily totally comply with the caliper replacement ratio, but would be of benefit to the trees that are there in terms of spacing, with some alternative landscaping. If is an option you would be open to, I would request that you defer the decision on this until we can submit a plan that is a little better thought out.

Ms. McBride reported our landscape architect reviewed the plan, and felt that the planting is appropriately spaced given the existing conditions and the root masses of the original trees. A total of 126 caliper inches were removed which would require 63 caliper inches of replacement, if we were looking at this as a redevelopment potential. They are proposing 64 caliper inches. They are proposing to replant red sunset maples over the snowdrift crab trees, which our architect felt was an improvement.

The Corridor Review District requires that parking areas be screened from view using either a hedge a wall or a fence with a year round capacity of 60% achieved at a height of two and one-half feet. Wendyís does not comply with that requirement, and we suggest that Planning ask them to add a hedge to effectively screen their parking areas both on Springfield Pike and Northland Boulevard. Mr. Syfert said the applicant commented that they felt these were too close on center and your landscape architect feels they are okay? Ms. McBride confirmed this.







Mr. McErlane reported our tree replacement ordinance does not specifically address trees that are cut down in violation of the code relative to replanting requirements. That 50% replanting is for development activity. Since the code alludes to replanting, it would leave it up to Planning or staff to determine what that amount should be, so there is potential for additional replacement over and above the 50%. The applicant proposes 16 4" sunset maples, and that is about 51% of what was removed.

Mr. Syfert said the applicant has indicated a request to go back and look at this again, but I believe he would like to have some input from us before he does this. Based on the way the code read, it looks like there is a lot of flexibility in what we may request. They were cut down in violation of the code, and we could require 100% replacement, but I donít think that is an appropriate thing to do. We also have the issue of the screening of the parking lot to consider.

Mr. Galster said I donít like the idea of being able to cut the trees down and replace them with 50%, especially on the corridor. What if two years from now half these trees are unhealthy and you need to take them down; it would be just as easy to cut them all down and only put half up again, so you have fewer and fewer trees. My feeling is if somehow we can tie the hedging in, maybe I would be flexible in the percentage of replacement, but right now Iím leaning toward replacing them all.

Mr. Young wondered if there were certain trees that would be better suited than this maple. Can we have several varieties? Ms. McBride responded you certainly can mix the varieties. Our landscape architect felt the maple was an acceptable street tree. If the applicant is going to go back, we can work with them to come up with a variety or mixture of plant materials if the Commission wishes. Mr. Young commented I think it would be good to come back with a different plan. The hedging issue is very important. I donít believe we are going to allow anything to happen without that happening. My only other concern would be weather, and I donít know if that has any bearing at all if we wait a month, but I am all for letting them have another month to take a look at it.

Mr. Okum said the one thing that disturbed me about this development originally was the back end of the building was put on an angle, which gives you less visibility from Route 4. The trees were a welcome blend because they hid that obtrusive back end of the building. I think an increase in plantings is necessary but I donít think they need to be on the street line. I liked the trees and screening that was there, but if you did screening for the parking, the hedging, it would be an improvement, and if you could put some additional landscaping against the building on the rear side, it would be good.

As far as the red sunset maples, if they have a 40 foot canopy, what is their ground to bottom at mature? Mr. Waits answered the 4inch trees will be at least 8 to10 feet high. Mr. Okum said there is a raise there, so the base of the foliage would be10 to 12 feet above the sidewalk, and you would be looking at the trunk of that tree, not the foliage portion. Maybe the red sunset maple is not a good tree. Mr. Syfert suggested shrubs, and Mr. Okum commented I think they need to do a blend of trees to break it up, something against the building, and the hedging, which is a necessity.

Mr. Syfert commented I believe it is the request of the applicant that we table this for a month. Mr. Okum moved that it be tabled to the next meeting, and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and this was tabled to October 13th.




B. Concept Discussion Ė Proposed Tri-County Golf Center (part of Oak Hill Cemetery Property)

Tom Smith Vice President of Spring Grove Cemetery said I also serve as the treasurer for Oak Hill Cemetery. Oak Hill is under a management agreement with Spring Grove, and has been for about nine years. With me tonight is Jose Castergen of McGill Smith & Puncheon, Bill & Lee Shaven, who have instituted a number of successful family oriented golfing centers and Heather a landscape architect who is here to observe.

When Spring Grove started to manage Oak Hill nine years ago, it became increasingly apparent that there were very limited funds available for any kind of capital improvement.

Mr. Castergen, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture said when the Shaven family came to me with recommendations from Spring Grove, our goal was utilize the land on the back side of the Oak Hill Cemetery. We looked at how to create a plan that would be compatible with the cemetery, create revenue for Spring Grove and Oak Hill, and utilize the land for the Shaven Company to develop this par 3 golf course.

We have come up with this final concept plan that shows the driving range area/teaching area adjacent to the railroad track, and the 9 hole golf course spread out through this area.

We worked with Oak Hill to utilize their master plan inlaying out this golf course so we could utilize their pond layout and some of their open areas, which is the location we chose for our water features. This helps us in our irrigation but also will help Oak Hill in the development of their master plan. The intent of this golf course is for it to work for the next 25 years or so as a golf course. After that as Oak Hill grows and expands, the lease terminates and it will then be turned back to cemetery property.

There will be nine holes ranging from 75 to 150 yards. This would serve an entire family, with short tees for kids and some longer ones, almost like a teaching academy. We also propose a small putt putt course, a small putting green and a pitching area. We propose a driving range that has a training teaching area on the back side and some cover tees and brass tees on the bottom side.

The intent of the lakes is to irrigate and allow for this golf course to flourish in the summertime. We intend to dig them up, have them filled with storm runoff but also with a well that would keep that water level constant.

We have started the process of determining how many trees we will remove and how many will remain. It is to our benefit to keep as many trees as possible because it makes a nice golf course. These holes are routed through both the wooded and the open areas. If there is a 24 caliper inch tree in front of us, we will move the tee box to not remove the tree. I have talked to Bill on how we might handle this, and we could take a percentage of the large area and determine how many per acre or do it individually per hole. We are in the process of doing that.

Mr. Shvegzda said there is a driveway indicated coming out on Tri-County Parkway and that should align with the driveway that currently exists on the north side. Mr. Castergen responded that is the intent. Mr. Shvegzda added that may necessitate the relocation of an existing street light in that vicinity. In the westbound direction, there currently is a reversible left turn lane, and that needs to be changed to a left turn lane at that location.

Detention will be required based on the amount of impervious area. As was pointed out, there are ponds noted on the site that could be used for storm water detention.





Mr. Shvegzda continued in terms of some of the discussions with the developers of the former Levitz property, there has been some discussion to try to reserve a section for future right of way for the extension of Tri-County Parkway. There is a possibility that this may effect that very northeast corner of this site, but as of right now, the actual amount of effect is unknown since there is not any detailed alignments for the extension of the roadway.

Mr. Castergen responded we talked to Bill about the corridor and extension and that was one of the reasons why we pushed this further into the property, away from that corridor. We will have detention because of the parking area. Everything else probably will be at the same rate as it is now.

Ms. McBride reported the property is within our PF-3 district which permits golf courses. In the proposed code still pending, in our PF-4 district, we will not permit miniature golf courses.

On parking, our existing code is vague as to how we would calculate the parking for such a use. Now we say one space per 50 square feet of area devoted to each use, plus one space per two employees. We think it might be difficult to define area devoted to each use. Our draft zoning code does not provide a parking requirement for these specific uses either. We went to the American Planning Associationís publication Off Street Parking Requirements, and we did an average of what those communities suggest. You have the ability to determine what parking would be required for this use, and I would urge you to look at the standards we have established.

We didnít see any signage indicated for the development, and we would have to see that and it would have to be in conformance with the requirements for the PF-3 District. Similarly we did not see a lighting plan, and that will be of interest particularly to the rear where there is some residential use. That will have to be in conformance with 153.069. As Don mentioned, the access point on Tri-County Parkway needs to align with the access drive to the west.

Mr. Castengren responded we have determined that we would get 220 parking spaces. They feel comfortable with that based on their experience. The golf course part of this development will not be lighted. The driving range is away from the residential area because of the lighting.

Mr. Lee Shaven said we use a low profile light that is almost at ground level. There will be no pole lighting for the driving range. The only pole lighting will be in the parking area.

Mr. Vanover wondered about the lighting in the putt putt area, and Mr. Shaven answered we will try to use more of a street lamp effect.

Mr. McErlane said this is an allowable use within the Public Facilities 3 District. We will discuss the possibility of allowing putt putt golf course as an accessory use to a golf course in the future zoning code. What we were trying to control was the stand along putt putt course. That would belong in a business district rather than a public facilities district.

It was good to hear that the locations of trees will be taken into account on the main golf course portion of it. They will be impacted on the driving range. Looking at aerial photos from 1960, there was pretty much a grove area, and Iím hoping that is the area. Mr. Cantengren said we have an aerial map for 1992,and it shows the clearest portion to be in this area.





Mr. Young wondered what happens when the balls go into the cemetery? Mr. Cantegren answered we have given ourselves a buffer, which will be treated as out of bounds with limited access to the cemetery area. We wanted to maintain a separation with the cemetery.

When we designed this plan, the actual usable cemetery right now is not at this line. Working with Spring Grove and their master plan, we looked at the next 25 years of growth and we set our line according to their needs. There is nothing there, and we have a buffer of 300-500 feet.

Mr. Young commented so there are no plans to put any fences or barrier up to separate the two properties. Mr. Shaver added there will be some screening there, some plant material, but no physical barrier. Mr. Young said if this goes forward and you bring signage, listen to the staff, because we certainly wonít be looking for pole signs.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any examples of ground lighting for the driving area that currently is in effect so we can do field inspections? Mr. Lee Shaver responded we have The Golf Ranch on Limaburg Road in the Florence area. It has a driving range, pitching and a putting green, but no golf course. Mr. Okum wondered the number of people who use this per year, and Mr. Bill Shaven answered we measure in dollars and balls. It is an 18 acre facility. I also am a partner in the development of the Triple Crown Country Club in Richwood. We just put a 130 acre course in called Hickory Sticks. I am very familiar with fighting with architects in trying to save trees. I donít like to take down specimen type trees. Mr. Lee Shaver said we are partners in a golf facility in Mason.

Mr. Okum commented this site does set higher than Tri-County Parkway, so lighting would impact people traveling down that road heading east, depending on the foliage and trees that are left along that edge. I would be sensitive to that glare of light affecting drivers. Since this is your first putt putt course have you considered using natural turf? It is very popular. Mr. Lee Shaver answered in Florida or North Carolina I would consider that, but in this area you probably would lose too much of the season.

Mr. Okum commented in general I donít have strong opposition to this. It is leaving the area green and would not be a negative to the community. I would be concerned about the lighting and how it affects not only our own properties and people traveling, but the other side of the railroad tracks as well and that development. I think this could work out pretty well for the community and be an asset.

Mr. Vanover wondered if there would be carts run through the course and Mr. Lee Shaver answered it will be a walk only course.

Mr. Seaman stated I think this is a great concept, and I appreciate your sensitivity to the specimen trees. I look forward to reviewing this in the future.

From the audience, Craig Wolf, President of the Heatherington Home Owners Association which backs up to this proposed project, and I also am a councilman for the Village of Glendale. As a community, as well as Glendale, we are very sensitive to the potential development here. There are a lot of ways this land could go, and to have a golf course is so much better than another Target or Wal Mart. My home is right here, and Bill Schrimper who is here with me lives two down. We own the pond that exists on the property.








Mr. Wolf said our biggest concern on this project is the issue of trees. The Glendale Village Council has spent four months reviewing a plan about a half mile to the east of the railroad tracks. It backs right up onto the Vineyard property. When our efforts to privately negotiate with some of the wealthy Glendale people to buy the property and donate it to the village as a park failed, the council approved it with the caveat that they would have a greenbelt completely around that new facility to keep the future homeowners from looking north to Springdale and seeing all the commercial development.

As homeowners representing the 25 major size homes, our biggest concern is to insure that there is a real greenbelt. Our request is that with any development here is that not only the trees that are there stay, but also low stuff stay as well, because the low stuff is the wall to us, not the high canopies. We would like to request a 45 or 50 foot something here that literally makes a wall, so we donít have to see them and they donít have to see us.

We are also very concerned about the type of lighting. Having the lights that much closer will be a concern for us. Our concern is a combination of lighting and trees, and we give you an impassioned plea that this wall is truly a wall, that what is there stays there.

Mr. Schrimper added there is an acre pond in my back yard and there is a fair amount of runoff on the property and the pond is starting to silt. It is probably four to five feet deep, down from 10 feet. Mr. Castengren said part of our engineering requirement is not to increase the runoff in that area. The only hard surface we are providing are the actual structure and the parking lot.

Addressing Mr. Wolf, Mr. Syfert said in staff review we were cognizant of your development being on the borderline. Bear in mind that this is concept discussion tonight. We appreciate your comments.

Mr. Syfert stated from what I have heard, it seems there is a general consensus that from a concept standpoint that is favorable.

Mr. Galster asked if it would be possible to get an aerial view of this? Do we have access? Mr. Castegren responded I can get you a black and white of what we have in our office; it is an 11 x 17 from 1992. You can see the trees and where there is open space, at least somewhat. From the audience, John Gothard of CUC said we will be able to provide you with a color photograph.

C. Replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6 Ė Century Business Park, Phase II

(Vineyard Community Church)

John Gothard, Cincinnati United Contractors said with me tonight is Hal McIntosh an associate pastor with the Vineyard Community Church. We are proposing to replat Lots 4 5 and 6 of Century Business Park. With this replat there is dedication and vacation of right of way to allow for emergency vehicles and road maintenance vehicles to turn around at the termination of Century Circle East, and to present a main entrance to the church facility under construction.

Mr. Shvegzda reported this plat takes into account the ingress/egress questions at the east side of the property where both properties have to travel on the others in order to get out to Century Circle East. The other issue is vacation of some excess right of way that will no longer be necessary at the southern terminus of Century Circle East. Also the dedication of additional right of way will be required for the cul de sac.





Mr. Shvegzda stated it does provide an easement just off Century Circle West to provide a turn around area for service vehicles. It also defines the detention easement for the regional detention basin in that area.

Mr. Gothard added the current regional extension easement is in place. There is some easement between the two property owners for the storm drainage from the resource center and also ingress/egress sharing of driveway easements.

Mr. Shvegzda stated we did have a number of detailed comments and have given that information to the developerís consultant and we have been in phone contact. So, our recommendation would be to approve this contingent on the items being satisfactorily addressed.

There was one other question as to the sequence in which this will take place. Do you anticipate the replat will go down and be recorded prior to the public improvements? The reason I am bringing this up is if that is the case, we will have to request a performance bond to insure that those public improvements are completed. Mr. Gothard responded we probably would have the improvements completed prior to recording the plat. What we wanted to do is come before the Planning Commission to see if the acceptance was there, in case there were any variations to the current proposed plans.

Mr. Shvegzda commented the bottom line is it stays in conformance with what was approved on the final site plan.

Mr. Galster asked the location of Lot 6. Mr. Gothard answered Lot 6 will become Lot 11. Lots 4 and 5 and part of 6 will become Lot 10. Lot 10 becomes 43.8127 acres and Lot 11 is 4.4031 acres. Lot 11 is where the Resource Center is; there already has been a split of Lot 6 for the Resource Center.

Mr. Galster continued I would like to see where the church sets on here, because there was supposed to be an untouched area. Does that have anything to do with Lots 4 5 and 6 or is that all Lot 10? Mr. Gothard answered the proposed Lot 10 has undisturbed areas around the perimeters to the north and south and to the west. Lot 11 is currently developed, conforming to the tree replacement ordinance. Mr. Galster continued so what is left of the old Lot 6 will become part of the bigger development? Mr. Gothard confirmed this. The major portion that I undeveloped is to the west. It is undisturbed at this time and is proposed to be undisturbed.

Mr. Syfert wondered if Mr. Galsterís main concern was the tree agreement Planning Commission made. Mr. Galster responded because of the fact that we had all this undisturbed area, we werenít going to be quite so strict on the tree replacement. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if what is being proposed here affects what we agreed upon? Mr. McErlane answered no. We looked at it as an overall comprehensive development, so it doesnít impact it. We did take the office development as a separate parcel when we reviewed it. Mr. Galster continued and this will consolidate four parcels into one. Mr. Gothard added it will still keep the office, the Resource Center separate from the church that is being developed. It has not changed the development plan for either the existing facility or the proposed one. Mr. Galster looked at the drawing.

Mr. Okum said I feel fairly comfortable because it brings Lots 4 and 5 together and adds part of Lot 6 to that. The conditions of the development still hold for the entire development. As long as we are not impacting the trees, I donít have a problem with it.





Mr. Okum moved that the replat of Lots 4 5 and 6 be approved, with the condition that public improvements must be made prior to the recording of the plot and subject to CDS approval. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Young, Mr. Galster, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Replat was approved with five affirmative votes.

D. Replat of Lots 8 & 9 Ė Tri-County Commons Subdivision

(Extension of Century Boulevard)

Mr. Shvegzda stated what you have here is the dedication plat for the extension of Century Boulevard across Springdale Kemper Associatesí property, and one section of Championís.; Today we met with Champion, and they have signed off on the plat, so we have their right of way in hand and construction probably will probably start sometime in October.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Galster said I assume you are saying that this is what you want and need in order to move forward, and we donít need any representation from any of the other parties here. Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, this is to complete Century Boulevard into Commons.

Mr. Galster moved to approve Lots 8 & 9 Tri-County Commons Subdivision as presented by Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Mr. Vanover asked if all agreements had been ironed out with Target and SKA and all the other interested parties on the roadway in regards to the payment? Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, adding that Targetís contractor is currently putting together the latest cost proposal for this work. This is probably the best evidence that they are falling in line for the project.

Mr. Galster commented the original concern was that SKA might not be ready to complete and put forth the funds to complete their section of the roadway so we could get the tie in to happen. I assume you are saying that is moving forward.

Mr. Okum said and the portion that the City is contributing is a small portion that was negotiated in good faith to bring this about. Mr. Parham reported the share that the City has committed to covering the construction of this road is $74,000 in 1997-1998 dollars. The original conceptual plan called for the road to barely touch Champion property. Champion was not a part of this process, and the city administration asked that the road be realigned so that Century Boulevard would be the main thoroughfare. Since we caused that, we committed to covering the cost. Mr. Okum said that is reasonable, and it is good to get the project moving forward. The catalyst is the City pushing for it to happen and it is a compliment to the City to get it done.

By voice vote all present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.


Mr. Young asked about the Calvary Pentecostal Church project on Kenn Road. The weeds have now exceeded anything that has been done there at all, and they have taken all the equipment out. Mr. McErlane stated the last I heard they fired the general contractor, and that was months ago. Mr. Young wondered if the City has any ability to force them to do anything, because it really is an eyesore. What can we do, and if we canít do anything, why not? Mr. McErlane stated they have six months of inactivity before we cancel the permit, which doesnít accomplish a whole lot.

Mr. Young said that is the question I am asking; donít we have anything as a City to either force somebodyís hand or prevent something like this to happen? Mr. McErlane responded you are saying we should have something in place that would prevent people from having contract or funding problems on a project? I donít know that is realistic or feasible.

Mr. Young said when they presented the plan to us, donít they present something that showed that they financially have the ability to do the project? Mr. McErlane responded no, and I donít know that it is legal to ask for that. Mr. Young commented that doesnít make sense tome that you would allow somebody to start to develop something knowing they werenít required to finish the project. Mr. McErlane stated the only thing we can do that on is public improvements, and we get bonds for those.

Mr. Shvegzda commented the one thing we do have in place is a water management sediment control bond to insure that the detention basin is constructed in accordance with the plans, and any excavated areas that would be left that way could be seeded. That is in place.

Mr. Okum said the issue came up again tonight; is there any way we can get current CAGIS aerials on the city so we as a Commission can make decisions based on current information? It would be really helpful to see the adjoining properties. It would make it easier for us to evaluate and make informed decisions. Mr. Galster asked for a proposal for cost to get up to date aerial photographs.

Mr. Galster said we talked about our code not addressing people cutting down trees and the replacement plan. I think we need to say that not only you replace the trees in their entirety but a large fine in addition so we can have some leverage.

Mr. McErlane commented I do not see a problem with our saying you have to replace 100%, and if they want to appeal that, they can come to this body and appeal it. Mr. Galster said I still think there is a need for a possibility of a fine to compensate for the fact that we will have to wait another 20 years to get that kind of tree growth.


    1. Kerryís Gift Gallery,11812 Springfield Pike Ė wall sign

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be present at the October meeting. Everyone plans to attend.

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Young seconded the motion. K By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1998 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,1998 _________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary