7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston

David Okum, Robert Seaman and Chairman William Syfert.

Councilman Tom Vanover arrived at 7:02 p.m.

Members Absent: James Young

Others Present: William McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner

Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator (arrived at 7:35 p.m.)

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

(arrived at 7:35 p.m.)


Chairman Mr. Galster nominated Mr. Syfert and Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. There were no further nominations, and by voice vote, all present except Mr. Syfert who abstained voted aye, and Mr. Syfert was elected by acclamation.

Vice Chairman Mr. Galster nominated Mr. Okum and Mr. Syfert seconded the motion. There were no further nominations and by voice vote, all present except Mr. Okum who abstained voted aye, and Mr. Okum was elected by acclamation.

Secretary Mr. Okum nominated Mr. Seaman and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. There were no further nominations, and by voice vote all present voted aye and Mr. Seaman was elected by acclamation.


Mr. Okum moved for approval and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster said the Zoning Code Committee has wrapped up the process and we anticipate Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum will have it to the Planning Commission a week before our next meeting with a pretty detailed summary of items that have changed. That same summary will needs to go to Council.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė November 10, 1998
    4. Zoning Bulletin - November 25, 1998
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė October 20, 1998







    1. Approval of Proposed Garage, Enterprise Rent A Car, 169 Northland Boulevard (tabled 10 November 1998)
    2. There was no representation, and Mr. Syfert suggested that someone move that this be removed from the agenda. Mr. Galster moved and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.

    3. Final Plan Approval of First Watch Restaurant, 11711 Princeton Pike

Mr. Syfert stated last month we had quite a bit of discussion and they agreed to bring it back in for final plan approval.

Bob Gilhart of Princeton Plaza stated Wes Noble of Havtech our general contractor is here a well as Ralph Terbrugen of Woolpert. We concentrated primarily on the traffic plan and landscaping.

There will be forest green on the awnings and the off white that is throughout the shopping center. He showed the color samples.

We have moved the landscaping from the front of the building for the seven foot sidewalk, and shifted out towards the road where it can be seen more readily. We did enhance it quite a bit by putting it along the entire front of First Watch and Sprint PCS as well as the side of Borders Books and Music. We originally had planned three parallel parking spaces for there, and pulled those out for a more attractive appearance.

We received the drawing from Mr. Shvegzda concerning traffic patterns. Our plan is very similar to what they are recommending. The difference is in the landscaping area and the location of the stop sign.

Mr. Syfert called on staff members for their reports.

Ms. McBride reported we received a lot more information with this submittal, and we appreciate that. The curb cut that we have talked about remains closed. They are showing the extension of the sidewalk and the gutter along there. They are not noting that the dirt area will be seeded but I am assuming it will be.

A change from the plan includes two way traffic in the area in front of First Watch. The earlier plan showed one way, and we had concerns about how that would work regarding parking and where it came in. We feel that the two way traffic as they are showing it now does work. They are showing signage directing traffic onto I-275 from the Francis Lane area.

We had asked for dumpster enclosure details and they have provided those. It would be an 8 foot tall masonry wall that would be painted to match surrounding building colors.

There are a total of 40 parking spaces provided in the immediate vicinity of the First Watch and the Sprint store. Based on the highest number of seats that can be shown on the floor plan, 133, it would require 45 parking spaces under our current code. The Sprint store would require another eight spaces. The applicant indicates that there are 1,518 parking spaces existing in the center. Based on their calculations, they need 1,369 spaces. Ours came out to 1,373 because we used the upper end of the First Watch seating number. One concern is that the stall length is shown at 18 feet and 19 feet is required. Secondly, as a regular patron of First Watch, I question whether there will be enough parking in the immediate vicinity at that noon peak hour. I think that is something the commission might want to consider and the applicant might want to address.





Ms. McBride added no signage is being approved as part of this submittal. We did get building elevations and floor plans. We did receive a landscape plan. They are landscaping that area we requested them to, which is a nice improvement. To be consistent with other retail developments that we have approved recently, we have been asking for shade trees along Kemper Road. It would mean a total of nine trees, three inch caliper and 30 feet on center. We also would ask that all landscaping be placed on mulched beds to preserve it.

We received a photometric lighting plan and fixture information. The lighting in this area will be three new fixtures 33 feet in height, bronze in color and will provide substantially over the Ĺ foot candle we require.

We suggest that the commission consider the availability of parking in the direct vicinity of First Watch in the noon peak hour, no signage would be approved as part of this approval, the inclusion of shade trees along Kemper Road and that the parking stall lengths be revised to meet our code requirements.

Mr. Galster commented once we go with the 19 foot stall and we end up with 22 foot roadway, is that adequate? Mr. McErlane responded it would mean pushing the curb line at the street out about two feet which would mean losing one of the spaces that is closest to the right of way on the easternmost side.

Mr. Syfert wondered the normal length of a car is, adding my large van is 17 feet long.

Mr. Gilhart responded on the trees, I am concerned about where we put the trees. I like the presentation of the landscaping towards Kemper; we have concentrated on that, but I have a real concern about putting anything significant along the front when we are trying to emphasize visibility for this traffic coming out of the center. We already have a row of trees planted by the city along the boulevard. When the original ones went in, I expressed concern to the city relative to where they were located. For people looking left, even with the small caliper trees, I am concerned about limiting their visibility in any way. In the near future, depending on what the city does in adding another lane on one or both sides of Kemper, it will get even worse, and I would hesitate to plant trees out there traffic safety wise. We also donít show three trees that we had there before by Francis Lane. We moved one, but the other two I plan to take out, because I donít want people to stop here, look left and not see the traffic coming. Ralph Terbrugen of Woolpert looked over the landscaping plan and came to the same conclusion I did. I have a concern; if someone has a convincing argument that it shouldnít be a concern, Iíll put the trees in.

On the parking, First Watch should be the most concerned, and they feel and I feel that there will be a lot of duplicate customers, the same person who goes to Borders will go to First Watch. I am still working with Borders to see if we can allow an entrance through their store.

The sidewalks we are adding are extremely wide, to make sure people are comfortable with parking in front of Borders and walking around to First Watch and Sprint. The other thing is relative to where the employees will park. There are stipulations in their lease concerning parking, and if they donít do it cooperatively other things occur, so I havenít had a problem. We already have notified every retailer in the center to park in particular places during the holidays, and that is really our only problem period.

Mr. Seaman left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.





Mr. Okum said on the parking stalls on the site, will there be parking blocks? Mr. Gilhart answered no, that is why in front of First Watch we are going with an extremely wide seven feet so if they overhang it eats up the first two feet. We took out the landscaping alongside the building, so now we have a clear five feet for the parking.

Mr. Okum wondered about changing the parking spots to 19 feet. You would lose a car spot or one would become a compact car spot. Mr. Okum said the only reason is because our code requires 19 feet, and we should try to stay within the code. Those across the front of the stores would be 18 feet. It is just the ones across Kemper Road that you could get to 19 feet.

Mr. Noble said then you are at car stops and they are hazardous. A lot of communities are looking at their zoning regulations from the standpoint that if you have fixed curbing they are allowing a 2í to 2í-6" extension of that parking space onto that sidewalk.

Mr. Gilhart stated theoretically, we would lose one spot, but I am not sure that we would. Mr. Terbrugen said I would have to look at it. What is the intent of the 19 foot spaces other than the code? Cars will still overhang the curb. There is adequate overhang space for them. If we needed to shift this down a foot on the Kemper Road side, we could. A lot of this is landscaping area. Mr. Okum said or you could go 18í-6" on each side and keep your lane in the middle. If our planner feels 18í is adequate that is fine. If they think 19 feet should be achieved, we should do our best to get to 19 feet. Mr. Gilhart responded I went around the parking lot and found only one car that was a length I would worry about. Mr. Okum commented a more critical issue is obtaining 24 feet in lane width. Mr. Gilhart commented I would rather have the lane width myself.

Mr. Shvegzda reported there are only two things that are a concern with that overhang. One is if we have them overhanging significantly onto the sidewalk area and the other is the far eastern parking space along Kemper Road where you would be overhanging into the right of way. Or there could be a very short parking space if we wanted to vary from the standard on that one space. Mr. Okum asked if he saw an issue on the 18í versus 19í and Mr. Shvegzda answered just for the reasons I stated.

Mr. McErlane reported that the stall dimensions and the aisle widths work together for maneuverability. Not all cars are built to overhang a walk. Many will even hit parking blocks before they overhang, so I donít know about factoring in overhangs relative to parking spaces. Rather than play around with the issue, I would rather see them lose one parking space and meet the code requirements. Mr. Okum commented they would have to move that curb back two feet to do that, or a six foot sidewalk. Mr. McErlane wondered if the sidewalk currently lines up with the Borders sidewalk, and Mr. Terbrugen answered no. Mr. Gilhart added we were trying to make it easy and comfortable for families to walk back and forth. I would like to keep it as wide as we can, but whatever the experts say on it we will do.

Mr. Galster commented my van is 17 feet long, so I do not like the idea of saying 18 feet is okay. I think we should stay with the code and 19 feet.

Mr. Huddleston suggested that we lose the easternmost parking space and make those 19 feet, and go with the six foot sidewalk. Mr. Gilhart agreed with this.








Mr. Shvegzda reported there is an indication at Francis Lane that there will be signs directing traffic to S.R. 747 and I-275. We need to know specifics and reference to ODOT type signage and typical signs with the shield designation on it.

Mr. Parham arrived at 7:35 p.m.

We recognize the fact that the two way drive aisle is there and provides an additional entrance point via Francis Lane to that vicinity. We think that is a benefit overall.

We feel there should be better aligning of the main drive off the driveway off Kemper Road so the far right lane coming inbound to the development can be used as through and right, and the next lane to the left inbound can be utilized as a left turn into the parking field. We talked to Mr. Gilhart and he also has come up with a slight variation to what we indicated to him so it looks like a workable situation. With the additional traffic turning from Francis into the parking field, we need larger flares on the driveway.

On the trees, there is a required sight distance line. The critical case would be for traffic turning right west bound. There are definite regulations on that. Mr. Syfert asked if Anneís requirement would exceed those regulations or be short. Ms. McBride responded we would want to work with them on placement of the trees and make sure that the trees are properly pruned to assure a safe sight distance, but that can be achieved. We have done it further down on Kemper.

Mr. Okum said on the continuous left turn provided off Kemper into this area, going down that grade, I would not be attuned to seeing the arrow. Would it be recommended for overhead signage more in the front of you so you could see that was a continuous left turn in there? I am concerned that the first car would literally stop and we would have car two into the back of him if they are not aware of the continuous left.

Mr. Shvegzda stated we had noted to at least have a ground mounted sign. Mr. Gilhart expressed concern in terms of conflicting with the sign as far as vehicles not recognizing that it is there. That is a possibility. We had indicated left lane turn must turn left.

Mr. Okum said that sign is so far ahead of the cars. Mr. Shvegzda responded I donít know where the overhead signage would be to benefit the traffic and if it is up in the air you would have to have it a good distance back to recognize it. Mr. Okum commented it is a good idea to get them in there and not have a stop. He asked if there was a designation on where the stop sign would be, telling the motorist that oncoming traffic doesnít stop.

Mr. Terbruggen responded there is not now, but we would need to add that. Unfortunately where they would need to be placed would put a pole in the driveway. Mr. Okum said unless you did it with guidewire and a column angularly across from the railroad spike to the corner of the building, but who wants to look at a pole and a wire. We may have to practice with it and see how it works. Did you put a stop coming westbound out of the parking field into that area? Mr. Terbrugen answered a stop sign and a stop bar and printed "stop" here which is existing, and there will be an island at the end of the parking lot. Mr. Gilhart added it works out quite well because all the traffic that wants to turn in and go towards Kids R Us has a wide turn there; it is perfect.






Mr. Galster said looking at the car coming out of Sprint and going toward the main entrance and he wants to turn left towards Borders, does he have a stop sign? Does he know that the incoming traffic from Kemper Road does not stop? Mr. Terbruggen answered we can have a stop sign there. It tends to work now without a stop sign. Mr. Gilhart added it is still one way in this section, so there has to be a stop sign there. We probably need a sign that says cross traffic does not stop. Mr. Galster added that is my concern to make sure that car can get in and know he will get to where he wants to go. Mr. Gilhart commented the answer is a traffic signal location at that entrance, but I have no control over that. Short of that, I think we have done everything we can to make it as safe as we can. During the holidays we hire local police force to be that traffic signal, and to the best of my knowledge, that is the only one in Springdale that is permitted.

M. Huddleston commented it is an unusual siltuation but overall what we have here is an improvement over what exists.

Mr. McErlane stated this is a change to the existing preliminary plan PUD. The major change is the 3,000 s.f. addition to the center. Although we talked about the setback for parking frm the right of way at 0 feet, if you look at Drawing 1 or 2 you will see a dashed line that shows parking currently being in the right of way, so this is an improvement over that. Also, there are three existing trees along the Kemper Road frontage. I am not sure if they are in the right of way or on the property, but they are not indicated on the plan and they are not indicated to be removed and there are no trees proposed to be planted. We need details on that before you can remove those trees as well as concurrence from Planning to allow you not to replace those trees.

Also, the applicant is asking to allow Sprint to keep a temporary banner on their storefront until February 12th. They currently have a temporary banner permit which is due to expire.

Mr. Okum said if they were to plant the trees 3 inch caliper as recommended by our planner 30 feet on center, would they accommodate the removal of the three on Kemper Road? Mr. McErlane responded those trees are 8 to 12 inches in diameter. Assuming 8 inches, we are looking at 12 inches to replace. That assumes that these trees need to be removed in the first place. Iím not sure they are impacted by the parking lot areas.

Mr. Gilhart stated there is a very short distance to Kemper Road, so the more they can see about what is going on, the better. Iíll put as many trees as anybody wants anywhere. I donít care where they go as long as it is safe for visibility of traffic coming from every direction, coming off Kemper, going on Kemper turning on Francis Lane, turning by Borders Ė Iím concerned about it. That is why I originally was going to take out the two trees. Maybe itís time to take them out and put in something that doesnít block the view so much. Iím not a landscape expert and Iíll take direction from whoever is an expert on the subject.

Mr. Syfert suggested an on site inspection and discussion would be more appropriate. Mr. McErlane added I would recommend getting together with Don and the consultant, and if it proves that the existing trees are a sight distance problem we will evaluate it based on tree replacement requirements.







Mr. Okum asked if the mechanical units would be fully concealed from the public right of way and Mr. Noble indicated that they would by the parapet and they will be placed in the mid point of the roof.

Mr. Okum said the light fixture profile shows the lens below the bottom of the picture. Part of our new code review calls for no glare to the public or pedestrian right of way. This fixture may not meet those standards, and I would encourage that be part of the motion as well as any light packs on Francis Lane. Mr. Gilhart said it is right where the walkway would lead for people taking the trash to the dumpster; Iím not sure how to shield that; you are saying to shield from Francis Lane not Kemper. Iíll address the problem because I want to do what is right. If I do find a light fixture is wrong, weíll replace it. Mr. Okum added I donít expect you to go through your entire site and change your existing light packs over to the new standards.

Mr. Okum asked about the color pallet and Mr. Gilhart said typically the canopy would be a dark green, but I will yield to First Watch to decide exactly what thy want and that also will be used by Sprint.

Mr. Galster commented signs are not included, but you are showing a sign off Francis Lane coming into First Watch. Mr. Gilhart said this is the existing sign. It said Strictly Golf and we have yielded to Sprint to have a temporary sign. They intend to get their permanent sign and put it on this temporary building and then move it over to the new building when constructed.

Mr. Okum moved that the final plan for Princeston Plaza be approved with the following conditions:

    1. Recommendations by our planner, engineer and building official be incorporated into the submission;
    2. Applicant provide no glare to the right of way with light fixtures or light packs on Francis Lane or the front of the building;
    3. Conceal mechanical units from the view of the public right of way
    4. Parking spaces shall be 19í deep with a 24 foot aisle;
    5. Specific ODOT signage hall be used by the applicant at Francis Lane entrance area and the center area by Borders with the necessary wording for safety;
    6. Tree replacement standards shall be adhered to with review by the planner and the engineer;
    7. Awnings shall be downlit and hunter green;
    8. Building materials shall be the same color as the existing center.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Gilhart asked if it were necessary to have ODOT signage on Francis Lane, or can we come up with our own directional information without going through the ODOT symbols? Mr. Shvegzda answered we would recommend it just because it is very easily recognizable for motorists.

Mr. Okum said I would like to add one more condition, that all new light fixtures shall be non glare and not be destructive to the public right of way. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.





Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with five affirmative votes.

    1. Preliminary Plan Approval Ė Golf Galaxy Ė Commons Drive

Present were Steve Kelley and Lani Wess of Woolpert, Michael Niesley of KKE and Peter Harding of Golf Galaxy.

Mr. Kelley reported that Golf Galaxy is adjacent to MARS Music. We feel Golf Galaxy is a quality retail use with minimal traffic, and would be very compatible with the existing development.

Golf Galaxy would be 21,828 s.f. space, approximately 94-95 feet of storefront. Landscaping would be across the front, adding bushes. We plan on relocating some of the trees in front of the building into landscaped islands. The primary site improvement that would be made would be an eight foot tall masonry enclosed dumpster.

The traffic is unique in the fact that it seemed to have the same type of lunch time peaks and p.m. peaks consistent with the others at Tri-County, but their peaks are during the summer months. They are trying to hit that spring opening season when they do most of their business. We donít predict any increased level of services with any of the traffic signals and see a 35 to 40 percent reduction during the winter months.

Ninety-eight spaces are required for this development, and we have more than enough spaces to accommodate the MARS Music and the Golf Galaxy.

Michael Niesley of KKE Architects said Gold Galaxyís intention is to be like a clubhouse. We like to have as much window opening as possible with awnings and a nice texture on the building. Our entrance is projected out a little to nearly the same height as the adjacent MARS Music. He showed the materials, a stone veneer on the piers and below the windows, a stucco system of two colors to blend in with the exiting brick color. The green and white awnings lend themselves to the county club atmosphere, and the medium bronze metal roofing on the sides of the entrance element. The openness is effective for showing light inside the building. We have painted the ceilings blue for the outside atmosphere, and have a putting green with plantings around it.

Mr. Kelley reported we are requesting 246 square feet; 182 square feet is permitted based on the storefront width. We are looking for just one sign, which is proportional with the f frontage and the architect. There is a distance way from I-275 which we are trying to keep and not have too much signage but also allow a good line of identification from I-275. When we look at the sign in general, it has a circular shape with an icon for the Golf Galaxy logo, and it wonít appear to be 246 square feet.

Peter Harding of Golf Galaxy stated they incorporated in December of 1995, opened the first store in April of 1997, which was phenomenally successful. An additional five stores opened this year, three in Minneapolis, one in Milwaukee and one in Grand Rapids. We plan to open 10 to 12 more stores, primarily in Ohio. WE are under construction in Dayton, will be in Columbus, Toledo, Cleveland and Eastgate

Eighty-five percent of golfers do not belong to a club, and donít have access to the clubhouse or PGA instruction, so we want to be their clubhouse. What makes us different is we are 18,000 square feet of pure golf. That means clubs, shoes, accessories, bags.





Mr. Harding added we sell brand name only, the top brands. These items circle the interior which is 3,000 s.f. of golf apparel, like Tommy Hilfiger, Nike, etc. and beginning in February, we will be Poloís largest golf account. We are the only retail establishment in the United States that is recognized and certified by the PGA so if you are a PGA professional you can work in our stores and earn credits. We do employ professional golfers who offer lessons. As part of that, we have a sophisticated golf swing analysis which allows the pro to look at your swing and explain why you arenít hitting the ball as you want to and after the lesson you can take the video tape home with you. This also is a full service repair facility. You also can get your brand name clubs custom fitted to you. We like the customer to be able to try out what he is going to buy; we have a full sized putting green built with a slope. We encourage customers to try out a driver, taking it into the driving range or into one of the simulators, which is your choice of 28 golf courses and play 18 holes of golf. You also can rent the facility for $28 an hour, get a foursome and play golf when it is not weather appropriate. We also offer travel and handicapping.

Mr. McErlane reported this is a PUD and because they are changes in the uses shown on the original preliminary plan, they have gone through the entire process of referral to Council and approval of the revised preliminary plan. The original PUD was approved for GI uses in this building and Planning and Council has approved additional uses based on traffic considerations as time has gone on.

The space is 21,828 square feet and lit consists of some exterior changes on the storefront and a little paving in the rear to accommodate a loading area and dumpster pad.

Parking for this space per code is 98 spaces, and there is no additional parking shown. They intend to use the parking pad that is there constructed with the Dave & Busterís space.

Proposed height of the storefront is 36í-4". MARS was approved at 36í and Dave & Busterís, 60í.

The allowable square footage for the sign is 182.5, and the sign shown on the plans is 246 square feet.

Color pallet was submitted tonight. I had a question about the roofing materials and I see it is a bronze color metal shake roof.

Ms. McBride added the landscaping detail for the font door provided a mixture of blooming and deciduous plants, and we would want to know where the two trees would be relocated to.

They are proposing a dumpster to the rear of the building and surrounded by an eight foot high masonry wall with wood gates which is very acceptable.

On signage, the drawings I had until a few minutes ago werenít to scale, so I couldnít give you an actual square footage. They are entitled to 182.5 square feet and are requesting 247 square feet. In addition to that the awnings on the front of the building are proposed to be internally illuminated.

The only things the Commission needs to talk about is to determine if you want to continue on with additional retail uses in this location. We need to have a tabulation provided for the number of existing parking spaces and indicate how many are required for Dave & Busterís, MARS and Golf Galaxy.





Ms. McBride stated we are not suggesting that they are short on parking but want to establish that tabulation now so we can start it running as we have on other developments.

Mr. Vanover asked if everything has been settled between SKA and Target? Mr. Osborn reported they are under construction and everything is moving forward. As late as Friday, I had a meeting and we discussed this issue and everything is moving with no problems. Everything is under contract and the contractor is working diligently and the right of way has been acquired. Mr. Shvegzda added quite a bit of embankment construction has been done there, so they are progressing.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the only modification is to the rear, about 850 square feet of pavement to access the rear of the building and the dumpster location. Detention and storm sewers are in place.

Regarding traffic, as far as the original PUD is concerned, it was approved for a weekday peak hour traffic total of 2,645. The current projected weekday traffic peak with Golf Galaxy would be 2,687 so that is 42 over. However, about a month after Dave & Busterís was opened in 1997 an actual count was taken and there were approximately 1,513 vehicles during the weekday peak, and that is adding in Golf Galaxy.

From the theoretical numbers, you have an overage of 42. However, with the actual numbers counted in 1997, they are approximately 1,000 below. It looks like the numbers are okay, but it would be prudent to recount in the spring after Golf Galaxy is constructed to get a current figure.

On the covenants, Paragraph D should include additional wording to further define that clothing would be associated with golf, and a further breakdown of the area which would be designated for non display storage.

Mr. Okum said it appears that the rear elevation of the new building parapet will be above the roofline. Will it be readily visible to pedestrian traffic on Commons Drive? Mr. Niesley answered no more visible than MARS Music. We could se Dave & Busterís, but we couldnít see MARS Music.

Mr. Okum asked if there wee any neon lighting, and Mr. Niesley reported that they are looking at the existing neon lighting and would like to make sure that they blend in with the rest of the center. They would like to have some neon lighting at least to highlight the cornice work.

Mr. Okum stated I would have some concerns on the awnings since they are translucent lit. Is that a hunter green or lighter? Mr. Niesley answered it is more of a grass green. Mr. Okum said your intent on the awnings is a low brightness. Mr. Niesley answered yes, if they were directly lit, that would be a bright look. You would not get as much through the green. Mr. Okum asked if the panels would be as bright as the sign face, and Mr. Niesley answered I canít tell you one way or the other. The colors would be shining forth, but I think you would be getting more light through the white portion than through the green.

Mr. Harding added in stores this sign is much brighter because it is intensely lit with the neon behind it. In comparison, if the sign was a 7, the awnings would be 3 or 4 in brightness, about 30%, a glow.

Mr. Okum added it appears that you are pushing your signage almost as wide as you can to the columns. You are over your signage allowance by 60 s.f. and you are pushing it all the way out. If it were brought in a bit and narrow it down, you might be able to get your signage more into conformity.





Mr. Niesley responded the disadvantage we have is we are a very narrow store. We have the same concerns about visibility from I-275 as all the other stores. The open pierced nature of our sign as compared to a rectangular sign the same exact dimensions is an advantage. It helps to allow us to push that sign out as large as we could within those piers.

Mr. McErlane reported there is an oval that shows the golf ball orbiting and that is boxed in and calculated with the rest of the sign. Comparatively, the allowable for Golf Galaxy is 182.5 s.f., and they are proposing 246 s.f. MARS had 606.5 s.f. and their allowable was 257.

Mr. Okum said I would like to see it brought in a little bit. I definitely agree with you that there is a big area of the box that is calculated into your square footage that is affecting your signage. I feel you lose the Y and G by its proximity to the columns. Mr. Niesley said actually the letters are two to three inches out from the columns.

Mr. Okum commented I donít have any major problems. Your landscaping up against the building needs to be addressed. You said store type trees. Mr. Kelly answered bushes across the front, hostas lilac, mews. We would like to bring the trees that exist out into landscaped islands.

Mr. Okum asked if the glass were mirrored and Mr. Niesley answered it is clear glass. Mr. Okum asked about the neon lighting, and Mr. Niesley answered the idea behind the neon would be to highlight the shape of the entrance elements. Mr. Harding added as the owner, I canít imagine putting much more than a green band along the top of the sign. Mr. Syfert commented I assume you donít have neon on any of your other stores, and Mr. Harding confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said I donít have any problem with it. I would like something in the motion regarding the backlighting of the awning to be no more than 30% of the illuminated sign face to maintain that low glow. Are you aware of the all lit or not lit policy in terms of lighted signs, and explained it to the applicant.

Mr. Galster said I think the building looks nice and the store will do well, but I go back to traffic. Originally we didnít want to get into a total retail development there because of the traffic activity, and we still have 180,000 square feet left there. I donít know whether we are getting the mix we originally thought we were getting and I hate to see that trend continue. Given the situation Kemper Road, I think it will be a tough sell to Council.

Mr. Osborn stated the critical point that Mr. Shevegzda made needs to be factored in, and that is that we had a certain approved ADT for the site, and a projected ADT based upon the approved uses. When we did an actual traffic count, we found that after Roberds Grand and Dave & Busterís were in place, we were significantly below the estimated numbers.

We told SKA that they should continue to look for users that would not be high generators of traffic, and they have been realistic in trying to avoid that type of user. The statement we made to them is that they can try to find the best users they can under those criteria, and as long as they stay under that threshold we approved initially, we werenít going to require any additional public improvements. In theory they provided sufficient highway capacity when they built the road to accommodate the volume of traffic we anticipated would be generated by the site.






Mr. Osborn continued I think we already have put restrictions on the developer. I know from direct contact with them that thy have turned away users that would be far more intense than this store which is a very specific use. Obviously golf is very popular, but not everybody in the world plays golf. I donít think this store will be the same type traffic generator as if we had a discounter in there. I think they are on the right track, to find the users that will be able to sustain themselves in the market and present a good image for the community and at the same time the type of store that will not be a mass generator of traffic. I think this store fits in that criteria.

Mr. Galster commented I have heard rumors of Roberds having a little bit of a struggle. Based on what we have approved and would continue to allow to go there, letís say a Value City type thing, but something else that may be a generator of traffic, then the gap closes. I think we are awfully close to that number, and we have approved the development in such a way that different users may very well be up to that number.

Mr. Osborn responded the strategy has been to attract users that would not be significant generators of traffic. The Roberds project is not doing the business they had hoped, but even assuming the numbers they projected out initially, we havenít seen a tremendous growth in traffic volume as a result of other stores.

The other thing to consider is what else would we put in there, some sort of warehouse operation? I donít know that would be any better. If they brought material in by rail and distributed by truck, sending trucks through the Tri-County area is not the type use we are looking for. I would encourage Council and Planning to hold to the policy we came up with to try to find unique users like this one that would complement the business community land at the same time not be the major generator we see at Best Buy and Dickís and Loweís. Those stores all had the potential to be in this facility and they arenít there because we told the developer we donít want them there.

Mr. Syfert asked if he felt this should go to Council if Planning approves it. Mr. Osborn answered no, I think this is consistent with what we have discussed at Council and I donít see it as a major deviation from the plan. But, that is not my call; it is up to the two members of council on Planning.

Mr. Galster commented I believe it is a major deviation from the original PUD. I donít believe it is major from the way the PUD has been rezoned. Mr. Osborn responded I think we have to consider that SKA made an amendment to the PUD, and I donít think it is a deviation from SKAís to any significant degree.

Mr. Vanover said to be honest, and I know what Mr. Galster is saying, I would tend to believe this is a low impact occupant and I would not have any problems with Planning taking care of it. Traffic generation is a far cry from Dave & Busterís and MARS. To me it is a much gentler use than we could have in there, and I donít think it is a major deviation from the SKA PUD plan.

Mr. Seaman returned to the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

Mr. McErlane stated when Roberds and Dave & Busterís both went in, they painted the back of the building, and unfortunately MARS didnít. I would recommend the back of the building in their space be painted.








Mr. McErlane said to give you a feel for the parking numbers, the parking required for this space is 98 spaces. Parking for MARS is 171 spaces, and I donít know that we had a calculated number for Dave & Busterís although their indicated peak hour was 700 at that time. Depending on how the peak hours overlap between the uses, there could be a conflict in parking, but essentially if you take out the 98 for this space and 171 for MARS it leaves 500 for Dave & Busterís.

Mr. Galster said what is the basic difference between the SKA PUD plan and the originally approved PUD plan?

Mr. McErlane responded SKA was a party to the original. The only difference is after North American Properties finished their portion of it, SKA dealt with the balance of theirs. We have taken every change to that particular building as a major departure to the preliminary plan, only because the code talks about changes of use as being an example of a major departure. Mr. Galster said so in both, it is still a General Industrial zoning. Mr. McErlane confirmed that, adding that even the covenants state that and that is why there is a modification made to the covenants to allow additional retail in that building.

Mr. Okum said Roberds, MARS and Dave & Busterís all went to Council. A number of years ago we had outlots along 275 with general industrial. That was the original PUD. It changed when Roberds cam forward to going to a low traffic generating type development along that site, and using the field out front for parking areas. We all agreed when Dave &Busterís came in they had an overly generous allotment for parking. I think Mr. Galsterís comments are still very valid concerning what happens with the development. If another use came into the Roberds site, we would have a strong concern, but at this point I donít see that this development will make that type of change. I think when the changes went before Council for the three developments, we saw a consistent trend. I donít think the business this would generate would cause parking issues or increased traffic volumes onto the roadway. On the other hand I would be concerned about those counts as the development continues to expand westward.

Mr. Galster said I want to get a feel from this board. If what we are saying is because we have allowed it to develop this way the rest of the PUD should go to general retail with the use as low as possible. So we are saying that instead of a general industrial, it has become retail and therefore is not a change. Then we are looking at retail for the remaining 180,000 square feet. Does everybody believe that is the proper land use in the area?

M. Vanover responded with the choices between a development like this versus the office building or motel, I would accept this. I think we have to give the developer the flexibility. I think this fits in better and is less obtrusive than some of the other. I donít think we allow free rein on retail, but we have put constraints and restrictions on the developer and expressed our wishes strongly enough that we have a way of controlling the growth to some degree. I think this is a nice match and fit in that development.

Mr. Osborn said I am not advocating that we give them carte blanche for retail. We have consistently told the developer both our personal negotiations and in public meetings that there is not guarantee as to the acceptability of retail use. It is a case by case situation. The developer has been given a specific charge as to what we find acceptable. The pattern we have developed is pretty commendable; both the developer and the Planning Commission have done a good job picking the right users for that site.





Mr. Osborn continued my point is I think this store is consistent with the square feet is predestined to be unlimited retail, just the contrary. I think we have set a standard that we can point to. I donít want to create an exception that would make it difficult for any members of Planning. My only point is early on we didnít know what would come in here and we started discussions about the types of uses we would like to see. We have been very conservative with the developer. They brought uses to us that we told them we wouldnít be interested in, and they told us about other uses that they could have bought to us which they didnít. The pattern we established is a precedent, I think for better. But if you feel strongly Steve that this has to go back to Council, I would defer to that. You ask me personally if I felt it were a major departure given what we have in bricks and mortar, no I donít think it is. This is really zoned PUD, so the absolute control rests here with this body and with Council as to what use comes in.

Mr. Huddleston commented I would say that Mr. Osborn and the administration have worked very favorably with the devloper to minimize the impact. We can say what we would like to go there, but ultimately the marketplace will dictate what is willing to go there. I think if you look at this as low impact usages and mitigating the circumstances of having a derelict warehouse at the Cityís front door, what the administration has done and what the creative developer has done there is pretty remarkable really. By and large I support this development and not as a major revision to the PUD.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the preliminary plan for Golf Galaxy, to incorporate the recommendations of the city planner, engineer and building official and to relocate the two trees from the front of the building, to paint the back of the building in their area, neon lighting if used shall be Ĺ inch type tube across mansard cap which will be reverse lit, the applicant will abide by the all lit or not lit condition of this PUD and that the lighting of the awnings shall be 70% less than the illumination of the signage on the building.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

Mr. McErlane said Iím not sure we have made the determination as to whether or not this is a major departure and if it is, the motion needs to include a referral to Council.

Mr. Syfert said I believe Steve feels it is, and that is enough for it to go to Council. Mr. Galster said my point is if we look at the rest of the development of the site, I think it is a major change. I do agree that this is a small sliver and I do agree that it is a good fit and I will hold my major departure until we see what happens with the next piece.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Seaman abstained and approval was granted with five affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover said coming across Crescentville Road, we have a van in the driveway of GAP with a big vinyl banner on the side advertising their holiday special. We had that same monster there last year, and I wish somebody would discuss that with them.

Mr. Galster asked if the eight week extension of the temporary banner for Sprint was approved when we approved their final plan? Mr. Okum said it wasnít a part of the motion.





Mr. McErlane said so that means they need to take it down when it expires and find some other means to advertise until they get their permanent sign. Mr. Okum said we could handle a new item on the agenda, D under New Business and incorporate a motion to consider it.

Mr. Okum moved to bring forth onto the agenda the banner placement at Princeton Plaza for SPRINT. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was on the agenda.

Mr. Okum reported Board of Zoning Appeals handled a similar situation for a banner placement at Advanced Cellular and with quite a bit of discussion, the limitation was put on the applicant to January 16th. This is an existing store.

Mr. Galster commented the Sprint banner would be different because they are a new business and donít have their sign yet.

Mr. Huddleston asked what we need to do to accommodate the extension of that banner. Mr. McErlane answered approval to extend the length of time permitted in the zoning code. It is a deviation from the Zoning Code and is handled by Planning since it is in a PUD.

Mr. Vanover stated the banner is up now, and they are going to put the permanent sign on the temporary location and move it over when the new building is built.

Mr. Galster moved to grant the extension of the temporary banner until they have their permanent sign on their temporary location. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes. Mr. Vanover stated the banner is up now, and they are going to put the permanent sign on the temporary location and move it over when the new building is built.

Mr. Osborn said on Pictoria Island, things have been moving rapidly. Dave Tipton, in partnership with Steve King has an option t o purchase the IDI property between Avon and Showcase. They also have the first right of refusal on the warehouse to be constructed.

The developer has ownership of this 16 acres and this 23 acres is under option. That option expires February 1st. They wanted to come in and get this area rezoned to office because their plans call ford three offices on this site.

From a planning standpoint, we donít want to do an office zoning in the middle of what is a PUD, retail and general industrial. The idea is to bring them back in for a modification to the preliminary plan. This portion of the plan where it shows three restaurants will actually have four restaurants, where you see the hotel will be a future hotel. It is not part of their primary plan right now; it will be a reserved area that would include a parking structure with a hotel over it.

The current plans are an eight story and six story building with parking structures that would support both of those. These would be three five story structures that would be supported with parking within their on site.

The problem is we wanted to keep this at a PUD level and they are short of time. They need to get a reaction from us in January. We have proposed that they come through with a modification of the PUD. They wonít have the time to do the level of detail that we typically request. In the past there have been exceptions, Pictoria Island being one exception





Mr. Osborn said with Planningís concurrence, I would like to suggest that we try to show the same flexibility here. This modification of the PUD will not occur until after February 1st because it has to goon to Council. We already have told them that the best we can do for them is a modification to the PUD in January from Planning that would then have to go on to Council for a public hearing.

They have already asked questions about the preliminary PUD approval and then if they decide to move the restaurants around, and we have told them that is not an issue. If they are moving a building 30 feet and are not changing the use or the looks, it is not an issue.

I have to say that we all have been waiting for Steve to do something with this property and Steve is a great visionary and restauranteur, but he really isnít a developer. Now we have someone who is a pure developer involved, and he is putting it together and is ready to run with it. Thy want to come in and do the restaurants first because they will take the capital off that and do some office buildings and take capital off those and do some more and so on.

The thing they are asking is how much detail we need. We told them we would like to see a drawing showing the locations of buildings, types of uses, parking fields, parking structures, location for detention, and a preliminary grading plan. We would take the uses they are putting on the site and do the same type of number crunching we did for Pictoria Island originally rather than go through a full blown traffic analysis. The point is they have to make a decision as to whether or not to buy the property by February 1st. This has caused them no little delay trying to allocate which restaurant goes where. The restaurants involved are the Bahama Breeze, which is the biggest, Joeís Crab Shack, and Old Spaghetti Factory. Steve wants to open a fourth restaurant which would be a franchise. He would like to get Montgomery Ribs, but they have only done one franchise, and that was in Indianapolis. He is working on a high profile franchise like that for the fourth site.

They had a hotel until very recently but because the time it took to put it all together, that hotel has gone away; they are reserving a spot for the hotel and the parking field.

We want to ask Planning Commission the level of detail they want in order to be able to make an amendment to an existing PUD to the preliminary plan? If you look at what our code calls for versus what we actually ask people to provide us, there is a big gap. We are asking to get closer back to what the code suggested earlier.

Mr. McErlane added to give you an idea of what I told them, I indicated they needed to show the preliminary grading, preliminary utilities (storm sewer routing), how to accommodate detention (they said they would expand existing ponds). On the landscaping I said this can be acceptable for preliminary. On the buildings themselves, he suggested they take pictures of the recent ones they have built and that is the level we are talking about. I told him to look at the covenants to see how they impact this site.

Mr. Osborn added there are tree replacement covenants that run with this property and we want them to be incorporated.

Mr. Galster said if they submit something like this, wouldnít it be similar to saying this I preliminary plan approval based on your providing us with a certain number of items?






Mr. Osborn responded this is closer to concept than preliminary, but at the same time I donít think they have time to put together the preliminary plan. Mr. Okum wondered if approval of a concept wouldnít be sufficient for them to make a decision on acquiring land and Mr. Osborn answered this is unofficial, but I think Steve want to know this is going to happen.

Mr. McErlane added it didnít sound like it was a problem for them to put those additional features on this plan. Mr. Osborn said I think what we are asking for they can provide.

Mr. Okum commented the only concern I have is I wonder about traffic count impact on Route 4 and Crescentville Road, a brief comparative between the two. That would be my primary concern.

Mr. Osborn responded that is what we did; that is what I am suggesting. We did the traffic generation for the first Pictoria Island PUD. I am suggesting that we do that same thing again, take the uses and predict traffic generation. Mr. Shvegzda added the majority of those movements failed in either situation. Mr. Okum said so we know Crescentville and Route 4 will need something. Can we hold this developer accountable for the impact on that intersection? What happens there?

Mr. Osborn responded I donít know the solutions. Mr. Shvegzda added we are waiting on Fairfield to find a solution. Mr. Osborn said we have been dialoging with Fairfield about adding capacity through the intersection. They would build an additional lane both northbound and southbound on their side of the intersection. We would build an additional right turn drop lane northbound on ours and take the existing right turn drop lane and make it a through lane. We do have plans in progress with Fairfield to do a joint project when funding becomes available. We have it out in about 2001.

Mr. Okum commented I would still like to see how much more or less impact there would be. It could be less. Mr. Osborn responded I doubt it. We are talking about 700,000 square feet of office space.

Mr. Okum said conceptually it is not a bad use of the land. Mr. Osborn added keep in mind that we could let this property revert back to industrial and they could build these offices, but we donít want to do that. We have a piece of industrial zoning in the middle of this site, and technically they could come in and ask to have this site rezoned industrial. We have been steering them away from that towards the more comprehensive approach of a PUD. At the same time we recognize that by asking them to do that we probably will force them to miss their threshold date on the decision to purchase the property. I have to say that IDI had an asking price on the property. They mistakenly made them an offer at the asking price, and IDI came back and asked for more money. They finally got it under contract, and they will be paying very dear for a contract extension and I would hate to discourage them. I could go back to them and tell them that you are uncomfortable with anything more than a concept level approval and they would have to take their chances. I guess we are in a dilemma, and we are asking you for some direction. What do you think we should do?

Ms. McBride added I have represented Dave Tipton since 1981, and he has always performed on what he has said he will do. He brings a lot of expertise to the table.

Mr. Okum said if we gave them preliminary plan approval conditional upon the office traffic flow ratios of monitoring levels that will be no more than what was approved under the original PUD, would that be sufficient? DO you think there will be more? Mr. Osborn answered yes I do.





Mr. Seaman left the meeting at 9:40 p.m.

Mr. Osborn added this is the only visible point remaining on the interstate of this scale. It certainly will be a focal point for the community. What they are proposing here will be high end. The office space out on 275 will be Class A. We are working with them on doing a TIF for their parking decks. They are prepared to guarantee the debt service payments and secure that through treasury bond securities as a guarantee so that we wouldnít have any liability on the TIF. In fact, they would absorb our current $2 million TIF into theirs

Mr. Huddleston said I have mixed reactions, only because you have a developer hasnít performed in Mr. King. David Tipton is a personal friend and he has had some problems in the last recession. A lot of good developer had problems. David is a great guy and he puts forth a good product, but he has been overextended in the past.

Mr. Osborn said I donít think this will be built at the same time. Mr. Huddleston responded it is not going to be; the market will dictate that. If he has restaurants lined up that is great and a great kickoff, but the rest will be dictated by the market. Itís a good plan and a good concept.

Mr. Osborn asked the level of detail he would want to see, and Mr. Huddleston responded the level of detail would be what the administration can comfortably enforce through Planning and the administration. To me to give the guy an overblown concept plan approval, for him to buy the land, he has no more protection than what he has today, if you are talking about his risk.

Addressing Mr. Osborn, Mr. Huddleston said so your concern is that IDI would revert back to industrial. Mr. Osborn responded my concern is that they may make the price too dear for the current developer to pick up the option if we have to force them into buying an extension on the option.

Mr. Huddleston commented that has the ramification of potentially fragmenting the development of the two sites, but I still think the market will dictate the highest and best use and what will happen there. Mr. Osborn said I do too. The only reason I talked about the zoning issue is from looking at the zoning map. My point is if Tipton wanted to, he could buy the property and develop these offices and come into us for an industrial use, which was a previous zoning on this property. WE have Avon next door and he could argue for industrial and develop these office buildings under office, because we have pyramid zoning.

At first I suggested a short cut of him coming in for an office zoning for this site because this is the site he is concerned about. Mr. McErlane and MS. McBride feel strongly that we should keep the property under a PUD concept. I understood their arguments and that is how I played it with the developer. I can go back to him and tell him we canít go beyond a concept level plan, and he will have to take a risk as to what he thinks can happen. I think he needs to hear from you what you think of the land use he is talking about. By the type review CDS can do, I donít know that we would be able to tell you the traffic fixes on Route 4 by January.

Mr. Galster suggested that the applicant come in with preliminary plan revision, he gets done whatever he can get done and if it I not all there and we are not happy, it gets tabled. He still would get a feel for a lot more than what he would conceptually.

Mr. Vanover wondered if he wanted a modification of the original PUD, and Mr. Osborn said no, he wants to modify the existing PUD because it does have covenants that run with the property.





Mr. McErlane stated the only disadvantage to pushing it through as a preliminary PUD is heís probably showing the max that he could ever put on this property and if Planning and Council approve it, that would be his upper limit.

Mr. Osborn said that question was asked. Shall we show you what we think we can build or what we ideally would like to build. I said they should show us what they ideally would like to build because it is easier to scale down than scale up.

Mr. Okum commented I still feel we should hold them to some type of ratio of impact on the public roadways. What if there is 50% more impact to Crescentville Road and Route 4? Even with the expansion, are we in a position to be able to accommodate that? That intersection is the highest ratio of accidents in the city.

Mr. Osborn said because this is the last parcel being developed, we should say to them you canít build without making the improvements that will accommodate everybody elseís traffic too? Mr. Okum responded no, but I am thinking that their density, the amount of square footage that they can build on that site will dictate the amount of traffic.

Mr. Osborn said if I were a traffic engineer, I would be making that argument. From the position I am in, I am concerned about what will happen to this property, and penalizing this property because it is the last to develop in the corridor. It will contribute a lot of traffic, but so does Fairfield and so does The Crossings.

Mr. Huddleston commented the axiom is that the infrastructure will follow the development, and that is true.

Mr. Osborn said look at the existing IDI warehouse. Imagine that three times as big over here. Is that what you want? I donít think that is what we want. As a matter of fact I was tickled to hear them say that they wanted to go in, buy this and tear it down.

Mr. Huddleston said Mr. Galster suggested that he do what h can do and weíll go through it. If you donít feel they can generate enough to be meaningful maybe we would be going through an exercise.

Mr. Osborn responded this is the 8th, and we are asking them to submit by the 31st. Mr. Galster commented as big a project and the location of it,, Planning could always consider an extra meeting in January.

Mr. Osborn said I would like to give them a specific response, so why donít we suggest to them that we target the meeting in January for a concept approval. The alternative would be if they want to try to go for a preliminary plan approval, we schedule a special meeting later in the month. We should get them to design to a certain level.

Mr. Okum suggested getting them to design to a preliminary plan level of approval. We have had submissions that are incomplete under preliminary plan level review. Have them give us as much as they can, and if it doesnít look like there is enough, we can consider it as a concept tonight and we could add a second meeting. Mr. Syfert commented that is as fair as you can be.

Mr. Osborn stated so we will tell them to bring a plan for a preliminary plan level and this is what we want, and we need to identify what we typically we would ask for. Is there anything in that package that you donít think they physically can get done in January?





Mr. McErlane responded it depends on the amount of detail Don needs on storm sewers and detention. Mr. Osborn asked if we want them to design the storm sewers; I donít think we do. Weíll target a preliminary plan approval for the meeting in January with the understanding that if they donít supply sufficient data, you may revert to a conceptual approval.

Mr. Okum said in my opinion, if they come in preliminarally and we alter it to a conceptual plan approval, I would be willing to have a second meting in January to help them.

Ms. McBride said we could sit down with them also.

Mr. Osborn commented the engineer is Woolpert, the design firm is out of Atlanta and the contractor is Bill Woodward.

Mr. Huddleston commented the traffic generation is of most concern. I am more than willing for the second meeting, but I will be traveling from the 22nd or 23rd of January on.

    1. Famous Footwear-630 Kemper Commons Ė Wall Sign
    2. Capitol One Ė 161 Northland Blvd. Ė Wall Sign
    3. Uniform Advantage Ė 131 East Kemper Rd. Ė Wall Sign
    4. Amigoís j- 11711 Princeton Pike Ė Wall Sign


Mr. Syfert asked if anyone will not be at the meeting January 12th? Everyone plans to be present.

Mr. Okum said to remind you, that is the review meeting of the new zoning code so it is a very important meeting. Mr. Galster added and we are counting on Ms. McBride to have a summary in place that will allow us to zip through that review process.



Mr. Syfert wished everyone a happy holiday season.

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________1999 _________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



_______________________1999 __________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary