MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005
AT 7:00 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
The roll was called and the following were found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Stanley Spencer
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily and Law Director Donnette Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the October 18, 2005 meeting were read. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Stanley Spencer and seconded by Gary Wagner. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Abstain: Geeting (1)
SWEARING IN:
All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to raise their right hand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.
AB-05-18 - Variance - Jennieve M. Rusk - 121 Walnut Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s accessory use regulations to be allowed to build a shed in her front yard, located at 121 Walnut Street. This lot is zoned ‘R-2’ Residential. Because this lot is a through-lot, it has two front yards.
Who is here to represent this application tonight?
Rusk: We need to put a shed up in the back yard. There isn’t much room. When we had a garage and you put your vehicle outside of the garage, you were on City property. When the doors were shut and it was in there it was inside of City property.
Jordan: How big is the shed?
Rusk: 18x24, just big enough for my lawnmower and.
Jordan: How far back?
Rusk: When the doors were shut and it was in there it was inside of City property. They tore the shed down and they come down here and measured it. You see that post over there?
Daily: That was where the old shed was?
Rusk: The old one was out farther than that.
Daily: Okay. There was a shed there and we got some complaints from neighbors on some property maintenance issues. We went through the notification process and this and that.
Rusk: The City tore it down for us.
Daily: Rather than litigate the matter through the court system, we entered into a contract where the City took that down and attached the cost to the taxes. My understanding is that it is currently being paid in taxes. Then if for whatever reason the property would transfer you would have to get a clear title before it could be transfer. That was not a good situation there and that was resolved. Apparently you want to now set something up there where you can store items.
Rusk: It will be up next to the house. It’s probably that wide. It is just a little metal shed.
Daily: Are you sure of the dimensions? You said 18x24. That is a pretty large building.
Rusk: I don’t know. It is small, it is not very big, and it is in a box.
Daily: Do you know the square footage of it?
Rusk: Nope, I don’t know that. I would have to look and find out. I talked to Bob Wehrley and he said that you could put it up there next to the house and it wouldn’t make any difference.
Daily: Did you show him the plans for the building?
Rusk: He looked at it.
Fisher: It has to be 10 feet from the house.
Daily: Right, which I think this tree right here, from here to here, is about 10 feet. You would have to put it somewhere on that side.
Rusk: Right, and I would still have plenty of room in there.
Daily: The issue here is that you have two back yards or two front yards. It is a strange animal. What you are referring to, as the back yard is right here, correct. Am I right in that it will be.
Rusk Mrs.: Behind that bush right there.
Rusk: Yep, but there is probably ten foot from that bush to that white thing out there to.
See where that tree is at, it sits closer to the house.
Daily: Right.
Rusk: Where that sidewalk comes out right there, that white thing in the yard, that is the old sidewalk. It would sit right in there.
Daily: On this side?
Rusk: On that side. It would be in between that tree and sidewalk.
Daily: I think if you look at your sheets, there is a little rectangle with hash marks, that is the area that he is talking about.
Fisher: The hash marks on the map shows where the shed could be place.
Wagner: You said it was a metal shed, sir?
Rusk: Yes.
Wagner: You understand that it has to be placed three foot from the property line and 10 foot from your house?
Rusk: Yes.
Wagner: And 60 foot from the road, Walnut Street.
Rusk: Yes.
Jordan: You aren’t sure how big of a metal building this is?
Rusk: No. It is probably, it would go from here to there. (from the podium to the edge of the desk.) It is not going to be high.
Wagner: You could walk in it?
Rusk: Yes.
Wagner: Do you think it is a 10 ft square, 12 ft. square?
Rusk: Maybe a 12 foot square.
Wagner: Does the size of the shed reflect on what he can do here?
Fisher: Not really. The biggest issue is that they have two front yards. If we give them a variance to put one in the front yard, we have already determined what the buildable area is, so Joe and Bob can tell them, based on that, what size shed they can have. If this shed is too big, then they will have to go for something smaller.
Wagner: You say it is still in the box>
Rusk: Yes.
Spencer: Can I ask you a question, when you put that shed in there which way is the door going to face?
Rusk Mrs.: It is going to be facing Seven Mile Drive.
Rusk: No, it is going to fact this way.
Geeting: Face the north?
Wagner: It is going to face the south.
Rusk: Where that tree is, when you sit it in there it is going to go where that little white thing is. The door is going to be that way.
Rusk Mrs.: It is going to be towards the Seven Mile.
Rusk: No it is not towards Seven Mile, it is going to be south.
Spencer: If you put the door back towards Seven Mile, back towards the street right here, you can look like the front door is facing and it looks like a utility shed in my way of looking at it.
Rusk: You can see the shed. It is laying right there on the ground and you mow around it. It is laying in that box right there by the trash cans.
Wagner: It looks like it fits between the two windows?
Rusk: Yep.
Daily: That is probably an 8x8.
Jordan: You do understand that if we grant the variance you will have to comply with what Bob Wherley tells you where you can place that?
Rusk: Yes.
Jordan: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? You can go ahead and be seated.
Dave, does the City staff have anything else on this?
Daily: No.
Jordan: I have no problem with granting a variance for them to place the shed in the back yard but I think we need more information, the size of it and more about the location.
Wagner: Can we put a condition on the motion, if we want to approve this, that the shed must comply with Mr. Wherley’s review of the size?
Jordan: It does go to the Appeals Board for final approval, so maybe some of the questions could be answered before it hits that.
Daily: Can they pass it with those stipulations that that information be provided to the Appeals Board and Tom you could take that forward?
Fisher: It would be allowed in the front yard, but otherwise they must meet all the required setbacks.
Wagner: From my point of view, I think it, not knowing the size of the shed, it would appear to me that it meets all of the variance requirements from Chapter 1133.07 of those six, so I have no problem with the variance approval as long as it is conditioned that the shed size meets approval.
Spencer: It meets every one of those six on there.
Jordan: Are there any other comments on that, is everyone comfortable with that?
Geeting: What are the measurements on the hashed section?
Fisher: That hashed area is where they could put a new shed.
Geeting: Right, how wide?
Fisher: That is the area they have to work with.
Jordan: Do you know what the measurements were on that.
Daily: It is right there on the sheet, 17’4”x59.’
Geeting: That would take a pretty good size building.
Wagner: That shed could be 17’4” wide at any point in this hashed area, the length wouldn’t make any difference as long as his setbacks work.
Jordan: In that case, I think we should set a stipulation on the square footage if we don’t know the exact size of the building they are going to construct. That or table the matter until they can answer the questions.
Wagner: I don’t know, I think if we could put a stipulation on the approval or recommendation that they be able to answer the size of the shed for the Appeals Board.
Fisher: They still would never be able to construct a shed to fill that entire hashed area, because they would then be in violation of lot coverage. Bob is going to be looking at the percentage of lot coverage that you can have. There is no way they can build one that big. We were just trying to show you the workable area. It looks a lot smaller in the pictures than the actual area they have to work with.
Wagner: But they can move the shed anywhere in that square as long as it met size.
Fisher: But they cannot build one that covers that entire hashed area.
Wagner: According to that box that shed isn’t going to take up no where near that area.
I move for a recommendation of approval for case AB-05-18 to construct a shed at 121 Walnut Street based on the fact that it meets all conditions listed in Chapter 1133.07 in that it’s special condition is that it has two front yards, two streets on each side of the property; applying strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district; the two streets on both sides of the house were not self created; granting this variance would provide minimum necessary relief for the property owner; granting this variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and of course the variance does not require a change in the zoning district, with the stipulation that the size of the shed be reviewed by the building official to determine if it is properly placed in the area that is designated. Motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
MJ-05-01 - Major Subdivision - John and/or Eleanor Hake - Hake Business Park:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a major subdivision to split the 54.224 acre tract recently annexed to the City, zoned ‘P-1,’ in two tracts. In addition, the applicants wish to record a proposed dedication for the future extension of Preble Drive, running north to south, across this tract. The tract to the west of the proposed Preble Drive extension will consist of 40 acres and is to be purchased by Grandview Hospital. The tract to the east of the proposed Preble Drive extension will consist of 12.323 acres and will be retained by the Hakes.
Who is representing this request tonight?
Pope: Mr. Chairman my name is Stephen Pope and I am here on behalf of John and Eleanor Hake. This will be a brief overview. The Hakes would like to take current City outlot #203 and have it converted into Hake Business Park as we have presented it. As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, Lot #1 would consist of 40.000 acres and Lot #2 would be 12.323 acres. Also, there is a 1.901 acre tract which is a strip of land 80 ft. wide that would separate those two lots and that would be for the future extension of Preble Drive. The approval of this plat, Mr. Chairman, would allow that strip to be dedicated to the Public. It would not be accepted, acceptance would only come after that improvement had been completed. To get it dedicated that would be a part of this plat and it would just be for recording purposes only and I have made that a part of my plat as directed by your Law Director. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, that is probably the crux of it. I have nothing else to add and if you have any questions I would be glad to try and answer them.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any questions at this time? Dave, what is staff review on this?
Daily: I asked Mr. Ferriell to put a letter to you and hopefully you have had a chance to review that. Typically we do the full review of all the different criteria, but this is a little different in that they are trying to move it forward for record purposes only. As Mr. Pope pointed out, we requested that that change be added and if you looked under Approvals under Plat, you will see that. A bigger picture of this, it is tied to the development and possible medical facility which Grandview Hospital would be constructing on the West side. The street, I would note, essentially complies with the transportation trend of the Comprehensive Development Plan. At such time that they start to develop that street, all the requirements would be reviewed by the City Engineer. At this point and time this approval would be for record purposes only. If you look at the overhead map, this would co-locate to Delaware Crossing.
Wagner: Explain that Delaware Crossing Street again, if you don’t mind. How does that come in this plat?
Daily: This is the 12 acres and it will be splitting up.
Wagner: Are we going to require the street to go through?
Daily: My guess is, that we are going to. Our transportation plan follows this and I only point out that that street currently dead-ends. Ideally this would one day connect as that is built.
Daily: Donnette, if this is approved for record purposes and then the full plans are brought in to complete the preliminary and it is after the new code, then they would then be required to adhere to that criteria?
Fisher: As you see on the sheets for tonight, this plat does not meet the requirements of Section 1105 where they are required to show the streets, the sewer, the water. It can’t until the hospital and Hakes decide to develop that property. One thing that I would recommend is that you condition your approval of this preliminary plat, that when they do decide to develop they be required to submit a new preliminary plat showing those things. Unless they are going to start construction before December 8th, which I don’t think will happen, they will have to submit a preliminary under the new Zoning Code.
We are just trying to do this to move along. The Hospital can’t buy it until it is split and it can’t be split until there is a plat showing what the plans are for that land and it is recorded.
Wagner: Preble Drive, that extension of Preble Drive, has it already been dedicated?
Daily: No, this lower section was, but this section was not.
Spencer: It is only up to this point, right?
Daily: Correct.
Fisher: The original plan and in Council, it has been a month ago, approved a resolution of a plat, it is the one hanging on its side, showing Preble Drive for record purposes only. That included the Commissioners, the Church and the Hake property. What you will hear in the next application is, the Commissioners made the decision that, rather than dedicate the land to us they wanted to come up with a process where that they are going to transfer it to us, free and clear. It would be an easement only we would own it. Based on that, I recommended to Mr. Pope that since a major subdivision was going to be done anyway, that they just show the dedication from the Hakes on there, the preliminary plat for the subdivision, and then they can get it recorded. The only one still up in the air is the church.
Daily: The bigger picture is that Grandview is making a significant investment and to get from here to there, there is no street there and everyone is being very careful as this moves forward because of who is going to construct that street and until certain legal issues are resolved on paper, it has to move forward in little bits. Actually, this is tied with it. I don’t think this is going to go to the City. I think they might be tying that back to the YMCA with deed restrictions on that little thin area. We know that the street will be servicing this parcel that we are talking about right now. We have been recording things rather than doing the dedications, just allow the paper work to move forward, so that ultimately there is a contract and all of the parties are satisfied and then they can start doing full plans and the build out.
Fisher: The City doesn’t want to accept right-of-way until a street is there, they don’t want to have to build the street.
Wagner: If they transfer the property and we own it, won’t we be obligating ourselves to build it?
Worthington: I am Katie Worthington and I am counsel for the County Commissioners.
What the County wishes to do actually is to have that portion be transferred, by deed, with the deed restriction placed upon it that it can only be used for a road when the transfer goes over to the Youth Foundation. We have already spoken with Judge Dues over at the Youth Foundation. He has agreed to go ahead and accept it and with that deed restriction he will go ahead and make sure the dedication goes through with it. It will be taken care of in that manner.
Spencer: With a deed restriction?
Worthington: Yes. So that we can insure that that road is going to go through that property. I think it is everyone’s intention that that road go through that property.
Jordan: Do the Board members understand what they are trying to do and accomplish, move forward with?
Wagner: I think it is important that we approve this tonight because we don’t want to hold up the development of that and the agreements between all the parties involved here. We are just approving for record not approving anything other than that at this point. I don’t know how I would make a motion to that effect?
Fisher: If we do make a motion to approve this plat, you make it a condition that at the time they decide to develop it, they be required to submit a preliminary plat showing everything they are required to. This one doesn’t. I don’t think there is anyway we can make them show that on this one, but we would need to see one with that on it should they decide to develop it.
Jordan: It is different from what we have done in the past, but I understand we have to do this one different because of all of the legalities and parties involved. I think if there was a motion made with that condition, that they would come back with the proper preliminary plat, I would be satisfied with that. I don’t want to hold progress up.
Wagner: Does this go from here to the Appeals Board?
Fisher: This is it.
Wagner: I move that we approve case #MJ-05-01 with the condition that when the parties decide to develop they be required to resubmit a preliminary plat meeting the requirements of Chapter 1105 for approval or the new UDO. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a minor subdivision to split two tracts of its existing Outlot 195. Both proposed tracts sit near the intersection of Washington Jackson Road and Preble Drive. The first tract consists of 4 acres and is immediately adjacent to the Preble County YMCA tract to the east. The second tract consists of 0.552 acres and will constitute the area needed for the future extension of Preble Drive to the north.
Worthington: My name is Katie Worthington and I am with the Preble County Prosecutors Office and I am here representing the Board of Preble County Commissioners. I don’t know what all you received in your packets, but I will just refer you to the nice colorful one to begin with. I think that is an easier way to explain what is going on here. In this situation we have two different deeds. The county has been making divisions of the property without going through minor subdivisions for quite some time. It is one of the things that we found out so that is why I am here to try to rectify the situation. The portion down here at the bottom that is one deed, the portion here at the top is another separate deed. The portion that I am talking about, in this situation, is up here on the top. This big 10-acre, that is the Y, this 7 acre, that is where the church is going to go in, and you see that we have this yellow and this other yellow here. The Youth Foundation has come before the Preble County Commissioners and has asked for this property right over here. It is the Commissioners intention is to go ahead and to sell that property to them. I don’t know how we are going to end up doing it, but it is going to end up going to them. With that we will also give that road, a little piece of the road with it. It will be listed as two separate tracts on the deed. One tract will be for the four acres and the second tract will be 0.552 acres for the road. The road will be, have a deed restriction placed on it as well because it is not the Commissioner intention in any manner to impede the ability for us to get that hospital. I think everyone wants the hospital here, progress is good. That is what we are here for, to make the minor subdivision split to be able to take this four acres off, which quite frankly, it kind of is already. There is already that ten acres in the middle. That is what I am here for. I didn’t have a very good description of the property to the west of that 10 acres and I actually have a property description of that now. Unfortunately, not unfortunately, it is just a fact of the matter that the deed granting all of that land for the County is from 1859 and the handwriting was very difficult to read. Because so many splits had been made off of the property, never before had they actually gone through and figured out exactly what we had left over. I do have a map of the remainder now for that property if you would like to see that. I just gave your Law Director a copy of it.
Fisher: What she is saying is that all of that land to the north of Washington Jackson is one deed and this map that she has for you, it is the one to the left of the Youth Foundation. That is going to be the remaining tract out of this plat.
Worthington: You can see what it is going to look like there.
Spencer: Is the Youth Foundation buying the four acres?
Worthington: They will end up buying the four acres, yes. If you have any other questions, feel free.
Daily: Katie, on that deed restriction on the street, is that essentially half of the street, is that correct?
Worthington: Yes, it is half.
Daily: Then half will come from the Church?
Worthington: Yes. I don’t know, has the Church signed off on that yet?
Daily: Not that I am aware of.
Pope: The Church did sign off on that old plat, so now what we will have to do is to prepare a new dedication plat for the Church and get them to resign that. Will that constitute a minor subdivision, I don’t believe it will.
Fisher: No, I don’t believe it would.
Wagner: Are we talking about that little strip of land?
Worthington: I don’t know if you have heard about all of this, but I will let you know. The Y has been an astronomical success, which is a good thing for the County and the City of Eaton. It has become such a success though, they found that they need to grow. They would like to add a gymnasium and then another thing that they would like to add is space so that they can bring in a Community College and they have been in talks with Sinclair, IUPI, Miami University there are many of the different colleges around to actually have College courses here in the County and they would be had at the facility there at the Y. That is why the extension of that four acres. We are just adding on that portion for the road so that, because we know the City is in the same position as we are, we don’t want to pay for the road to go in. It is going to go to the Youth Foundation and then the Youth Foundation can deal with the hospital.
Jordan: I will address my next question to Donnette being you are our City Law Director, do you have any problem with this procedure?
Fisher: As I put on your sheet, the only problem we had in reviewing it, when you do a minor sub you have to meet the subdivision regulations and the zoning code. Both lots have the required forty feet abutting frontage on a public street, so they meet the subdivision requirement. The problem is the Zoning Code. That land is zoned ‘P-1.’ The 4 acre lot meets the lot size requirements of ‘P-1’ so there is no problem there, but the 0.552 acre lot does not meet the lot size requirements for ‘P-1.’ Now, with the understanding that that is to be dedicated for street, I would suggest that you condition the approval of that subdivision upon it being dedicated at the street for Preble Drive.
Otherwise, you are creating a lot that doesn’t meet the lot requirements of the Zoning Code.
Daily: You would leave out the condition that the 0.552 acres be transferred to the City with the extension?
Fisher: When I did these sheets it was my understanding that that was how the process was going, that that was going to be transferred to the City.
Daily: We want the Board to know that that is not the case, it is going to be a deed restriction from the Youth Foundation.
Worthington: The County will place a deed restriction on it when the property is transferred.
Daily: That runs with the land?
Worthington: Yes.
Fisher: The problem there being, you have created a non-conforming lot.
Wagner: They could actually just make it one deed and put a deed restriction on that acreage that it be.
Fisher: Make it a 4.552 acre lot with a deed restriction that that 0.552 acres be dedicated for road right-of-way. That would seem to me to be a cleaner way to do it because if that is not going to be transferred to the City specifically for road purposes you have just created a non-conforming ‘P-1’ lot.
Worthington: If the City wanted to accept the 0.552 acres.
Daily: No.
Worthington: That is the problem. Again, the same problem that County ran into, the County did not want to build the roadway there. They don’t want to have the responsibility for it; however, they agree that the roadway should go on that property and they want it to go on that property which is why we would place the restriction on that portion.
Fisher: David Reed, who is the attorney for Grandview, has assured us, they won’t put anything in writing, the hospital is going to build that road. The reason they will not put the agreement in writing is because being a hospital they are eligible for certain grants from the state. It they put it in writing that they are going to build that road, they may not be able to get some of those grants and tax breaks. That is why they won’t put it in writing. Based on everything that I am hearing tonight, it may be a better idea to make that a 4.552 acre lot and then let them put a deed restriction on that 0.552.
Worthington: Which that can be done.
Fisher: That is a non-conforming tract, that is the problem.
Wagner: That wouldn’t slow up the process at all, would it?
Fisher: You may have to table it for a month. It will still go under the old Zoning Code.
Worthington: Or you could offer the condition on the motion that you would condition it upon the transfer occurring with the whole property plat.
Jordan: The City staff, which way would they rather see it?
Daily: I think we would rather see it as one lot with the deed restriction.
Fisher: Good.
Geeting: It makes more sense to have the deed restriction.
Wagner: Do we call it the same thing, but just put the condition on it?
Fisher: What condition are you going to put on it now because it is not coming to us, it is going from the Board to the Youth Foundation.
Daily: He means condition that the deed restriction be applied to the 0.552 tract.
Fisher: For road purposes only? You could do that, but it is going to be a lot cleaner if you do it as one tract.
Worthington: I have no problem with it being done that way. The County has no problem with doing it that way. I was just talking with Stephen back there, he actually drew the maps for the 4 acre and the 0.552 acre tracts of land, it is not going to take anything to stick those two together on one map. The hard work has been done. The surveys have been completed.
Wagner: So then the action here tonight, should we want to make this a cleaner transaction, we just disapprove this?
Worthington: Or you could approve it upon the condition that the plat had those two properties together, so it would 4.552 acres instead of the 4 acres and the 0.552 acres.
Jordan: Wouldn’t it be cleaner if we tabled this and you came back with the 4.552 with the deed restriction on it?
Fisher: That is City Staff’s recommendation.
Worthington: I can do that.
Jordan: I think that would be cleaner to me and make life easier for everyone, rather than putting conditions on the motion.
Worthington: And have to wait and see if that was actually followed through with.
Jordan: You are okay with that and know basically what to do about it?
Worthington: I know exactly how to get this done.
Wagner: It will not hold up anything?
Worthington: No, it will not hold up anything. Thank you.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have anything else to discuss on this or anymore questions? I will entertain a motion to table.
Coleman: I move that we table MR-05-04 and Tim Lane seconded it. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Old Business:
Jordan: Do we have any old business?
Wagner: I would like to report to the Board that the first reading of the Comprehensive Development Plan was last night and it will be read again at the next Council meeting next week.
Fisher: In addition to the changes you had wanted on the map, we also wrote it up and I wrote it for Council so it would mirror what our maps said, so the homes to the west, those four and the Church, we created a Romadoor Special Planning Area for those homes. The Melling property was added into the North Gateway, which is the Wal-Mart Development.
Daily: I am surprised that Gary missed this, we had the second reading of the UDO not the Comp Plan.
Wagner: Our next Board meeting is when?
Fisher: Your next Board meeting, the application deadline for December, you will still be applying the old code. You will be using the new code in January.
Wagner: Okay.
Jordan: Anything else?
Daily: There are a couple more things. Two things, at the Appeals Board the Roach sign came up, you recall that, what is the situation with that? I talked with Bob Wehrley, several issues there, there is some things on the building code, ADA issues and the sign. They are meeting with the Commercial Plan Examiner tomorrow to see which citation to get for an adjudication order on the Ohio Building Code and also the sign is separate from that and there will be an order going out to remove it. We have done everything we can to avoid litigation, but we may be going to that point. It is like the Rusk thing, we like to try to take care of things internally before litigating, but we might just be there.
Also, Dairy Queen, you may have heard some rumors about that. A Corporation out of Columbus purchased Dairy Queen and we have met with them and they do intend to open this Dairy Queen. They are doing a significant face-lift and change some things in there. One of the issues that goes back probably fifteen or twenty years ago, they constructed that overhang building. The benches, if you are sitting closest to the street, are just completely in the City right-of-way. They did that with a building permit. We met with them and confirmed that there are some right-of-way issues there. Again, we don’t want to go the hard route, we want to address this so that both parties are satisfied, so we are going to clean it up on paper. Donnette has been researching that today and we can probably abandon the right-of-way, which then it goes to the adjacent owner; however we want to put some kind of a restriction in there, probably through a separate document, that the City will be protected in the future if we want to do a street widening where we won’t have to go in and do the large appropriation. She is working on that so she can report back to Council the 21st.
Jordan: Do you have anything else?
Fisher: Skyline opens November 15th.
Jordan: I have one thing in Old Business that I was going to ask about the Dairy Queen, but you satisfied that curiosity. Driving north into town, what do you gentlemen think of the signs? Do you think we have done a good job on it? Personaly, I think they look nice. I think we have done the City a justice with them.
Daily: They are cleaner instead of a tree.
Jordan: When you drive to the north and then turn around and come back and get down below five points they have signs up in the air. I think we have done a fine job developing that plat up there and I hope we can continue to do so.
Any other old business?
New Business:
Gary Wagner made a motion to adjourn the meeting and it was seconded by Ron Coleman. All was yes.
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None.
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Secretary Chairman