SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON OCTOBER 18, 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, October 11, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
The roll was called and the following were found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Stanley Spencer
Tim Lane
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan
Absent: Harold Geeting
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Joe Ferriell and Law Director Donnette Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the September 13, 2005 meeting were read. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Gary Wagner and seconded by Ron Coleman. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Lane (1)
SWEARING IN:
All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to stand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.
AB-05-17 - Variance - Dave Hoffman - Skyline Chili - 1704 N. Barron Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s sign regulations for the new Skyline Chili restaurant located on the lot north of Bob Evans, which is zoned ‘C-1.’ General Commercial. The applicant is requesting three variances (1) to be allowed to have two structure type signs (monument sign and wall sign) instead of the allowed one structure type; (2) to be allowed four business signs (1 monument and 3 wall signs) instead of the allowed two business signs; and (3) to be allowed a total sign area of 122.49 square feet instead of the allowed 49.5 square feet. Who is representing this tonight?
Hoffman: I am David Hoffman and will be representing this tonight. What I would like to do is actually nothing more than a sign variance for our new Skyline Chili restaurant and we are asking for the opportunity to do just a normal Skyline package sign, which wherever you eat at Skyline, you would see the same thing. Our variance would be a monument sign, which we have complied with, most of the time you would see a regular pole sign. The City of Eaton has asked us to do a monument sign, which we agreed with and thought would be a wonderful opportunity to do something like that. With that said, we are asking to put up two additional signs. One on the rear of the building and another one on the side, we feel that we need this. The Wal-Mart has the big sign right in front of our property so coming north on 127 we are obscured, Bob Evans sticks out a little further than we do so we are asking for the extra amount of signage to make sure we have a successful business in the City of Eaton. As well as Wal-Mart being a big box retailer right behind us, their large signs will, obviously they have quite a bit of signage that will actually overpower the back of our building so we would like to put a sign on the back of our building as well. That is what our variance is for.
Jordan: You are going to have a sign on the side of the building towards Bob Evans?
Hoffman: Yes.
Jordan: Also one toward the rear, toward Wal-Mart?
Hoffman: Yes, and one on the front and then the monument sign. There is nothing on the side of the drive thru which is coming southbound on 127.
Jordan: Which would be the north side of the building?
Hoffman: Yes, the north side.
Jordan: Any Board members have any questions at this time for Mr. Hoffman? If not, Joe what is the Staff review on this?
Ferriell: The zoning district is ‘C-1.’ Section 1169.06 (a) allows for a wall sign, one monument sign. However, section 1169.06 (b) (1) (A&B) requires the sign to be along the building face parallel to the street and that only one structural sign allowed and only two signs allowed.
We take a look at structural type first. There are 2 structural types requested. I was going to go over the old code and the new code. Only one structural type is allowed in under the old code, but under the new code a monument and a wall sign is allowed there for a variance of structural type is not needed. The number of signs is 4 signs requested. The old code allows for two business signs therefore a variance of four is requested. Under the new code, the code allows for a monument sign and one wall sign; however the wall sign has to be along the street frontage, therefore we only have two signs allowed. They want to put one along the backside and along the south side. Square footage, there are three wall signs for a total of 75.96 sq. ft. There is a monument sign of 46.53 sq. feet for a total of 122.49 sq. feet. Under the old code we allow 1.5 sq. feet of sign for every foot of frontage. There is 33 ft. frontage so we allow 49.5 sq. ft. allowed and that leaves us a variance of 72.99 sq. ft. under the old code. Under the new code you have the same 33 ft. frontage but we allow two square feet per lineal ft., for a total of
66 sq. ft. The monument sign is allowed under the new code at 50 sq. ft. for a total of 116 sq. ft. allowed. That would leave us a variance of 6.49 sq. ft.
The variance must also meet the general requirements of Chapters 1169.06 (a) & (b) (1) (A&B) page 138.
We have some photographs we want to show you here.
Pictures shown>
Daily: You are all familiar with this. Some of the other sign representation in the area. Bob Evans, Pizza Hut and Arby’s.
Wagner: I drove up there and looked around and I don’t see any particular problem with their request. The rear entrance is an issue because it is actually a rear entrance from Wal-Mart, but it is a road created by us so I consider it a frontage sign. That would give them three signs for both fronts and the ground sign. Their request is just for the south side. The one that is a little bit unusual. When you look at Pizza Hut, I don’t find it unusual at all.
Spencer: I agree with you.
Jordan: I have to agree with Gary. When I looked up there Arby’s has three signs, two on the wall plus their pole sign. Pizza Hut has four or five if you count that one in the back. I really don’t think it is a lot of overage. You have that access road to the back, which we created.
Wagner: Or the court did.
Jordan: I don’t see where it is an excessive amount of signage.
Deffner: Did the Pizza Hut have to go through any type of variance, I don’t recall.
Jordan: We had Pizza Hut here, but I don’t remember.
Fisher: Pizza Hut was in the allowable area and they didn’t need a variance.
Wagner: They had more signs than they were allowed.
Fisher: You gave them a variance on the structure type and I believe you gave them a variance to allow them the extra sign. We discussed if we were going to figure that access as frontage.
Jordan: Anyone else have any thoughts?
Deffner: I do. In looking at the code that we have, either the new or the old, if we allow this variance, do we not open ourselves up for about anything that goes?
Jordan: Really, each case stands on it’s own.
Fisher: The only thing with the new code and the old code, the two structure types in the new code goes into effect, the variance disappears because they would be in compliance with that, they are allowed two. If you view the access drive as street frontage, and the way it is worded in the new code you could do that, and they would be allowed two wall signs, for sure. You would be allowing them one extra, not two extra, and your total area, you would only be giving them 6.49 ft. more rather than giving them 73 ft. more under the old code. It is still a variance under the new code but it is not as extensive.
Spencer: Another factor that comes in to it are the signs themselves, especially like yours. It is a Corporate sign, the same as it is everyplace. I think that if something crazy and wild came in we would still have the opportunity to hear them on a case-to-case basis.
Jordan: I think we compared those to the new code, to the old code and looking at the new code he is asking for 6.49 sq. ft. basically, is what the variance is going to be.
Wagner: Plus the extra south sign. Other than that there are no real issues under the new code.
Fisher: They will be allowed one extra wall sign and an extra 6.49 sq. ft.
Jordan: The signs are not that big to begin with, it is not like they are putting 4x8 sheets up there. They are smaller signs and it won’t be that big of a problem with that south side.
Deffner: Are you open 24 hours a day and the lights will be on 24 hours a day?
Hoffman: Not at this time.
Jordan: Are all the signs lit?
Hoffman: Yes.
Wagner: I move that we approve case AB-05-17 in that it meets applicable standards in Chapter 1133.07 variances, page 43. In that special conditions and circumstances exist with the property in that it has a rear entrance. Strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that we have allowed sign variances for the same purposes. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, as the rear entrance was not self-created, it was created by Court or by us. Granting the variance would provide the minimum necessary relief and granting the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, and the variance will not constitute a change in the zoning district.
The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lain, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Old Business:
Jordan: Do we have any old business tonight?
Wagner: Would the Comp Plan fall under Old Business or would it fall under New Business?
Jordan: I would say New Business. Old business, the UDO is going to Council or has been to Council for the second reading?
Fisher: It went to Council, I did a nine-page list of all the changes the committee had made and a couple of Council members wanted to see the whole thing again. Marsha made the copies today and they will be delivered tomorrow and they will be voting on it at the November meeting. It will be effective the beginning of December and we will actually start using it in January.
Daily: There was not a new committee started last night.
Fisher: Any application that is filed in November for the December Planning Board meeting, it will still be filed under the old zoning code. You will start using the new code in January.
New Business:
Wagner: As representative of Council and member of the Planning Board I was requested by Council, to bring the Comprehensive Development to your attention in the particular area which is from Fudge Avenue to Five Points. The consensus is that we have some issues up there that we need to address to the Board and maybe change the Comprehensive Plan to fit the area, more so, than it was two or three years ago. There is particular interest in the corner lot we addressed last month, and the area from Five Points or just north of McDonalds to Wendy’s. The consensus is to address that as a Special Planning Area. If you want to address it, it is up to the Board however they want to address Five Points and from Eaton Avenue up to Fudge Avenue also. The main concern being that there are properties there that in the future will go commercial, my opposition was always the Plan and the way the Plan was written. Quite frankly, I still stand by the way the Plan was written but I think we need to change the Plan so we have more options in that area. In addition to that, properties up there aren’t selling and we don’t want a lot of vacant properties up there. We want to be able to utilize those properties to their best benefit. It is not fair to those property owners because this is a catch twenty-two, because nobody wants to buy those properties for residential use at this point so it appears that they may be acceptable for commercial, a ‘C-2’ zoning area. As representative of Council, I am bringing this forward to you so that you can discuss it and make a recommendation to Council on how you want to change the development Plan or what are the steps here. Do we change the Plan, so desiring and send it to Council for recommendation?
Fisher: You make a recommendation to Council and then they vote on it.
Daily: I have photos here of some of the subject area. We thought we would present this tonight and see if you thought it was helpful.
On the west side there is those four residential uses up there. This is the longest area here where you pull back into Romadoor, this is north looking south, here is the Wendy’s and down in here is the McDonalds. It is interesting that you can readily spot the residential districts by the tree lines. Here the trees are gone and to the south they are gone, but this clump of trees is where those four homes are located. The church a little further to the north. I believe this is the property you discussed at one of your previous meetings, just south of Wendy’s. These are the four properties. The church over here is residential but on the Comp Plan it showed commercial. These are the homes on the Comp Plan that show residential.
This is a map of the area and when we were doing the Comp Plan and put these gray areas as Special Planning Areas. One of the reasons that these were made Special Planning Areas is that, this has been annexed with the Wal-Mart development, this has yet to be annexed here although there is a pre-annexation agreement with the Church. One of the reasons that these were largely made a Special Planning Area is that neither one of the areas had complete infrastructure. It is hard to say what could go in there without infrastructure and we were right in the middle of the hearings in the Federal Court on the Wal-Mart issues so there was a lot of unknowns as to what was going to happen. Washington-Jackson was not done yet, we were investigating the TIF to put that in, we had about $800,000.00 we were getting from RG Enterprises and some of the other things were the access road in the back that we got some restrictions on and so on and so forth. That is why that went in as a Special Planning Area, because of the infrastructure and certain controls up there.
Fisher: Actually, the final shows the Wal-Mart property and the Price property behind it as Commercial.
Wagner: The final version does show the Wal-Mart area and the other area on the other side of it as Commercial.
Daily: One thing that we did know was that once that went Commercial up here that there would start being pressures for some of these residential properties to go to some form of Commercial. The division line was where Fifth-Third is, that sets the tone there.
What you were looking at was the corner property there and what is going to happen there. I know Council made certain commitments to those residents along Fudge Avenue and one of the things we didn’t know or would not happen was quite a bit of citizen protest would come forward with this latest issue, but apparently there was actually support from some residents.
Wagner: On the corner lot there was, yes.
Daily: Right and that obviously is a good thing. The good thing about that lot too is that it would not have access off of Barron Street. As this develops, one of the things that we want to be very careful with is the number of curb cuts along North Barron Street. I think that it is very evident, when you look at the Wal-Mart development, with all those businesses that are going in there, if you can imagine what it would be like if all those curb cuts were in the front versus where they are. I think the way that went was certainly good and we want to do the same as much as possible, but that would not be an issue with that property. Back on the other side, those four properties, that would be a question and an area of concern. As Gary had mentioned, maybe that needs to be a Special Planning Ares. In discussion with Donnette, Planning Board could exercise a lot more control as a Special Planning District in that area, specifically with respect to curb cuts. Those are some of the things that staff has looked at in this process. Looking here, there was talk about what do you do with all those other homes, those fourteen residential uses on the east side. I guess this is up to Planning Board and your discretion as to when is the time to do something there, is it now or do you wait and see what kind of pressures develop for this section. That is just a nice straight fourteen homes. Again, looking at that area and it is tree lined and a residential area.
Wagner: Making it a Special Planning Area doesn’t necessarily change the zoning? Is that correct?
Daily: No. What we are looking at here is not zoning issues it is Comp Plan, Commercial and you would not specify which kind of Commercial, just Commercial.
Wagner: That is what I am saying. If we made it a Special Planning Area it gives us flexibility to address those problems differently as opposed to just adhering to the Plan as it is written today.
Daily: Right. I think as a example, and Donnette and I talked about this, the property that didn’t come in, Hamm’s, how do you assure that you address this issue of curb cuts and let them have something of low-intensity? You could allow them to have that low-intensity but with the specification that some time in the future that as those other properties develop, that they would have to link up with say two curb cuts for those four properties. That is what would be special about that particular area there.
Wagner: Donnette, I think Council is particularly interested in our approach to the corner lot that we had last month and the west side, those properties that are intermixed with Commercial areas.
Daily: We took some pictures here of that subject property on the corner and you can see looking here back over from all directions.
Jordan: Donnette, what is the definition of a Special Planning Area?
Fisher: Areas designated as Special Planning Areas represent sections of Eaton where great development potential and/or unique conditions exist that would support more than one type of urban use or a concentration of multiple uses. Most of these areas also lack one or more vital development factors, such as public utilities and/or major transportation improvements, which may be available only in the later stages of the planning period due to current cost restraints and/or current demand. In most cases, the marketability of various types of land uses that may be feasible within the Special Planning Area will depend on the utility services available, transportation improvements completed, and surrounding land uses in the area at the time development takes place. Given these factors, Special Planning Areas should only be developed after more detailed master planning of the area is accomplished, such as that required for planned unit developments. In doing so, proper spatial and functional relationships can be ensured and a sprawl pattern resulting from small un-integrated fragments can be avoided.
Which is what you want to do with those four properties. If they develop, like if that one went in, you could always require that they have to give an access easement to the other three and when the other three develop you will have one access road going through which is two curb cuts. That is why I would recommend Special Planning Area for the four on the west side, you could control their access in-and-out.
Daily: It would be the three because that one sits by itself and you could tie it into the church as far as access.
Wagner: Even the one on the other side of the street access is on Romadoor.
If it is a Special Planning Area and lets say, for example, we have the same request that we had previously on the property south of Wendy’s. Would we have to change the zoning there to allow that?
Fisher: Yes, it would still have to be commercial, but to bring it in right off of the Comp Plan, if it is a Special Planning Area like it is up here, you can say on the Comp Plan it is in the Special Planning Area and we have certain concerns and one is the access. If we are going to rezone this we want you to give an access easement to these other two properties, that there would only be two curb cuts serving those three. If you make it commercial and they come in and they want commercial you are going to give them commercial. You can’t put any special restrictions on it, but in the Special Planning Area you can.
Jordan: I think we need to look at those four on the west side and the one on Fudge Avenue. The fourteen on the east side, I don’t think we need to look at those right now because I don’t see any need. I think there is a concern for the west side, those four lots and the one at Fudge Avenue, to the north, next to Fifth Third.
It is whatever the Board wants to do.
Wagner: I think Council is open to whatever the Board wants to do but I think they are particularly interested, from the feeling I got from them, in the four properties on the west and the corner lot at Fudge Avenue. They definitely want to protect Romadoor Subdivision and Fudge Subdivision.
Jordan: I know the people that I have talked to in the Fudge Avenue area thought that the proposal for the corner there was the best solution that they could have because it would be a restricted use down through there, it wouldn’t be another Wendy’s or anything like that, it would be just a small business.
The way the Comp Plan is written now it is a questionable area.
Wagner: So what do we do, who writes the addendum or writes this section over again?
Fisher: If you want to do that you simply make a recommendation to Council, and we make the change and they vote on it.
Jordan: Ron, what are your thoughts?
Coleman: I like the east side too, but I can see what you are saying. We haven’t had anything other there except that one to the north. I think we should go ahead and do this.
Deffner: I concur.
Lain: I go with the east.
Spencer: I have always been for it.
Wagner: Is the Church currently zoned Commercial or is it currently zoned Residential with Conditional Use?
Daily: It is zoned residential but the Comp Plan shows Commercial.
Wagner: My question is, if that Church is going to be sold, that property is going to be sold, if it is currently Residential.
Fisher: This isn’t zoning. This is just planning.
Wagner: I understand, but it shows that should be planned as a Commercial area.
Fisher: If in the future it should go Commercial. I would recommend adding the Brethren Church in, in that Special Planning Area.
Daily: Particularly there, because you know it wraps around and runs back behind McDonalds.
Wagner: We could make the Special Planning Area south of Wendy’s and all the way down to McDonalds, the whole area.
Fisher: As heavily traveled as that is anyway, North Barron. That was the thing with Wal-Mart, you don’t want all of those curb cuts coming out on there.
Wagner: I think the way that was done, it was the right way.
Fisher: This one up here, I don’t know if I think you need to put Special Planning Area on that, if you think that is going to join in with the development to the north of that, then I would just make that Commercial.
Jordan: So you are saying that the lot there at Fudge Avenue, we should recommend that it goes Commercial?
Fisher: If you want to recommend that, if you want to recommend that I would just go straight Commercial, I don’t know that you need to do a Special Planning area on that one lot.
Wagner: What the Special Planning Area does, as you said, it allows us some flexibility to create restrictions. I would just as soon as put that in a Special Planning Area at this point.
Fisher: I guess the reason I don’t see the need there is that you don’t have a North Barron access there.
Jordan: But at the same time we could help to protect the people on Fudge Avenue that have said they liked what was proposed, but if we change it to Commercial, other things could go in without any stipulations.
Fisher: If you change this to ‘C-3,’ there would still be buffering requirements in the back.
Jordan: I don’t think the residents concerns was more or less the buffering requirements, they were after the traffic, the lower density traffic, the ones that I had talked to.
Daily: Donnette, Mr. Early brought up a point, if that one lot were to go in a Special Planning District with some kind of restriction that it be low intensity that would not be a problem with them. It might address some of the issues that Tom just brought forward.
Fisher: They have already offered it, so I don’t know that they wouldn’t just do it as part of that zoning change.
Daily: If you put it up, as zoning then that is it period, right?
Fisher: They said that they would put deed restrictions on it.
Wagner: I think it would be cleaner to just put it in a Special Planning Area with what we are doing now and then address their issues later.
Fisher: If they put in deed restrictions that is even stronger than a Conditional Use permit. Dave, did you want to talk about Junction Village?
Daily: We would like for you to look at the Junction Village also when you are done looking at this area.
Jordan: Well, do we have to make a recommendation to Council to address this?
Fisher: I need for you either, in fact we have three to recommend to you tonight and you can vote on them separately or do them all at once.
Wagner: I would just as soon vote on the separately.
Jordan: I will then entertain a motion.
Wagner: I move that we recommend to Council that we make the area south of Wendy’s and north of McDonalds, a Special Planning Area and also the corner lot on Fudge Avenue and Barron Street on the north corner.
The motion was seconded by Stanley Spencer and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Fisher: As long as we are going in and changing the map, this area to the north of the Y that was just annexed, that is going to be purchased by Grandview Hospital, I think we should probably do that as Special Planning, don’t you?
Wagner: I am confused, didn’t Council just have the first reading on ‘P-1’?
Fisher: Yes. The blue is Institutional, but it came up today that we are still having some issues with this access road. We would probably leave that as Special Planning Area until we get the road in.
Wagner: The second reading will be coming before Council next month, will it be resolved by next month?
Fisher: They are going to have their zoning so it might make sense if we just go ahead and make it Institutional.
If they didn’t have their zoning yet, this would matter to them but we have already had the first reading for ‘P-1.’
They have to build the road or they don’t get their subdivision.
Daily: That is our protection.
Fisher: Yes, it comes down to that. Do you want to go ahead and change that then?
Wagner: I thought we had already did that.
Jordan: I thought we already set zoning on that?
Wagner: We already set zoning on that through Council and they are acting on that now.
Fisher: Do you want to change the Comp Plan to reflect the zoning?
Wagner: I get zoning and Comp Plan mixed up all the time.
Fisher: Not zoning. Do you want to do Junction Village?
Wagner: Do we want to finish this one first?
Jordan: Let’s finish this one first and then we will go to Junction Village.
Wagner: I move that we recommend to Council that they take the 55 acres north of the YMCA structure, the Hake property, I recommend that we have Council change the Comprehensive Development Plan to reflect ‘P-1’ zoning. The motion was seconded my Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Daily: We have a similar issue that came up in discussion, this house here, for many years Ed Sliver had his insurance office in there, probably for 30 years, and it is now Terri Roach Photography. What we did, we went around this area and took some pictures. At one time recently, this was also a hair salon but the signs are down so I guess it isn’t one now. Within this block is Kee Printing, a residential structure, Parker-Hannifin over here. This is the next block directly to the north, this is Mrs. Lincoln to the south and then across the street. There is a lot of mixed Commercial and Residential use in this area. Back over to the West, is Parker Hannifin, Hawley Building, Trends Hair Salon, and within this block is a large Rent-N-Store area. In a discussion in a previous meeting this area for Commercial use. As the town grows from the center out, headed north, you are seeing again some encroachment into residential areas. The area at Five-Points, that residential section from the railroad tracks and the businesses in Five Points, there are some residential uses in there similar to from Five Points up to the Wal-Mart development, which was 18 residential pieces in the same district. It is just like two sections with similar issues.
Fisher: Did you want to take that up two blocks or three, Dave? Part of the reason that I brought that up is, there are so many of those businesses that are in that area that were not included. In Junction Village, most of those uses you see are up in here. When you rezoned the Roach property, you said that we expect that area to go Light Commercial, to go the Urban Neighborhood Commercial and Office. To keep up with what you have already said, you see the zoning going, if you wanted to expand that Urban Neighborhood Commercial and Office. Then anything with a higher intensity would have to be a Conditional Use, that is the kind of thing that you have allowed.
Wagner: ‘C-2’ was less intensity in the new code?
Fisher: Yes, you are right ‘C-3’ under the old code and ‘C-2’ under the new code. It was a little confusing.
Jordan: I personally would like to go up there and view that area, drive around it and see what is up there before I make any decisions.
Wagner: As you recall I was opposed to that zoning request there to.
Daily: There are no pressing issues here like similar to our last discussion.
Wagner: I am not ready to give up that residential area, it is up to the other Board members as to what they want to do.
Fisher: That is what we are saying is that it is already there. Do you want the Comp Plan to express the reality of what is there?
Wagner: I am talking about the reality of that corner lot.
Fisher: The businesses back in here, is all light industrial and you have that right in the middle of this residential area. You can see that urban neighborhood acting here as a buffer between this industrial and residential that is right next to it.
Wagner: That industrial area has been there for years and years.
Fisher: That is where all of these uses and variances have popped up.
Wagner: That is true. If the Comp Plan is wrong then we need to correct the Comp Plan to reflect the reality that it is today, if it is wrong.
Fisher: No, it isn’t wrong. I just wondered if you wanted to expand that area to bring in other uses.
Jordan: That one corner lot is in violation now anyway, isn’t it? Don’t they have a sign up there that they are not allowed to have?
Fisher: You will have to talk to Mr. Wehrley about that.
Daily: They have gone through the normal channels and Bob has resorted to the point of having the Police Officers now delivering those.
Jordan: When we discussed that, one of the points she said was that she wasn’t going to have the sign.
Fisher: I have been mentioning it for a while and Bob is working on it.
Wagner: I would rather not do any action on that area this evening until we look at it a little further.
Fisher: Just go up there and take a look. We are just talking two or maybe three blocks in the area, just on the west side. If you cross the railroad tracks where that first block ends, taking that about one or three blocks to the north.
Wagner: If it were Mechanic Street it would be two blocks up. I want to look at that a little further.
Jordan: Does anyone want to take a look at that tonight or do you just want to address it later? Anymore new business?
Ron Coleman made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded by Steve Deffner.
Motion passed, meeting adjourned.
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Secretary Chairman