HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1990-05-03 Regularll
l
REGUIAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING CCM-1ISSION MAY 3, 1990 5:30 P.M. AGENDA
A REGUIAR MEETING OF .THE FRIENDffi\WD PLANNING AND ZONING CCM-1ISSION WAS HELD ON THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1990, AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL. THE FOLL<Ji\1ING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT:
BAKER -CHAIRMAN COLBURN HOLZ SCHUH KONCABA McHUGH WASSON
FRANKOVICH -LIAISON THCMPSON -CITY ENGINEERHENRY -DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORBRINKMAN -SECRm'ARY
WITH A QUORUM PRESENT AND RODGERS AB.SENT, THE FOLLCWING ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED.
1.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE REXXM-1ENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSEDAMENDMENI'S TO ZONING ORDINANCE :t\10. 84-15, SWI'ION K -SIGNREX:mLATIONS -ORDINANCE NO. 323.
THE CCMMISSION REVIEWED THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITH CITY ATI'ORNEY JOHN OISON. DISCUSSION FOLLCMED CONCERNING INTEm' AND WORDING OF VARIOUS PASSAGES. JOHN OISON MADE NOTE OF THE PLANNING (XM,USSION'S PROPOSED CHANGES ON HIS DRAFT AND WILL Rm'URN A COPY FOR REVIEW BY P&Z PRIOR TO ITS PRESENTATION 'ro CITY COUNCIL. CHAIRl-1.AN BAKER AISO DISCUSSED THE WORDING OF THE PROPOSED RECCMMENDATION WHICH WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES. JOHN OISON INFORMED THE PLANNING (XM,USSION THAT IT WOUID RE)'.JUIRE A 5 TO 2 VOI'E OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING CCMITSSION'S RECQ'l1MENDATION.
2.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE RECCM-1ENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSEDREVISION 'ro THE FWOD ORDINANCE (F'AA.NKOVICH).
C<M-1ISSIONER McHUGH TOLD OISON THAT THE CCMITSSION FELT THAT THE WORDING "WHEN SUBDIVIDING OR DEVELOPING" INDICATED THAT THE STUDY WOUID BE RE)'.JUIRED ON EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS BEING SUBDIVIDED. THE WORDING "ENGINEERING STUDY SHALL BE PROVIDED WHEN RffXM.1ENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER" WAS RECCM-1ENDED BY THE C<M,1JSSION IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT WHEN THE CITY ENGINEER FELT A STUDY WOULD Nar BE NECESSARY. OLSON ASKED WHO WOULD DEI'ERMINE IF A DEVELOPMENT 'Vi10UID HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE CITY. Ca-1MISSIONER HOLZSCHUH SAID THAT THE C<lv1MISSION HAD DECIDED TO LEI' THE CITY ENGINEER MAKE THE DETERMINATION. HOLZ SCHUH WENT ON TO SAY THAT LARGER DEVEI.OPMENTS WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE CLE.AR CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT; HOtlE'VER, THOSE SMALLER PROJECTS COULD BE HANDLED THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEER.
1
l J
P&Z
5/3/90
JOHN OISON SAID THAT THE ONLY TIME THE PLAT WAS SENT TO THE
DRAINAGE DISTRICT WAS DURING THE PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS, AND THAT
PROCESS WAS DIFFERENT FRCM A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNDER THE FLOOD
DAMAGE PREVENI.'ION ORDINANCE. THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
ORDINANCE IS A SEPARATE ANALYSIS OF DRAINAGE. IT HAS PROVISIONS
THAT APPLIES TO A SUBDIVISION, BUT AISO APPLIES WHEN A PERSON
GRADES HIS YARD, TAKES OUT A BUH.DING PERMIT, BUIIDS A STREN.r,
PARKING LCtr, OR WHA'I'EVF..R. THE FLOOD DAMAGE PRE'VENI'ION ORDINANCE,
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEMA, CAIJ.S FOR A PERSON TO GO
'l'HROUGH THAT CRITERIA OF EVALUATION FOR DEVELOPMENI'S THAT ARE
LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS, WHICH MEANS FLOOD
WAYS OR FLOOD PLANES. THE PROPOSED AMENIMEN1' ALU.lVS AN ANALYSIS
OF ALL DEVELOPMENI' RATHER IT IS LOCATED IN A SPECIAL FLOCD HAZARD
OR Nor, IF IT IS GOING TO HAVE AN .l\.DVERSE EFFECT. C<M-1ISSIONER
HOLZSCHUH TOLD OISON THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SELEx::'rED SITUATIONS
WHICH OBVIOUSLY DO t-.W REQUIRE ANY KIND OF ANALYSIS BOCAUSE THERE
WILL BE NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER, AND P&Z DID Nor FEEL IT WAS
NECESSARY TO REQUIRE A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS. ,JOHN OLSON STATED THAT
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PLANNING CCMMISSION WILL ASK THE CITY ENGINEER
TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND IF HE DEI'ERMINES THERE IS A
REQUIREMENT FOR ENGINEERING, IT WILL BE DONE, OI'HERWISE AN
ANALYSIS WILL Nor BE PREPARED. OLSON WENl' ON TO SAY THAT THE CI'J.'Y
WANTED THE OPTION TO LOOK AT EVERY PIECE OF PROPERTY RffiARDING ITS
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE. OLSON AISO STATED THAT THE CITY ENGINEER
PROBABLY IS THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
ORDINANCE AND HE IS THE ONE WHO DEI'ERMINES WHAT INFORMATION rs
REQUIRED. CHAIRMAN BAKER RESTATED THE POSITION OF THE CCMMISSION
THAT THE CITY ENGINEER SHOUID MAKE THE DETERMINATION IF AN
ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED. JOHN OISON SAID THAT IF A PERSON WAS SIMPLY
SUBDIVIDING A PROPF..RI'Y AND HAD NO PLANS OF IMPROVING THE PROPERTY,
HE WAS Nor REQUIRED TO DO AN ENGINEERING STUDY. THE AIM OF THE
PROPOSED AMENI:MENT WAS NOT WHEN SUBDIVIDING A PROPERTY BUT WHEN
BUILDING ON IT. ca-1MISSION McHUGH SAID THAT '!'HE ORDINANCE READ
"WHEN SUBDIVIDING OR DEVELOPING". OLSON SAID THAT HE UNDERSTOOD
Bill UNTIL IT IS� WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED, THE
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENl.'ION ORDINANCE DOES NOT GO INI'O EFFECT.
CURRENTLY THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE DOES Nor APPLY
UNLESS THE SUBDIVISION LIES WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLANE.
FRIENDSW<XD MAY HAVE AREAS THAT DO Nor FALL IN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD
PLANE; HOMEVER, ARE CLOSE EN:>UGH THAT A SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE A
MAJOR EFFECl'. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL GIVE THE PLANNING
C(M,ITSSION AND THE BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR, THE AUTHORITY TO
REQUIRE THE INSTAI.J . .ATION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN THERE IS
t,.'()T A SUBDIVISION OCCURRING.
CXMITSSIONER HOLZSCHUH SAID THAT THE CCMMISSION WANTED TO BE SURE
THAT IF A MAN 'WERE TO BUILD A 2,000 SQUARE FOOr HOUSE ON A 5 ACRE
TRACT OF LAND (WHICH WOULD Nor HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE OVERALL
DRAINAGE) THE CITY ENGINEER COUID DETERMINE THAT AN ENGINEERING
STUDY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. OLSON SAID THAT HE AGREED, AND
UNDERSTOOD THE CCMMISSION'S CONCERN WITH THE ¾ORDING. HE SAID
THAT HE OOULD REVISE THE WORDING SO THAT THE ENGINEER �"'OULD BE THE
2
---------
r-1
I
l
P&Z 5/3/90
DETERMINING FACI'OR IN THE REX')UIREMENT OF AN ENGINEERING STUDY.
OLSON SAID THIS ORDINANCE WILL PREVENT INSTANCES SUCH AS UNIPLEX BUSINESS PARK WHERE THE THE ENI'ITIFS INVOLVED DID Nar CONSIDFR THE PLAN AS A SUBDIVISION OF PROPERI'Y. BECAUSE IT WAS Nar CONSIDERED AS A SUBDIVISION, IT WAS Nar REFERRED TO THE CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT NOR WAS AN ANALYSIS RmUIRED. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WIIJ., GIVE THE CITY THE AUTHORITY TO REX)UIRE A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS IF THE PLANNING CCM'IISSION ELECTS TO DO SO. HE SAID THAT THE CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT WAS MERELY ADVISORY TO THE PLANNING Ca-1MISSION.
3.CCM.fUNICATIONS PROO THE PUBLIC
TED BOGREN ADDRESSED THE C<M-1ISSION CONCERNING THE DAWSONPROPERTY ON FM 528, KNOWN AS BCX;.A RATON. THE QUESTION WASCONCERNING A DRILL SITE WHICH HAD BEEN LF.ASED TO EXXOO. DR.DAWSON HAD BEEN SPEAKING WITH EXXON CONCERNING THEIR ABANDONINGTHE SITE OR RELOCATING THE DRILL SITE TO ANCY.I'HER LOCATION.BOGREN SAID THAT DR. DAWSON DID Nar WANT TO CHANGE THE ACREAGE;HOAlEVER, THEY WANTED TO REDEFINE THE SITE AND WERE ASKING FOR THEPROPER PROCEDURES. DEVELOP.MENI' COORDINATOR HENRY INFORMED THECa-1MISSION THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO BE REZONED BECAUSE ITHAD BEEN ZONED SPECIFIC USE BY ORDINANCE. SHOUID THE DRILL SITEBE RELOCATED, BOTH PIECES OF PROPERI'Y WOUID HAVE TO BE REZONED.
4.CGNSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL REPLAT OFWINDING WAY FSTA'l'ES -7.430 ACRES - A SUBDIVISION OF ALL OF WTS 1THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE OF WINDING WAY FSTATES SUBDIVISION -JONES.
CHAIRMAN BAKER SAID THAT HE HAD REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL AF'I'ER THEPRE APP ON APRIL 19, 1990. HIS CONCERN WAS FOR THE INl'ENT OF THEPLANNING Ca-1MISSION AT THE TIME WINDING WAY ESTATES WAS FIRSTPLA'I'l'ED. HE ASKED IF THE INI'ENT WAS TO RESTRICT THE Ha-IBS ON THE3 LOTS IN QUESTION, TO SINGLE S'IORIED DWEI.LINGS OR IF THE INTENTPERI'AINED ONLY TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. DR. JONES SAID THAT THEHEIGHT RESTRICTION WAS 30 1 AND THAT A '!WO STORIED HCME COULD BEBUILT ON LOT 7 AND STAY WITHIN THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION. CHAIRMANBAKER ASKED IF THE CCM-1ISSION v.'DlJI.D BE IN VIOLATION OF ANYAGREEMENTS MADE WITH THE POLLY RANCH HOME cmNER'S ASSOCIATION.SEVERAL REPRESENTATIVES FRa.1 POLLY RANCH WERE PRESENT ANDADDRESSED THE Ca-1MISSIOO WITH THEIR CONCERNS; THAT THE PILOTSASSOCIATION HAD Nar BEEN CONTAC'TED NOR HAD THE ARCHITECTURALCOMMI'ITEE. THEY SAID THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PILOTS TOMAINTAIN A CLEAR FLIGHT PATH AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RESTRICTIONFOR A ONE STORIED HCME WITH A HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 30 FEET,REMAIN ON THE PLAT. '!'HEY ALSO ASKED DR. JONES IF HE WOULD BEWILLING TO MEET WITH THE POLLY RANCH HCME cmNER'S ASSOCIATION SOTHEY COUID HEAR DR. JONES PROPOSAL AND EVALUATE IT.
C'CM1ISSIONER WASSON MADE A M0rION THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED UNTILTHE NEXT REGULAR MEETI'ING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING CCMMISSION
3
fl
lJ
P&Z 5/3/90
WHICH WILL BE ON MAY 17, 1990. SECOND: HOLZSCHUH VCII'E FOR: �.NIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE MOTION CARRIED
5.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL PLAT OFFAGLE LAKES I -33.3792 ACRE TRACI' our OF THE SARAH MCKISSICKLEAGUE -MI'ICHELL.
CITY ENGINEER THCMPSON ADVISED THE ca-1MISSION THAT THE FINAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANI'S HAD Nill' BEEN REX;EIVED NOR WAS THERE A LIEN
HOWER SIGNATURE ON THE PLAT. MITCHELL SAID 'I'HAT AT THIS TIME THERE WFRE NO LIEN HOIDERS TO WHICH THCMPSON AGREED THERE WAS NONE SH(MIING ON THE TITLE REPORT. THE ca-1MISSION REVIEWED THE PLAT. MITCHELL SAID THAT HIS DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE AIMOST IDENTICAL TO FALCON RIDGE, F.AGLES POINI', AND WILDERNESS TRAILS, THOUGH SLIGHTLY MORE STRINGENT. ca.1MISSIONER HOLZSCHUH SAID THAT HE WAS RELUCTANT WITHHOID APPROVAL ON SCMEI'HING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING CCM1ISSION DOESN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE.
ca-1MISSIONER HOLZSCHUH MADE A MC1.I'ION THAT FINAL APPROVAL BE GRANTED CONTINGENT UPON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS BEING APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND THAT LIEN HOWER SIGNATURES ARE ACQUIRED AT THE PROPER TIME. SECOND: KONCABA VCII'E FOR: UNANIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE Ma:r'ION CARRIED
6.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE REXXM-1ENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSEDSITE PLAN -FRIENDSvroD UNITED .MEI'HODIST CHURCH -204 W. EDGThU)DAVE. -THURMAN.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED UNTIL A LATER DATE BEX::'AUSE THE SITE PIAN WAS INCa-1PLETE.
7.RATIFY AND CONFIRM THE FJNAL PLAT OF 1.14 ACRES INTO 4 :r.ars -RESERVE "G" OF PARKWAY SUBDIVISION IN THE SARAH McKISSICK LEAGUE,ABSTRACT 151 -300 PARKWOOD -IRISH GREEN II (PARKWAY SUBDIVISION)-u::ME.
ENGINEER THCMPSON TOW THE ca-1MISSION THAT THE PLAT HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE CCM-1ISSION FOUR WEEKS PRIOR AND HAD BEEN GIVEN FINAL APPROVAL CONI'INGENT UPON THE DEDICATION OF' A 10' UTILITY F.ASEMENT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE PLAT WAS ON THE AGENDA TO SHaA7 THE CCM-1ISSION THAT THE CONTINGENCY HAD BEEN ADDRESSED. WASSON MADE A MCY.I'ION TO RATIFY AND CONFIRM THE FINAL PLAT OF IRISH GREEN II. SECOND: COLBURN VCII'E FOR: UNANIMOUS OPPOSED: NONE MOTION CARRIED
8.PRE APP -CORNER OF FM 518 AND WILLCWICK -ZONED OBD, REPLA'I' INTO
4
11
l l
P&Z 5/3/90
'IWO LOTS -LOON BRCWN.
MR. BR<:mN REVIEWED HIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WITH THE PLANNING ca-1MISSION. HE STATED THAT THE OFFICE BUIIDING AND THE OW HOOESTF.AD WERE LOCATED ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY; HOWEVER, IDUID PROBABLY Nor BE SOLD 'roGETHER. LOT 6; 'I'HEREFORE, IDUID BE SUBDIVIDED IN'lD 'IWO PORI'IONS WITH THE DIVISION OF PROPERI'Y IN THE MIDDLE OF THE C<M,'DN DRIVEWAY. CHAIRMAN BAKER EXPLAINED TO THE CG1MISSION THAT WHEN THE EWER MR. BRCMN BUILT HIS HO1E, HE DECIDED 'ID ADD A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. THE DRIVE ENCROACHED THE ADJOINING LOT Bill' MR. BRCMN AI.SO ™1NED THE ENCROACHED LOT SO IT WAS IRRELEVANT. MR. BRCMN THEN ERECTED A FENCE WHICH ALSO ENCROACHED THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. NCM THE HEIRS WISH TO DIVIDE THE PROPERI'Y AND IT IS THEIR DESIRE TO KEEP THE FENCE IN TACT WITH THE Ha.IB. IF THE LINE rs DRAWN JUST ON THE CYI'HER SIDE OF THE FENCE, BEIWEEN IT AND THE OFFICE BUIIDING (OR DcmN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVE) THE PURCHASER OF THE OFFICE BUIWING RETAINS ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THE BUIIDING AND THE FENCE WILL REMAIN WITH THE Ha.1E PLACE. LOON BRCWN SAID THEY OOUID PREFER TO SELL THE PROPERTY AS ONE UNIT; HOWEVER, IT APPEARED MOST LIKELY THAT THE PROPERI'Y IDUID BE SOLD IN 'IWO INDIVIDUAL PIECES, THE HCME AND THE OTHF.R AS AN OFFICE BUIIDING.
9.REVIEW AND DISCUSSION CONCERNING SUNSET MF.ADOWS ESTATES, PHASE II,PRELIMINARY/FINAL -BOGREN.
ENGINEER THCMPSON ADVISED THE C0.'1MISSION THAT THE PRELIMINARYAPPROVAL FOR SUNSET MEADOii'S ES'l'ATFS, SECI'ION I WAS GRANTED APRIL6, 1989. SUNSET MEADC:mS ESTATES, SECTION I WAS THE ONLY ONEWHICH HAD BEEN FINALED. MR. BCGREN WAS .ASKJNG IF HE COUID GOSTRAIGHT TO FINAL APPROVAL ON PHASE II, OR WOUID THE CCMMISSIONRB::!UIRE THAT PHASE II GlJ THROUGH PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AGAIN.cc:MMISSIONER WASSON ASKED IF THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF CONI'INGENCIESWITH RE'.GARDS TO NAMING OF THE STREETS, ETC. ENGINEER THCMPSONSAID THAT PRIOR 'ID APPROVAL ON SECTION I THF.RE WERE CONTINGENCIESCONCERNING STREETS. CG1MISSIONERS HOLZSCHUH AND WASSON QUFSTIONEDTHE LEGALITY OF GOING DIRECTLY TO FINAL BECAUSE THE PRELIMINARYAPPROVAL HAS EXPIRED. THE PROPOSAL THAT BOGREN BE ALLavED TO GOFOR FINAL APPROVAL WAS REJEx:::TED. MR. BOGREN REQUESTED TO BE ONTHE NEXT AGENDA FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SUNSET MEADCWS PHASEII.
10.CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT (WASSON)
COMMISSIONER WASSON SAID THAT Sa.1EDNE HAD INQUIRED ABOUT PUD.WASSON EXPLAINED THAT ACCORDING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE UNDER THEPUD, SINGLE FAMILY TRACT HCMES WERE PROHIBITED; HCWEVER, ON THEPERMI'ITED USE TABLE, UNDER RESIDENTIAL, IT SAYS THAT SINGLE FAMILYIS PERMI'ITED IN PUD. SHE FELT THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THEZONING ORDINANCE. WASSON EXPLAINED THAT IN CLUSlli""R DEVEIOPMENTTHE OVERALL DENSITY MIGHT BE THE SAME AS SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENI'IAL; HOWEVER, THE LOTS WOUID BE SMALLER WITH THE
5
fl
I l
l l
P&Z 5/3/90
DIFFERENCE BEING OPEN SPACES. WASSON ASKED WHAT THE CCMMISSION FELT ABOUT CLUS'IER DEVELOPMENT, DOES FRIENDSWOOD WANT IT AND IS THERE A MARKE!' IN FRIENDffi'roD FOR IT? CCM>1ISSIONER WASSON CG1MENTED THAT THE OVERAI.J, DENSITY WOUID BE THE Sil.ME. CHAIRMAN BAKER SAID THE rms MIGHT BE 50 ' AND THE OTHER 40' COULD BE DEDICATED TO A ca.1MUNITY CENTER OR PLAYGROUND. BAKER AISO ADVISED THE CCMMISSION THAT THE RErIREMENT CENTER WAS A PUD AND THEY CWN THEIR CWN STREETS. HE SAID THA•r THE ADVMi"TAGE TO THE CITY IS THAT THE CITY �'OUID TAKE STREETS, WA'IER, AND SEWAGE UP TO THE ENTRANCE ONLY. CCM-1ISSIONER WASSON SAID THAT SHE HAD arHER MATERIAIS, AS WELL AS A VIDEO, THAT THE CClvlMISSION COULD REVIEW ON CLUS'IER DEVELOPMENT. SHE SUGGESTED THE CCMMISSION ADDRESS THE PARKS ORDINANCE BEFORE THEY ADDRESS CLUSTER DEVELOPMENI';
HCWEVER, SHE FELT THAT THE CCMMISSION SHOUID BE PREPARED FOR a:rHER TYPES OF HOUSING IN THE FRIENDSv.'OOD AREA.
COUNCIL MF.MBER FRANKOVICH EXPLAINED A PROPOSED PLAN FOR A CCM-ruNITY PARK TO BE LCCATED IN THE SOUI'H SIDE OF TCWN.
IT WAS AGREED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING CCMMISSION MIGHT WANT TO MEET WITH 'I'HE PARKS AND RECREATION CCMMI'ITEE TO DO SCME "PARKS PLANNING".
11.ru1PREHENSIVE PLAN (WASSON)CCMMISSIONER HOLZSCHUH SAID THAT THE PLANNING CCMMISSION HADRECEIVED 477 RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY THAT WAS MAILED IN THEFRIENDSv.U)l) NEWSlli"'TI'ER. HE ADVISED THE CCMMISSION THAT HE WOULDPREPARE A SPREADSHEEI' AND GRAPH WHICH WILL INDICATE THE PUBLIC'SRESPCNSE TO THE QUESTIONS. HE INDICATED THERE WERE NUMEROUSCCMMENTS, CONCERNING HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS, RESTAURANTS, EIC. ANDTHOSE REMARKS ·wouLD BE HARDER TO ADDRESS. OVERALL, HOLZSCHUH WASQUITE PLEASED WITH THE RESPONSE TO THE SURVEY.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
(]{L�':ii:td�� ---------------�_i __
6