Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 04 05 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 5, 1995 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairperson Hoffmann at 7:00 P.M. 2. Attendance: Art Hoffmann, Chairperson, Present Gene Lein, Present Carl Stephens, Jr., Present David Hopkins, Absent Donald R. LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist Thomas Grimms, Community Development Coord. Fred Goodrow, AICP - Berryman & Henigar 3. Consideration of the March 1, 1995 Meetinq Minutes: Mr. Lein moved for approval of the March 1, 1995 Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Stephens. Vote: All aye; motion carried. 4. Conceptual Plan Review for Arrowhead, Units 3, 4 and 5 (all located in the Tuscawilla PUD). Mr. LeBlanc stated he had sent the Board a copy of the Conceptual Plan and minutes of the Staff Review. He reiterated, that this is conceptual in nature only. It doesn't come close to meeting code requirements. We are going through this process so the developer knows exactly what everyone wants before he starts expending a lot of money on engineering. Mr. LeBlanc introduced Jim Mikes, the developer and Mr. Sabah Blaney, the agent for the owner of Unit 5 which is the Wood Stream addition. Mr. LeBlanc said he had sent the Board information relevant to the settlement agreement reached by the country club people. Mr. Mikes pointed out that the brochure for the project call ed "Arrowhead", includes the site plans for Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 being (19) lots on the perimeter of the golf course, NOT behind gates. They are located on the eighth hole, across from the Seven Eleven store, across from the homes on Northern Way on the fourth hole, and homes adjacent to Glen Eagle on the fourteen hole. Unit 2 is the project being worked on currently, which is behind the gates, and adjacent to the west side of the club house. _,_~~~,___,,,,-,_.__~...'.~_~__r_~,_"""~__'~_.;-'_'_"'~- ~_.._-~"'."~~-_''''..~____._..........-...-.................. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 2 Hr. Mikes informed the Board tha t included a list of five builders elevations and floor plans for the construction, and a price list of the the information submi tted (eventually seven), shows first homes al ready under lots and homes. Because parcels seven (7) and eight (8) are located directly surrounding the country club on the two plans, there are existing improvements shown in dash lines with certain improvements being removed, replaced, or enlarged on the site plan itself. Mr. Mikes made a request of the Board that they take into consideration their commitment to replacing anything that is torn down. Mr. Mikes explained that parcel seven (7) will include the bulk of existing tennis courts, and the original maintenance building, all of which lies directly east of the pool, cafe and parking lot. It is partially wooded and part open field. It goes about one- thousand (1000) feet across Winter Springs Boulevard to the creek - (we own to the center I ine of Howell Branch Creek). It depicts the same type of development as we have on the west side of the club house. Mr. Mikes described what was shown in the plans. He explained that the roads will meet the city's specifications for a public road; however, they would be kept as "private streets" behind a security gate. Any development being located along the creek wi 11 require approval from the various state and federal agencies including an approval by F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management Association). They are proposing to remove the eight existing tennis courts and re-construct seven of them only. There will be modern lighting which will be inward oriented so as not to go through the entire neighborhood as it is currently. Hr. Hikes explained the plans depict the (25) year old cafe building being torn down, and replaced by a building about twice it's size. There are no building plans for it, this is just a concept on how we would change it's size. Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - April 5, 1995 Page 3 Every parking space that is shown to be taken away will be added back plus an additional (54) parking spaces. All parking spaces and cars will be hidden from Winter Springs Boulevard. Hr. Lein, going back to the original conceptual plan of April 1993, explained that the plan had eight (8) lots. The modified conceptual plan of April 1994 increased to thirteen (13) lots and allowed a move to the west toward the club house. From April 1994 to the current conceptual plan of March 17, 1995, the lots have increased to twenty (20) lots, including a move west which was in accordance to the modified agreement; however, you also show moving south with a private or public road with four (4) lots on the other side of the tenth (10th) fairway, and they are not in any of the agreements filed. Mr. Lein contends that the current agreement, as far as this parcel - is concerned, does not allow you to go south. Also, building the road across the gol f course is not in accordance wi th the agreement. Hr. Hikes explained, looking at the three (3) plans submitted, the intent is to develop all of the "Woodstream" addi tional parcel and these two parcels with (115) foot wide lot and roughly the same depth. It will have the same type of housing, same gates, etc. By doing that, we would be taking the Woodstream parcel, reducing it from an existing (77) narrow lots to (54) lots. In addition, we will be adding about 6 acres of land owned by the golf course which was included in an agreement that we would be able to develop that land with single family lots. Hr. Lein said,..."but that doesn't change this parcel." Hr. Hikes said he realized that, and that is an issue that will have to be addressed with the City Commission on their judgement on the agreement." Hr. Lein said as far as the current conceptual plan was concerned, it was not in accordance with the modified agreement. Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - Apri 1 5, 1995 Page 4 Hr. Lein said if the lots were included, it would leave sixteen (16) lots, but does it say in the agreement that the size of the lots may be reduced? Hr. Hikes answered, yes, it does. Hr. Lein read from the agreement and stated that would change the number to thirteen (13). In another words, you reduce the size of the lots, even if you don't go south wi th the four? Hr. Hikes answered, yes. Hr. Stephens, making reference to the existing parking area said, . . . "as you are coming off of Win ter Springs Boul evard, I've noti ced that you have to make a sudden left to go into that part, what is the distance between the boulevard and where you have to make that left?" The road that leads to parcel (8). Hr. Hikes said it is better depicted on parcel (8). The distance from the edge of the "decel" lane (which will be about (12) feet closer in from the existing pavement), will be over (160-170) feet from the edge of the pavement to the point where you see the guard house and where you would enter into parcel (8). It will allow for a stacking of not less than about six or seven cars. Also, in the '~ecel" lane, you will have another five or six car capability. Discussion with regard to the common entrance to the country club and new project. Chairperson Hoffmann remarked that the cul-de-sac's should have a minimum hundred (100) foot diameter. Mr. Mikes assured the Board that they will be in compliance with city code. Hr. Stephens remarked that the lots near the (18th) green looked as though the driveways would run in front of their neighbors homes, (on the cul-de-sac), and questioned how that was going to work. Hr. Hikes discussed how this all worked and came together. "PARCEL 8 " Mr. Mikes stated that Unit 4, Parcel 8 is that which enters at the same entrance as the golf club. It depicts (46) lots, and as Mr. Lein stated, the agreement provides for (39) lots. This is an increase of (7) lots. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 5 Discussion in reference to Mr. Lein's concern with the deletion of lots on some parcels and the addition of lots on other parcels. Mr. LeBlanc wanted to clarify that there was no permitted or approved engineering for "WoodStream". It was permitted at one time, but it is no longer valid. Mr. Stephens noticed that on the right side of the fairway, there were two (2) cul-de-sacs, and asked Mr. Mikes the reason for making the first section a cul-de-sac; the section as you come from the bottom up. Mr. Mikes explained all the way through police, ambulance, particular lots. that they were providing for emergency access, the course for emergency vehicles, i.e., fire, etc., in order that they may reach those Further discussion with regard to the cul-de-sac and roads. Hr. Mikes reminded the Board that what they had before them was a pI anning issue, and if there was a probl em wi th the pI ans, it coul d be changed. He stressed they not dwell on just the terms of the document because the document was not all that was before them. He said he did not submit a document one hundred percent consistent with the agreement, but is submitting a project that he believed on a political basis, to be far more acceptable than the product that might be developed, if held totally to the agreement. Some further discussion with regard to cul-de-sacs'. NOODSTREAH PARCEL Hr. Hikes stated that in the common drives, they have tried to provide for emergency vehicle access (coming down the powerline). He said the new maintenance bui 1 ding wi 11 be bui 1 t on the east side of the second hole, and getting to that will be a (12) foot wide asphalt road. This access will continue with some form of stabilization just below the surface across the golf course for emergency uses. This will enable emergency vehicles to get from the lots at the far north end of WoodStream back to the maintenance bui 1 ding. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 6 Chairperson Hoffmann questioned the existing wall in WoodStream. Mr. Mikes stated that it was a mistake on the part of the engineer depi cting it. The intent was to put the cul-de-sac in and the wall will actually circle the cul-de-sac so that becomes the backyard of the lots that are in the new portion of WoodStream. After further discussion Mr. Lein commented that because there are some concerns in reference to Unit 3 (Parcel 7) and Unit 4 (Parcel 8), he moved that the Planning and Zoning Board refuse to except the conceptual plan by Florida Country Club, Inc. on Parcel 7 and 8, known as Arrowhead 3 and 4. Chairperson Hoffmann asked Mr. Lein for his reason for refusal. Hr. Lein explained that it was because of the agreement involved. For clarification Chairperson Hoffmann asked, . . . "in another words, we the Board, oppose the concept of being contrary to the agreement?" Mr. Lein answered yes, I oppose the concept of the drawings being in disagreement in that they have extended the boundaries of what is stated in the agreement. The four lots to the south and the agreement which called for (39) lots. The agreement shows you can go west, not south. After further discussion, Mr. Lein moved that the Planning and Zoning Board refuse to except the conceptual plan from Florida Country Club, Inc. on parcels (7) and (8) in reference to the acreage sho~n in the conceptual plan, not being in agreement ~ith the modified agreement of March 17, 1995; 1 recommend disapproval. Mr. Stephens seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Mikes stated that if the Board was talking about area, (not the number of lots), he was very confident that he had met what the Board was objecting to, and could get engineering to that effect. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - Apri 1 5, 1995 Page 7 He felt the Board was trying to suggest that they wanted something consistent with what the Board had a approved in their modification when they agreed to eliminate some of the lots. Mr. Mikes stated that may be number of lots, it may be area, or a number of things, but the Board was trying to make an agreement where it is consistent with the agreement. Mr. Mikes explained that engineering would show the area to be the same, but felt the Board was still concerned about the number of lots. He suggested the Board consider the concept of the plans themselves, but for the number of lots and those areas outside of the agreed area. He asked the Board if there would be a problem with the concept before them if there wasn't an increase in the number of lots and the acreage? Mr. Lein stated he had a problem with Parcel 7 which shows the road _ going across the golf course with (4) lots, which was completely out of the area. Mr. Lein read from page 2 of the modified conceptual plan which reads as follows:..."Plorida Country Club, Inc. may increase the number and/or reduce the size of lots on parcels 7 and 8 and increase the size of the area located on parcel 7 to include the west of the entry road...(which Mr. Lein replied..."there is no problem with that") as depicted on the conceptual plan for parcel 7. Plorida Country Club, Inc. shall be permitted to develop a total of (13) lots on Parcel 7 and a total of (39) lots on parcel 8 provi ded said lots can be developed in accord wi th the Ci ty Codes, etc....". Mr. Lein contends that the two numbers, (13) and (39) are already an increase from the agreement. Chairperson Hoffmann conveyed that this was a new agreement. Mr. Lein said he understood tllat; however, that is what this agreement is increasing it to. We went to an agreement from (8) to (13) lots, and now from (13) to (20) lots. We have gone from (39) which is now going to (46). His concern was regarding the modified agreement which he felt was allowing (39) lots on parcel 8 by increasing or decreasing the size of the lots. Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - April 5, 1995 Page 8 For clarification, Mr. Lein withdrew his original motion, and Mr. Stephens withdrew his second, in order that a new motion could be put on the floor by Mr. Lein. Hr. Lein moved that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend disapproval because: (1) Parcel 7 - increased acreage south, and increase in number of lots; and (2) Parcel 8 the increased acreage which also includes the increase in the number of lots, and the common driveway on Parcel 8, north of the cul-de-sac, along side of the retention pond, by the first green. Both these parcels are an increase from the modified settlement agreement of April 14, 1994 between Florida Country Club, Inc. and the City of Winter Springs. Motion seconded by Hr. Stephens. VOTE: Carl Stephens, aye; Gene Lein, aye; Art Hoffmann, aye; motion carried. Hr. Stephens moved that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the conceptual plan of Unit 5, parcel 10 of Arrowhead Corporation. Seconded by Hr. Lein. VOTE: Art Hoffmann, aye; Gene Lein, aye; Carl Stephens, aye; motion carried. For clarification, Hr. Hikes referred to Parcel 7 (which contain (20) lots, ) and asked if the Boards recommenda ti on woul d be different if the four lots were removed, and the crossing of the golf course eliminated. He asked if that would be conceptually acceptable with the Board? Chairperson Hoffmann said he presumed that was the crux of the matter. Hr. Lein said that would drop the amount of lots to (16), but again, that was going against what he was reading. He told Mr. Mikes that he agreed with what he was saying, but said that now, he was looking at 13 lots and agreeing to 16 lots. Additional discussion concerning Parcel 7, and the amount of lots. Hr. Lein, referring to earlier discussion with regard to the elimination of the lots, informed Mr. Mikes that he would go along with that, as long as he eliminated the four (4) lots south. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 9 Discussion with regard to Parcel 8 concerning cul-de-sacs, number of lots, and footage. Mr. Mikes, referring to Parcel 8, said he must show that the area is the same and if I make the cul-de-sac concept, if it had the 25 foot minimum, and it was a real road and, we end up...." Mr. Lein interjected that if a real road was added, more of the golf course would be taken away. Mr. Mikes said, no, the cul-de-sac might come up about another 100 feet, and the second one would be eliminated completely. Mr. Lein asked how wide the road would be. Mr. Mikes answered, it's a standard 50 foot wide road. Mr. Lein pointed out that the driveway depicted in the conceptual __ plan is only 25 feet, and questioned where the other 25 feet was going to come from? Mr. Mikes explained that one or two of the lots will be lost; you take the two lots on the fairway and you end up losing at least one of them and maybe a second one. So the 46 lots now become 44 lots. Mr. Lein said, "he didn't want to agree on anything like that right now, I would like to see how you are going to do that. Mr. Mikes said this a concept! Mr. Lein reiterated,... HI still feel, (and again, I'm going back to my arithmetic, that is the only thing I can rely on), I see a 270 foot boundary line of a lot I eaving that cul-de-sac on the original plan which is in the same location on the conceptual plan. Above the cul-de-sac you have five (5) lots at 115 foot frontage, which when added together is more than 270 feet when I went to school! Chairperson Hoffmann said, "if it was the same acreage...." Mr. Lein interjected, "I don't believe it is the same acreage." Chairperson Hoffmann said we have to make an assumption, right? If it is the same acreage, and...." ,..- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Lein conveyed that if the same acreage that is depicted in the original agreement is used, then he will go along with it. Chairperson Hoffmann commented that you still have the number of lots in here again. Mr. Lein said, "that's true!" Chairperson Hoffmann said, "so it again reverts back to the agreement as to the number of lots, and we also challenge the acreage. Mr. Mikes said he knows the acreage is smaller on parcel 8, but again, (referring to the same issue that is in the document on the number of lots) if the cul-de-sac is there, and you have the 25 foot minimum, conceptually, is there any other problems? Mr. Lein remarked that Mr. Mikes was eliminating the driveway. Chairperson Hoffmann said it won't be a dri veway, it wi 11 be a street. Mr. Lein said as long as the cul-de-sac is at the end of the same acreage as depicted on the original plan, then there is no problem. Mr. Mikes, pointing to the plans, explained to the Board where one cul-de-sac would be extended and where the other cul-de-sac would be eliminated. He demonstrated how (in a rough sense) how the lots wou1 d end up. I will only have 5 lots verses 7, and that might end up 44 lots, but you still have the objection on the number based on the words of the document. Other than that, the fact that these lots went from 125 feet down to 115 feet, are still 15 feet wider than what is in "G1en Eagle", deeper than "Glen Eagle", wider than "The Reserve". Mr. Mikes explained that he just wants to be sure that he will come back with something that the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commissi on finds acceptabl e and is comfortabl e going forward wi th. He agreed to make changes to the plans, and get it to staff so the Commissioners are aware of what we are talking about. He added that he will also have his engineer work the numbers regarding the acreage. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 11 5. Continued Discussion of Draft Land Development Requlations : Chairperson Hoffmann commented that the Board had before them the latest copy of the Land Development Code changes from Mr. Goodrow of Berryman & Henigar, dated March 21, 1995. (B&H Project No.34084.01) Mr. Goodrow wanted to make two comments for only chose to represent in the document, changes were taking place. The items he did no change. clarification; (1) He those areas in whi ch not address, required There were some issues that were going to come out of the draft that he didn't address such as definitions, but rather than try to guess what the Board wanted, he advised the Board that when they found something they didn't understand, it would then get defined and put into the definition section. - For the most part, all changes represent policy direction that has been provided through the Comprehensive Plan. There were a couple of instances where he received changes from Mr. Hoffmann which he chose to add in; however, did not do them all because he felt the Board should address some of them and decide what to do because they were not policy changes. (2) Other changes that Mr. Goodrow made, the Board was aware. Mr. Goodrow was ready to start any way the Board preferred, and reminded the Board that his contract provided that he meet with them three (3) times; this being the first. Hr. LeBlanc noted the memos' he had sent to Mr. Goodrow, one of which was from himself with changes. One of the memos' sent to Mr. Goodrow contained suggested revisions to the Building Regulations from Mr. Houck, Building Official. Hr. Goodrow said the comments from the Building Official had been noted and the changes would be made. He explained that Mr. Houck knew tha t the "94" Edi ti on of the standard Bui 1 ding Code was out and he did not. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 12 Chairperson Hoffmann suggested that perhaps a statement or wording be added concerning the Standard Building Code. Mr. LeBlanc stated that in order for the "94" Edition of the Standard Building Code to be ratified, it must be changed by ordinance. THE FOLLOWING ARE SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENTS TO CITY CODE, CHAPTERS 2 THROUGH 8 BY MR. HOFFMANN: SECTION 2-151: This secti on refers to "department heads", or "heads"; Mr. Hoffmann suggested definition/clarification of this secti on. Mr. LeBlanc described the following as "Department Heads": Fire, Police, Public Works/Utility, General Services and Recreation. Chairperson Hoffmann wanted to know what the ini tials, D.B.H. meant in 5-1 (c) (18), and explained that unless the reader is referred to a specific section which gives a definition, the reader is at a loss. He asked that D.B.H. be spelled out or the section where it is defined. Mr. LeBlanc stated that this change would be an "in house" change. SECTION 5-3 (e) (1): The word City Forestry and City Forest is a loose interpretation of the words, and has nothing else to do with the LDR's. This is another "in house" change. ARTICLE III - SECTION 6-81 - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: Mr. LeBlanc explained that the Building Official answered this section, and added 6-83 (Television Dish Antennas) because of the invent of the smaller 18 inch satellite dishes that may be placed on the roof. This section will allow it to be done. SECTION 6-82 - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: Mr. Hoffmann mentioned this was another "in house" change where the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is not the same as the Board of Adjustment. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 13 Mr. LeBlanc explained, that particular one identifies the Board of Adjustment as the Commission members in Chapter 6. ARTICLE VIII - FENCES, WALLS, HEDGES: Mr. LeBlanc informed Mr. Goodrow that in section 6-193, either del ete the words, "three inches from the property line",. or changed to read that "fences must be pi aced on the property line". Page 7-1, Section 7-80 was discussed. It was submitted to Mr. Goodrow by Mr. LeBlanc in his memo of April 5, 1995. Hr. Goodrow stated that he would add an ARTICLE V - SECTION 7-82 which was the next available section per Mr. LeBlanc. SECTION 8-56: "Mangroves and Sand Dunes" wi 11 be del eted from the Code as they do not exist in the City of Winter Springs. SECTION 9-26: Page 9-1, line 7, the correct word should be PROSECUTE. SECTION 9-27: Hr. LeBlanc asked what a "technical construction manual" was. Hr. Goodrow explained that in order for the City to promote requirements for construction of roads, sidewalks, lights, etc., something must be written. For lack of better words, he referred to it as a "technical construction manual". Mr. Goodrow informed the Board that if one didn't exist, one would have to be written. Hr. LeBlanc asked if Chapter 9 of the Land Development Code would serve as it addresses streets, how they should be built, etc. Mr. Goodrow explained he would like to see all the standards for construction taken out ot the code a1 together because all these standards are not necessarily appropriate anywhere somebody is building, or there may be a better way to invent. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - April 5, 1995 Page 14 Things may be done more appropriately a different way, but ln reality, whoever is enforcing this section has no choice because this is code, this is what is required. You can adopt a manual by resolution or in a reference, but you don't adopt it as a code or ordinance provision. Chairperson Hoffmann asked, "then Staff should take the appropriate sections from Chapter 9 and call it the Ci ty of Winter Springs Technical Construction standards Manual?" Mr. Goodrow explained, if that is what the Board wants to recommend to the Commission, he would show this section as being deleted. The staff would have to prepare something, even it's just to take parts of Chapter 9 out and put it into a manual and have it ready to go before the Commission at the same time the amendments are adopted. The Commission could then adopt it by resolution. - Hr. LeBlanc explained that Mr. Goodrow had some very good points, but, some people want to be rigid with what is in the Code. There are time when a developer is given an inch, and they want to take a mile. He didn't feel the standards set in Chapter 9 were such that it couldn't wait a month to be changed. SECTION 9-27 order: Exceptions to requirement of a finaJ_ development The following wording will be deleted from this section: and the Technical Construction Standards Manual. Mr. LeBlanc asked Mr. Goodrow why in Section 9-224 - Docks and piers, "No roof structure will be allowed" because a lot of people like to have a roof. Mr. Goodrow didn't believe that was a policy statement, just genera 1 wording, because when you put a roof on a dock, it obstructs the view of others. This is to eliminate that. Mr. LeBlanc asked the Board their opinion concerning the wording referencing roofs on docks. Chairperson Hoffmann went back to Section 9-27 (aj and questioned engineering plans that have been approved prior to platting. ,"'-. Planning and Zoning Board Heeting Hinutes - AprilS, 1995 Page 15 Hr. LeBlanc explained that Mr. Goodrow suggested whenever we write the ordinance, it wi 11 be put in as a "whereas I', "therefore I' "because of", if you want to "grandfather" someone in. Hr. Stephens had a question on Section 9-107 Septic tanks. At the top of page 9-4 the word were should be WHERE. Hr. LeBlanc said the change to Section 9-241 which he had mailed to Mr. Goodrow's office regarding the "Stormwater Management System" allowing for wetbot tom or drybottom ponds and lot grading, was adopted by the Commission on March 27, 1995. Mr. LeBlanc also mentioned the changes given to Mr. Goodrow by the Building Official in regards to: Section 9-261. Requirements for water and sewer systems. and, Section 9-278. General provisions for off-street parkinq. - Chairperson Hoffmann pointed out a typographical error on page 9-7. First sentence under (a) Conservation Land Use Category, the word created should be changed to CREATES. Third line under (a), the word specified should be changed to SPECIFIES. On page 9-12 - Section 9-281(ej Mitiqation, the following wording will be added after the word shall, in the first sentence: be within the City limits of the City of WinterSprinqs and... SECTION 9-283(b)(3) on page 9-13, Mr. LeBlanc asked Mr. Goodrow if he could add "and other governmental agencies" or words to that effect. Hr. Goodrow expl ained that he coul d add something to the effect "of other governmental agencies more restricti ve than the Ci ty". SECTION 9-347. Duties on page 9-17. After some dIScussion, the following wording will be added: "within fifteen (15) working days after determination of completion by the entire site plan Review Board." Hr. LeBlanc noted that page 20-1 (should be 19-1). .' Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes - Apri 1 5, 1995 Page 16 The Board agreed to meet again on Apri 1 19, 1995. will not be in attendance. Mr. Goodrow Chairperson Hoffmann asked that the Board submi t any further comments to Mr. Grimms who will be present for the next meeting. 6. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, ~~<-~~6!~~~ Shirley~. Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared May 7, 1995 This document is a swnmary of the Planning and Zoning Board actions at this meeting. The audiotapes of all meetings are maintained in the permanent records of the Ci ty of Hinter Springs.