Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 2007-03-01 Minutes MINUTES OF THE WORKSESSION MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS March 1, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Randy Shiflet at 6:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman Secretary Randy Shiflet Don Bowen Mike Benton Bill Schopper Brenda Cole Mark Haynes ABSENT Ex-Officio Steven Cooper Kelly Gent CITY STAFF Oir. of Planning & Development Chief Planner Building Official Recording Secretary John Pitstick Eric Wilhite Dave Pendley Angela Brown 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION REGARDING ZONING AND BUILDING CODE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 1. The use of metal posts on wood privacy fences 2. The use of wood based products on eaves, soffits, and non-masonry chimneys 3. Visibility restrictions on second story residential windows 4. Elevation articulation standards on residential buildings 5. "Green buildings" for new construction Chairman Randy Shiflet gives a notice stating that he spoke to the City Council Monday night regarding the Public Works design manual presented by Public Works. They wanted to make sure to give thanks to the Commission for all of the hard work and effort. It is the City staff who did the work for us. They were given unanimous recognition based on the work sessions done. They were very appreciative of that and asked that it be passed along this evening. Chairman Shiflet opens the discussion. Tonight's discussion will be in regards to the Zoning and Building code construction standards. We have five items here that were discussed a month ago. Bill Schooper chaired that meeting and I have read over the minutes and submitted a few comments prior to that meeting. I believe those were included in that discussion and addressed. One thing has been added since the meeting and we will discuss that also. John Pitstick begins to explain in summary that the Council has generated a request on these specific items for Planning and Zoning to study. We have talked about one issue. What we would like to do on March 15, 2007 is to bring back the temporary use issues that were talked about. Carnivals and the temporary use for those things on the discussion items for the fifteenth. Then we would like to bring all of these five items today plus the temporary events back to council on March 26, 2007. Similar to what you did with the design manual. We would request that the Chairman or whoever you would like to appoint. Give a work session in the pre-council your findings on all of the six items. Introduce them to the Council to see if they want to proceed or study them more. This is what we are looking at from a timing perspective. Dave Pendley is here to answer any questions on the metal posts, privacy fences and the wood based products on the eaves, soffits, and non-masonry chimneys as well as green buildings for new construction. Eric Wihite is here primarily to answer any questions about the visibility restrictions on second story residential windows and the articulation standards on residential buildings as a result of the RI-PD. We have tried to summarize the discussion. So in your packets we have placed a summary draft recommendation for your review. Chairman Shiflet states that he would like to go through these items one at a time if the Commission agrees. This is not a public hearing it is a work session. We have people present who have an interest in these items. I would certainly like to have there input. The first item that we will look at will be the consideration for the requirement mandating the use for metal posts on wood privacy fences. The summary here shows that out of the ten cities survey. Hurst and Arlington are the only ones that require the use of metal fence posts. The Planning & Zoning recommends to the Council that the ordinance require the use of metal posts on new privacy wood fences or complete replacements on existing wood fences within the City of North Richland Hills. John Pitstick states currently in our procedure the only time that we require permits for privacy fences would be if the owner were to put up four panels or more on an existing fence. If you were only replacing two sections you would not be required to have a permit. Bill Schopper states we do not want to replace them on partials anyway. John Pitstick responds right, that is what we looked at. If they came in with a complete replacement you would have to get a permit that requires the use of metal posts. Mike Benton asks are we going to specify exactly what kind of metal posts can be used. You might have someone come in who has steel pipe that they want to chop up and use. Do we need to specify if it is galvanized or a certain gauge of metal. We should specify exactly the right width and diameter. Poles that may be galvanized verses steel rustic posts. I have seen people in North Richland Hills who have gone to the scrape yard and get the big heavy gauge steel posts. Chairman Shiflet states I would be in favor David. If you could come up with what a standard post is. They are galvanized. David Pendley answers yes most of them are, I can do that. You are right, if we don't say it specifically someone is going to take advantage it. That is a very good suggestion and we will get a little more specific. Don Bowen responds that he has a question on the complete replacement of existing wood fences. If someone comes in and they replace all but one or two panels, that is not a complete replacement. How are you going to handle that? Dave Pendley states we are trying to avoid a code enforcement nightmare. If someone comes in they usually are specific on the drawing as to how much they will take out. I can see it becoming a policy if they try to take all but one panel out. To put a percentage on there it is certainly something we could do. We are being asked along with Code enforcement to make a calculation. Bill Schopper, states I would rather see the posts put in concrete than to divide it up. Are we just sticking the posts in the ground and letting it go? Dave Pendley responds it is intended to be concrete. Even now we don't specify that the wood posts have to be concrete. Bill Schopper states what we are trying to is keep the walls from bending over. Chairman Shiflet states the other thing I see from a replacement perspective is that very frequently your talking about shared fencing. Personally I own three sides and not the fourth side. David Pendley states another thing about the concrete placement is that once you get above that fourth panel. It is subject to the building code where it has to meet 85 mile an hour winds where you have to make sure your posts were kept in the ground. John Pitstick, states from a permitting standpoint it would be much easier for us to say if you require a permit your going to have to have metal posts which would be four or more. That would be very simple to do. Bill Schopper states that Chairman Shiflets idea really makes sense. I have had places where I might have two sides and the other guy has two sides, and I'll replace it one time and vice versa. Chairman Shiflet states this is why I wanted this discussion to have your thoughts from a code perspective. If they do pull the permit it benefits the homeowner in the future. John Pitstick explains it would be easier to enforce getting a permit when you replace four or more panels. You are going to be required to go with metal posts. Bill Schopper states it's the difference between doing it yourself with regular wood verses having a fence company to come in and do the post. It's a little more complicated and a little more productive. Dave Pendley responds I'd like to bring one thing to your attention. The enforcement problems are going to occur when one neighbor puts metal posts in and he sees his neighbor replace his fence. Then he decides to do the same. One neighbor decides to use wood posts and the other has been told by the city to put metal posts in. In this instance it may result in the neighbor making a report to the city when the requirements he has been told to meet are not being met by his neighbor. In this way we were hoping not to add too much to the code enforcement officers complaints. Bill Schopper states maybe that's taking the easy way out. I'm not into making everyone upgrade partially. Brenda Cole states it should not be a significant burden on the homeowners. Dave Pendley states originally we thought about leaving any type of replacement off. Maybe it would be better not to have requirements for replacements fences, and just stay with the metal post requirements for new fences only. Eric Wilhite states we require 85% masonry per wall elevation on a home. Theoretically it increases the cost but it also increases the value that goes on the ground and has better longevity. Bill Schopper states when someone is buying a new home they make that calculation. As opposed to someone who is in an existing home who has to spend extra. Chairman Shilflet states that the key point based on this recommendation is complete replacement. Dave Pendley states that Chairman Shiflet has a point in that most fences are not replaced in there entirety because all three sides are not owned. Chairman Shiflet states I am hearing all kind of different suggestions. Thinking about this from an enforcement perspective, it has to be something that is manageable. Is there any type of consensus towards having replacement on only new fences? John Pitstick explains that the requirement for new subdivisions that back up to trough fairs must have masonry walls. But when you replace them it is not a requirement in our ordinance. Bill Schopper states I would rather have someone replace an old fence with wood than to have it be falling apart and not replace it with anything. I think we are getting ahead of ourselves in requiring replacements. Chairman Shiflet states am I hearing only new replacements. Bill Schopper states new is fine, you are making a decision going in as part of the development. I have a problem with making people do something with what is already there when there choice could be to do nothing. Brenda Cole states when you are talking about the visibility of a fence that is falling down a lot of times you can't even see it. So you are penalizing anybody who is on an interior lot and all they have are gates. You are making them replace everything else with posts when you only care about those that are on the corner or those that back up to the street. Don Bowen states I am ok with just new fences. I'd rather do that. Than to have a debate made about whether it's complete or almost complete. I'd think it would make it easier. John Pitstick states so from a practical standpoint if someone tears there entire fence down would that be classified as a new fence. That would be another question in terms of the way to interpret that classification. Bill Schopper states I think you have a big difference with someone wanting to build it rather than being made to build it. If someone goes through the effort of rebuilding the fence they will probably want to do it right. Unlike being told your fence is falling down you need to replace it. Than being made to replace it with metal posts. I just don't see that. Mike Benton states are we than just talking about new subdivisions and new homes. John Pitstick states or if they never had a fence. Chairman Shiflet states so the underlined recommendation here would be to strike a complete replacement of the existing wood fences. Brenda Cole states on part of that, we should define the minimum standards on the metal posts. Chairman Shiflet states we are all clear on that, lets move to the next item. Chairman Shilflet opens item one on the use of wood based products on eaves, soffits, and non- masonry chimneys. A ten city survey has been done and shows none of the cities shows these requirements having to be made. The recommendation resulting in the last work session shows that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not support an ordinance revision prohibiting the use of wood based products on eaves, soffits and non-masonry chimneys. Is that still the consensus of the commission? John Pitstick states to also point out that several builders are choosing to upgrade. It is happening without being required in several subdivisions. Dan Tresch speaks, 3023 Iron Stone, Arlington Texas. I would just like to comment, I think the issue here is that the City would like to see better, durable, and more sustainable houses. You have a project out in Hometown and you have builders that are using products like brick, stucco, and stone. They are using the fiber cement products. But you will find the soffits and the trim areas they are still using pressed wood which is the old masonry. Those products do not last, if you have sprinklers on them they will not last. They will probably last in this market maybe three to five years. You just can't put enough paint on those types of products. There are products out there like a synthetic type trim products made by Azec, these products don't really cost more than the fiber type products being used. If you use a product like the fiber on your soffit, your facia and your trim and then you tie it in with your brick, stone or your stucco. You basically have a minimum of a fifty year warranty on the exterior of that house. Then you have a totally non-combustible exterior. So you don't have anything that will burn. Again getting back to the cost of what is being used now versus what available out there. There are better alternatives out there on some of these products. It's just in the developments like Hometown you can see some of the houses in just a few years where the siding is going to look great. The brick, stucco, and the stone will look great but you'll probably replace the facia material because it has probably been the old masonry type products. The soffits take awhile before it starts to deteriorate because the weather can't get to it. When your facia and your trim areas start looking bad the whole house will. Chairman Shiflet asks Mr. Tresch if he is a builder. Dan Tresch states he works for James Hardy. We have been working with several of the cities about looking at requiring more durable, sustainable products on the exterior. As cities get more towards the green addition, it's more about using products that don't require a lot of resources to maintain. These types of products will hold paint two to three times longer than wood. They don't deteriorate like wood products do. For your information Grand Prairie put something in place where they will not allow wood or wood engineered type products on the exterior. There are several other people out there looking to something similar to masonry type of requirement like you have here where it's 85% brick on the house. Where you can use a concrete based product like the fibers in the products and basically have an exterior that performs like a hundred percent masonry exterior. Brenda Cole asks what is the difference in pricing on a house with this type of trim and soffits? Dan Tresch responds, on the trim product about a dollar more a foot. As far as the siding and the facia, builders will use a siding product for the facia product also. The product is thin and rigid so it works very well. So if you're looking at siding and looking at facia it is basically the same cost. If you are looking at cedar to use it is probably half the cost. Cedar looks great but long term the maintenance on it is a nightmare. I have it on my house. Brenda Cole responds so your saying on the eaves and the soffits there is no price difference. Dan Tresch responds no on your soffits, on our facia areas and on your siding areas there would be no cost difference. What we are seeing in the market place today with the pricing on the wood based products and the engineering products verses our products are pretty much the same. The trim products are a little bit more but they will last a lot longer. We are not the only manufacture but our brand is very well known, everybody usually calls it hardy- board. We are not promoting the brand we are promoting the category. There are two other manufactures out there. One is Servetine which is known for insulation and roofing products. Also a company out of Mexico called Maxi, and they have been selling products in this market for quite some time. Brenda Cole states if it's not anymore expensive, I don't have a problem with it. Maybe have some more information. Chairman Shiflet asks is that something we can have by the fifteenth. David Pendley answers I can get it. John Pitstick states we will see if we can get you some pricing by the fifteenth. Brenda Cole addresses Dan Tresch stating can I ask a clarification question. When you say trim are you talking trim around the windows, trim around the corners the garage doors? Dan Tresch responds, keep in mind, all the manufactures have a half inch trim product. This is less than the wood product. When you use a half inch trim product you have to overlay it and put it over the siding of the corners. A lot of people like to have a thicker trim at the end where you can putt the siding to it rather than put the trim product over the edge at the corner. The thick trim board that would be three quarters of an inch would be more expensive. Chairman Shiflet states I would like to get some sort of a comparable estimate on a 2200 to 2500 sq ft home. In that square foot range we would be given an idea of what we are looking at. John Pitstick asks Dave Pendley if he knows approximately the percentage of homes that use wooden based products now. Dave Pendley responds just about everyone has some because of the trim around the windows. We require only 85% masonry so just about everyone has some. If you are in Hometown you have almost 100%. Outside of that neighborhood in our City everyone has some. Chairman Shiflet states one of the things for clarification is that this product does not meet the cities requirement for masonry. John Pitstick answers you can use it in the fifteen precinct area. It does not count toward the 85%. By our definition hardy-board does not count as masonry except in Hometown. Chairman Shiflet asks if there are any other comments. Mike Stevens speaks, 204 Bedford Euless Road Suite A, Hurst, Texas with Elite Customs Homes. I have built some houses in Hometown, but everything Mr. Dan Tresch has said about comparing prices and costs you will see the price is not necessarily the real cost. If you put up a premium product that is going to last and not deteriorate and start showing a lot deferred maintenance within two or three years. Like some of the houses in Hometown that are already starting to show right on the main entrance going in. To me the price of his product whatever it happens to be. If it was four times more than the masonry type products to me that is just about an even value. The cost is always your starting price. If you're able to replace something in order to make it look the same as this product every four or three years. Than your having to rely on the individual homeowner pulling money out of there pockets and doing the right thing to keep the standards of the neighborhood up. Who is going to police the people with the rotten looking masonry once it is done? Or do you want to loan them some money to go replace it and repaint it and recaulk it once it's done and then come back three years and do it again for them. I'm saying that the cost is real deceiving you can't use that as standard or a measure. Like saying how much does a house cost per square foot. If it is four times more it's about the product. Chairman Shiflet asks if anyone has any further discussion. Chairman Shiflet opens item three for discussion on visibility restrictions on second story residential windows overlooking neighborhood residences. The Planning and Zoning Commission draft recommendation in a result of various issues does not support general requirement for second story visibility restrictions but will recommend restrictions be considered on a one on one basis under a planned development ordinance. Commission also supports consideration of a variety of visibility restrictions be considered for resolving neighborhood concerns over adjacent visibility. Since I did not attend that meeting I would be glad to hear some of the discussion. John Pitstick responds just a summary to go over this a little we do have one requirement for Town Walk Chase but we haven't seen a house go up yet so we don't know what that will look like. Dave pointed out in the summary that just because you have opeck window in the rear it could cause the redesign of a house. If it is a bedroom window in some cases it will be required to open for emergency access. With an opeck window you can still open it up and still out to look down on a neighbor, unless it is restricted. In talking with staff that is one thing we looked at. In many cases you have bedrooms that require the window to function for emergency access purposes. That is one concern. David Pendley states except for the design of the house we don't mind. The homeowners association is the enforcer we don't want to be involved with that. What John said is true, if there is a bedroom one of the options in talking with Pete Edwards is to put opeck glass block. That is not a window that opens and this will affect the design of the house because it cannot be a bedroom or the second floor arrangement. Bill Schopper responds you still want the ability to allow the whole neighborhood get together if they want to negotiate on a one on one basis. You don't want to mandate it; I don't think that it's appropriate. Chairman Shiflet, states my comment on an email sent to Eric Wilhite is that I am not interested in the City of North Richland Hills having a reputation for being a home in the window police. Another thing when looking at this from a case by case basis you are talking about doing that in an RI-PD. Than if it R-1 R-2 or R-3 they can do whatever they want because there not going to be governed by the same regulations. Bill Schopper responds they should be able to do what there land says they should do anyway. Chairman Shiflet states I realize that with the RI-PD there may be less open space in the back which may put if closer to the back fence. That may be a concern. There is a comment here on screening requirements. If you are talking about something closer to the property line with the window upstairs, you cant' get a screening requirement high enough to keep that window from looking down on the property. My thought on this is I see it as another RV nightmare. It's something that will come up maybe three times a year. John Pitstick responds I think Bill brought up a good point. When you have an issue with an R-1 it backs up to an RI-PD and you are right it's a little more dense. You have one house maybe two houses backing up together. But on a one on one basis let them work it out. Bill Schopper states it gives the builder some opportunity for relief and like Brenda says the will swap the window out after closing anyway. Chairman Shiflet state to me you are creating more of a problem on the next one and that's the thing we are going to talk about on the articulation. You're really encouraging a solid brick wall on the back of homes. Bill Schopper responds that is what we are starting to on some of the big houses. Chairman Shiflet states we have three right now. In a row on Davis Boulevard, my thought on this is that we don't do anything. Bill Schopper responds that is what we thought. John Pitstick asks do you want to change it and say we are not interested in pursuing this at all. Bill Schopper responds I think it is pretty clear by just saying we don't support a general requirement. The way you have it here is perfect. David Pendley states that on a P-D they might shove the house three feet away from the property line, but lately when they propose a smaller setback we are getting it someplace else to keep a possible ten foot separation. It might eventually come a little closer. When you look at it, is a six foot side yard that is allowed now. Really any worse or better off than moving it three feet close to the property line. Your view is just about the same. Bill Schopper states I don't support a general requirement for second story visibility restrictions but would recommend that visibility restriction on residential structure be considered on a one on one basis under a plan of development ordinance. Chairman Shiflet asks for any comments. Mike Stevens's states are you trying to prevent the neighbor behind you from looking down into your swimming pool? Eric Wilhite answers if in fact you are sitting looking out your bedrooms second story window peering out. Mike Stevens responds I don't think that is the cities business. In a planned development you can be three feet. There is some in Keller and in Colleyville that are on the property line. They specify in there deed restrictions that there can't be a window. The city doesn't have enough hours in the day to do what they need to do now, that shouldn't be the cities problem. John Pitistick states that he would like for Eric Wilhite to give input on his involvement with the RI-PD. Chief Shiflet opens item four which requires elevation and articulation on residential buildings. The issue has been brought up as a result of perception and the look of side and rear building elevations on new large square foot homes built on smaller lots. The need has been expressed by the city there should be consideration on requiring elevation articulation standards on the side and rear elevations. To improve the view and the look from public areas. The target here is RI-PD and I think the issues here are the three houses that have been built in the RI-PD that are very large two story boxes. Bill Schopper states the problem is they were built first. They are all by themselves, so I'm thinking when everything else is builds up around it the houses will blend in. Look at the name of the addition it is supposed to be a village. Those kinds of buildings are boxy and rectangular. I am thinking when it all fills out it will fit in. But with those being the first ones built, it's over 5000 sq ft. No amount of articulation will make up for that. When we approved that we were given little footprints of what things were going to be. Eric Wilhite responds in a general building pad area the setbacks established with the actually footprint could conceivable end up being larger. They have 8 to 10 foot rear yard setback and a 5 and a 5 with variations. They can build clear out to those set back lines and get as much as they can on the ground floor and then go up. John Pitstick states you are right. What they showed was about a 25 to 3500 square foot home. But on the P-D we have only required articulation on the front elevation. That's the other part. Eric Wilhite gives and overview stating, it has originated based on the particular homes that have been mentioned. It can happen on several others. There are other P-Ds that have the same small lots that are in different setting and the home construction is different and they have already created the articulation. Stonybrooke Phase I is that away, the housing type is different. The tendency for the larger houses to go on the small lots creates in some instances the requirement on the rear and the sides. In particular the rear that can be seen from public streets or other open spaces like parks. There is something in the existing ordinance that addresses dimensional architectural standards. This is on non-residential 1 0,000 sq ft or commercial structures where they have to address doing different architectural features and changes in elevation articulation. They are also doing larger wall elevations to deal with it. On the R straight residential like R-1, R-2, and R-3 we have a minimum setback of 10 ft, but you are required to do a 20% rear open space. So that inherently creates the need to kick the elevations back and forth, and changes the roof lines. On the RI-PD it opens up the opportunity. Liberty Village for instance has lots that are different there not square, more rectangular like a common R-2 but with the same depth. This is another Council initiated thing. We have looked at it and done some general layouts of homes. Would it be approving the RI-PD on a case by case basis to just look at it based on there configuration of the lots. If we get another one that is a 60/80 lot like the ones in Liberty Village do we push forward and say you have a 10ft setback but say you must have at least a 12 or 15% rear yard. Will that take care of it or just look at it from where they are situated based on where the subdivision goes in? Bill Schooper responds my point is the builders want to sell all of the lots just not the lots that they built the first three on. They have that mix so that they can maximize it out. So they have the focus on the big ones in the middle. Then they will spread them around and it will eventually look good when it's packaged together. I think we are looking at the first three ones because if that were all they are going to build you are right that would be too much. Eric Wilhite responds there is a minimum square footage of the house in a planned development. Like John mentioned we do require additional architectural elements above what is normally required on a single family residential dwelling. The RI-PD has specific things that you need to do. We take it further on certain aspects of the architectural elements on the house. Bill Schopper uses an example of articulation used by a gentleman in Colleyville. He states that he is ok with articulations on the front but not the rear. Eric Wilhite states do we take some elements that have are established and thought out on a dimensional control on the non-residential. John Pitstick states it could be two dimensional where you have colors and shades. It could be a different brick coarse. Eric Wilhite states we can do it on a case by case basis; the RI-PO opens up the door to do that without adding it in the ordinance itself. Chairman Shiflet states he doesn't understand the discussion with the emphasis on providing elevation articulation and or contrast in color or building materials where needed. John Pitstick responds when you say articulation that means in and out. If you look at our non-residential the requirements are not articulation requirements. It's more two dimensional. Bill Schopper states is it just that we messed up because we didn't think it would be that big. Eric Wilhite responds I wouldn't say we messed up but it has had a different impact that hasn't been out of the ground on a smaller lot. Bill Schopper states I was amazed that they came in at that price category in that location. Eric Wilhite states the prices are a little cheaper now. Chairman Shiflet states that he is getting two different inputs, one is not to do anything and the other is case by case. Bill Schopper responds that we have to figure out what we did wrong before we can fix it. I don't think we did anything wrong because once you have the whole addition built the market will change. Eric Wilhite states we don't put a maximum on what not to exceed. John Pitstick responds we could put a maximum requirement on the square footage. Brenda Cole states but the developer is not the builder. Eric Wilhite states they usually have an idea. It is more of a builder issue. John Pitstick states we could do the same thing and not support a general requirement but recommend that it is considered on a one on one basis. Don Bowen states I don't understand why we are looking at this. John Pitstick state that it is recommended by the City Council this is not staff generated they want us to consider this. Don Bowen states it is market driven like Bill said. If they don't sell they are not going to build them. We may not like the look of it but if he can't sell it he is not going to build it. Chairman Shiflet states he believes there is not even a case by case basis it's just gone. I'll be glad to tell City council if there are more specific things that we should look at we can come back and do so, this doesn't close the door forever. John Pitstick states we do want your feedback, it does help. Chairman Shiflet opens item five requiring green building for new construction and the recommendation based on the discussion last month was not to recommending certification on encouraging green buildings in the city of optic code, and the updating. John Pitstick states we can encourage it by using brochures. That is something we can recommend it is not a requirement. We would certainly provide that information in the Building Inspection Oepartment. Chairman Shiflet states that he would encourage the city staff to do that. Mike Benton states he believes we will see a lot more of this in the future, this process is growing slowly. Chairman Shiflet asks for comments. Sharla Davenport speaks, 5538 Monticello, Dallas, Texas about the city of Wiley. Chairman Shiflet states that we want to be at or above the ten city comparison spoken of earlier and that is the direction we will continue to go. Mike Stevens asks if everyone familiar with what has to be done with green building new construction to meet the building guidelines. Eric Wilhite states it depends on if you want to be gold, silver or platinum. Mike Stevens states I am just curious to know if whoever brought this up knows what it encompasses. Dave Pendley answers it is not all energy code issues. It is how you are reclaiming your storm water and possibly reusing it for sprinkling. Using recyclable materials and how much of it is recyclable. Using electronics to dim your lights to run your mechanics to waterless urinals. Chairman Shilfet states to answer your question no we have not been through a training session on that, and before we would recommend anything we would have that. Bill Schopper responds we did have an overview. Chairman Shiflet states that all the items on the agenda are covered. 7. ADJOURNMENT The chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Chairman Secretary ~&~ , ~. '. (. ~. .:),/ . Randy Shiflet Don Bowen