Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 12-13-1988 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD ON 44610., DECEMBER 13, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Swickerath. PRESENT: Chairman Swickerath, Vice - Chairman Smith, Board Members: Linebarier, Switzer, and Weeks, Planning Director Behrens, Senior Planner Harper, and Secretary King. ABSENT: Board Members: Bello and Bond and Alternate: Breeze APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on November 9, 1988. Harold Switzer moved to approve the minutes as printed of November 9, 1988. Burton Smith seconded and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Modular Building for the Police Department /Request for Zoning Agenda. Planning Director Behrens presented to the Board background information relating to the reason the Police Department needed a 12x56 trailer parked in the parking lot behind the police station. After digesting the reasons Chairman Swickerath questioned planning staff on whether this request had been advertised. Staff responsed that they did not realize this request had not been duly advertised. In the Ocoee's Land Development Regulations, Section 6. - Public Buildings and Services, 6.1. and 6.2 it states, "After a public notice and hearing by the planning and zoning commission the city commission may authorize the location in any zoning district of any public buildings erected by, or any use of, municipal, county, state or federal government." Chairman Swickerath suggested Staff to have the police department's request advertised as a public hearing and brought back to the next appointed Planning and Zoning Meeting (January 10, 1988). Since the Chief was present the board decided to briefly discuss the request so Boyd would have some indication where they stood. John Boyd, Chief of Police made comment to his request that he was looking for some kind of direction from Planning and Zoning and did not mind coming back on January 10th. He continued by giving a brief background and a description of location. Chief Boyd commented that the trailer would be located behind the police station, in the parking lot, at the property between City Hall and the Police Department. The trailer would be parallel facing the parking lot. It would not eliminate parking spaces, it would be on the other side of the wall (shrubs). The trailer would be in use for approximately two years. Page 2 % Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 Boyd commented that he had considered the Maguire House in using it for administrative or C.I.D. units. The main objection is to have large enough area for the patrol division. Linebarier moved for the Board to support the particular building and to postpone the vote until the public hearing would be advertised. The motion was amended to say: that the Planning Department was asked to advertise immediately so that a public hearing could be held at the next meeting. Burton Smith seconded. Chairman Swickerath commented that the police department's problem is just the surface of what the city is getting into. He wanted to see the P &Z Board, if it so desires, to ask the City Commission to do a through study (inventory) of all the space in Ocoee in municipal buildings, make some kind of reasonable determination as what the City is going to need in the year 2010. It would be less cost effective if all the city's needs are addressed at one time. The vote was called for and the motion carried unanimously. Maxim Construction Corporation, Petitions 18R -88 and 15C -88, Marshall Farms Road and S.R. 50 - Public Hearing ''fir► Planning Director Behrens read over the Staff Report of November 29, 1988, then turned the report over to Senior Planner Julian Harper who had done an extensive study of the project site. Harper began by pointing out the location of the property on a map to the board members and informed them that for some reason the petition was dropped from the normal rezoning /comprehensive plan amendment loop, so that was why it was brought back before the board. Harper continued by discussing his findings which were given in the Staff Report. Harper's recommendation upon the petitioner's request was to deny the zoning request without prejudice for a period of one year. This would give the petitioner ample time to come forward with a complete traffic study at the petitioner's expense to give the City an opportunity to see if it is possible to resolve the problems in such a way that the public's health safety welfare is maintained and also to recommend intersection improvements and turn lane improvements and whatever is necessary for the intersection. Harper commented that neither he or city staff had the competency to do such a study. Chairman Swickerath stated that he thought this project had been before the board before and that the board felt positively towards it or voted in favor for allowing Maxim /Cardinal to develop a model center on the site. A board member stated that according to the staff report that was handed out before the meeting that Maxim withdrew their request for the model center. Page 3 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 Harper stated that the zoning on Marshall Farms Road is primarily Commercial, C -1, C -2 and C -3 and some industrial. The petition was not withdrawn but had been amended from C -3 to C -2. The original public hearing that was held, Maxim came in and based on the strength of the zoning they received from Orange County, they wanted to proceed to develop a model center prior to formally completing the zoning from Unclassified zoning to C -3 zoning. The City Commission saw fit to give them the opportunity to do that. But, basically what happened back on January 13, 1988, Russ Wagner made six stipulations of which the first three which they objected to delt with highway improvements, streets and sidewalks. What happened then was that the representive at that time stated that he had instructions not to go along with the first three stipulations and he asked for a deferral until such time he could get back with his superiors to see if they would go along with the first three stipulations. In the mean time, from January to September of 1988 staff had not heard from them. Harper continued that this in a way is a direct relationship but indirectly related to what staff and the board is trying to do. It's rather unusual for them to request permission to develop and plat their land without receiving proper zoning. The City Commission will not allow them to do that. Basically, they *taw temporarily ask for refurment on the proposal to develop the model center. Swickerath commented that the City is locked in the time schedule to annex and update comprehensvie plan. He questioned staff is all the requirements of the lock- step- scenario that the City is in with the Department of Community Affiars been met to the point that the board can take action on the petition tonight, or does Maxim have to get back in line for what ever reason, and reapply in the next go around or the amendments of the comprehensive plan? Harper stated that basically the items to address have been done, the application was timely filed, the fee was timely paid and the initial advertisement was timely done. Therefore, in my opinion they are entitled to have consideration at tonights meeting. Harper continued to say that he had spoken with Attorney Duke Woodson and the Attorney concurs. The only thing that is taken out of the normal sequence is that the board is hearing tonight what should have been heard in July or August. Swickerath stated that if the board had heard it back in July or August and it was a duly advertised public hearing, neighbors would have had the oportunity to give their input. Harper informed the Chairman that this petition had been advertised around Thanksgiving for the December 13, 1988 meeting. Chairman Swickerath after questioning staff of whether the Maxim petition had been duly advertised for the evenings meeting, questioned the board if they wanted to proceed under the assumption that this meeting was a public hearing and that it had been duly advertised Page 4 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 and would they be willing to go back and do it again next month if it wasn't. Linebarier commented that the board should rely on the representative of the City, he has no reason to mislead the board. The board agreed to accept this as a public hearing. Chairman Swickerath opened the public hearing on Maxim Construction Corporation - Petition 18R and 15C -88 - Marshall Farms Road and S.R. 50. Present was Jim Crouse who is employeed by Cardinal Industries, P.O. U, Sanford, FL 32772. Mr. Crouse handed out to the board a "Brief History of Events ". He read over the handout giving a brief background on each date listed. Mr. Crouse commented that he took exception to staff's comment about being neglagent in following through with the petition. Mr. Crouse had record of phone conversations and letters of communication from the City from August through to the present on a monthly basis, to find what the status was. Crouse then received a letter in October indicating that the petition was out of the loop some how. The formal request had been misplaced. They were assured by staff that to stay in the loop they would need to re- request the rezoning. At that time they had requested an amendment to C -2 and indicated to the City that the management of the company decided not to do the model center. The reasons at the time, it was not acceptable to manage it. Mr. Crouse wanted to enter into record the comments listed on the second page of the "Brief History of Events" as follows: Cardinal Industries has followed all steps required by relevant regulations and worked in concert with the various staff regarding these petitions. Cardinal has amended its rezoning required from C -3 to C -2, a less intense commercial district. The petitions represent consistency with existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use element, and compatibility with existing uses and zoning adjacent to the site. Staff has indicated a concern for traffic hazard and the need for a traffic study based upon section 9.5 (chapter IV) of the Zoning Code. In order to accomplish a legitimate traffic study there must be a specific use and site plan design to analyze. The petitions do not include a site plan nor does the Zoning Code require one for rezoning. While the merits for a traffic study may be appropriate the time for an effective traffic study is during the Site Plan approval process as is already required by code. lbw Staff also expressed concern with potential direct access Page 5 "fir► Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 onto SR 50. We recognize in talking with FDOT that any access would be via Marshall Farms Road. This also would be appropriately addressed at Site Plan approval. The requests before you meet pertinent requirements and will being the subject site into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Maxim Building Corporation respectfully requests your recommendation for approval. Swickerath asked if staff would have any objections to a simple rezoning of this property to C -2, independent of any development that is going on. Harper stated that he wanted to answer the question, but felt there were several comments that Mr. Crouse brought up that need clarified. First of all, vesting of Rights is a complex issue. Once the zoning of C -2 is given his rights are vested in C -2. Instead of the developer telling city staff why it's right, we have to tell them why it's wrong. Once property rights are invested there could be serious problems. ''Warr Swickerath asked if staff had a problem with rezoning this property to C -2 consistent with the land use plan and referring the traffic study and the improvement to Marshall Farms Road until such time we have a site plan review. Harper did not feel comfortable with the idea. The level of service he sited as the State levels as "C ", staff has asked for documentation and received general classified information that the FDOT gives out to everybody. They have not provided any documentation relating to the service level of this intersection. Secondly, in regard to Mr. Crouse's statement that the C -2 is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Mr. Harper reminded the board that the City is not presently proceeding under the Growth Management Act, we are still several years away from it. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act and maybe the Growth Management Act does not relate at all to what Mr. Crouse is alleging that it says. Harper commented that he was familiary with both Acts and in his opinion it does not say what he stated. As to whether or not staff is seeking to confer the Comprehensive Plan by what he is saying, he was not sure. All he knows is that the zoning ordinance was annexed as an implementation procedure for the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and that is what staff is proceeding under. That is what the staff's regulations were taken from. The City's regulations state that we have to make proper assurances that the health safety welfare is protected to err avoid congestion in the streets and facilitate the adequate transportation. In Harper's opinion he has problems. Page 6 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 Swickerath stated that right across the street there is property zoned commercial, and this petition is consistent with the general land use. Harper stated that there will be a mandated road improvement by the Beltway Authority to improve Marshall Farms Road. The developers will be required to improve the section of the road that passes their property. Swickerath questioned the audience if they had any questions, but no response. The public hearing was closed. Burton Smith moved to recommend approval of the C -2 zoning, Harold Switzer seconded and John Linebarier asked to amend the motion by adding: if and when the property is developed that the proper road studies and improvements will be made at the time of site plan submittal. Swickerath called for the question, the motion carried unanimously. RECESS: 8:35 CALL TO ORDER: 8:38 • Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 6, Chapter IV of Appendix A - Petitioner Aulton Julian Planning Director Behrens read the Staff Report of December 8, 1988. It read, should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of an amendment to the City of Ocoee Zoning Ordinance, which would allow as permitted uses, what is commonly called "zero -lot line zoning" of two - family and multi - family dwellings, i.e. - to allow for "fee simple" ownership of one -half of a duplex and one -half of the conventional duplex lot. Behrens recommended that the P &Z Board take the ordinance and staff report under advisement - review it and bring it back before the board on January 10, 1989 or schedule a workshop. Alton Juilan commented that he didn't know why the ordinance had to go back before Planning and Zoning. Linebarier commented that his understanding from the City Commission meeting was that City Commission would consider approving the ordinance. Behrens stated that he brought it before the Planning and Zoning Board for them to review and address the Ordinance in thirty days. There was some discussion between board members regarding building codes and current zoning. Chairman Swickerath went on record to say that Alton Julian is here to stay. He is a good citizen and is good for the whole West Orange Community. Swickerath stated that the board is here to respond to the Staff Page 7 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 Report's request and they will either respond to the Ordinance tonight or discuss it at the next meeting. Burton Smith moved to recommend to City Commission that they follow staff recommendation and postpone Planning and Zoning action until January 10, 1989. This motion died for lack of a second. Burton Smith moved to recommend to City Commission that they approve the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 6, Chapter IV of Appendix A, Gerald Weeks seconded. Chairman Swickerath commented to the board that the Ordinance at hand would apply uniformly to any property in the City zoned R -3. And, the fact that the precedent for citing this is not really a zero lot line subdivision development with open plan recreation space and separation of units. He recommended to the other board members that they vote against the adoption of the ordinance the way it was written and presented. Chairman Swickerath called for the vote and the motion was denied with a 3 to 2 vote. AGAINST the motion was Linebarier, Switzer, Swickerath, and FOR the motion was Smith and Weeks. CANDLEWOOD SHORES - PRESENTATION OF PLAT Planning Director Behrens read the Staff Report of December 12, 1988. The issue was whether the Planning and Zoning Board should approve the preliminary subdivision plan dated 9/26/88 (received by Ocoee October 6, 1988). Attached to the Staff Report were staff comments also dated October 6, 1988, each department's comments were listed. Staff's recommendation was that in view of the large number of comments but particularly because of the possible impact of the more significant comments, staff could not recommend that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the preliminary subdivision plans without first seeing how compliance with the staff report would impact the development the development. Therefore, staff must respectfully recommend that the Planning and Zoning Board direct the developer to address the comments in the staff report and then to resubmit a preliminary subdivision plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for review. This action should not delay the developer as staff will not be able to take the present preliminary subdivision plan to the City Commission without substantial revisions which would greatly reduce the number of outstanding comments. Mr. C. Wayne Atwood, Owner of Candlewood Shore Subdivision was present along with his engineer Richard Russell from Site Engineering Consultants. Mr. Atwood stated that he would like to Page 8 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 go over quickly the items listed and felt he would be able to comply with the majority of the comments. WATER_SYSTEM - Developer will comply with all nine items. SANITARY_SEWER - Developer will comply with all five items. STORM_DRAINAGE - Developer will comply with all 13 items. GENERAL - Listed individually 1. OK 2. OK 3. Has been addressed in zoning through the Development Agreement and developer agreed to it. 4. OK 5. OK 6. OK 7. OK - entrance is in a dedicated right -of -way. 8. DONE - will send copies to the city. 9. Street "A" is to be constructed to collector standards with a 60 foot right -of -way as called for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 'hrr► COMMENT: Developer will show on the Final Engineering Plan a 60 foot right -of -way, and show that all lots will meet or exceed the City Standards. 10. A traffic study may be required to determine improvements needed on Johio Shores Drive and Clark Road to facilitate traffic movements into and from the development. FDOT Green Book standards must be observed. Escrowing funds prior to the final decision on Clark Road may be an appropriate option. COMMENT: Developer takes exception to comment. (SEE ZONING ITEM #4) 11. OK 12. OK 13. Although not required by ordinances, we would suggest that a soils analysis (in addition to the required soils report) be done to determine if any pesticides or herbicides remain in the ground. COMMENT: Developer takes exception because it is not a required ordinance. Senior Planner Harper commented that this was brought to staff's attention by Street Department Supervisor Buddy Elmore. That is was Mr. Elmore's concern and considering his experience in the area that the Page 9 Now Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 old burned out groves have heavy residues of long lasting and toxic chemicals. Harper commented that Mr. Elmore had stated something to the effect that by virtue of certain soil characteristics in the area that the toxic chemicals could be present in the soil and would not decay even over extended periods of time. And, that he had had personal experience in the immediate area. In fact, the DET has such a long life that it gets into certain soil conditions and once the soil is worked by making improvements on the site that it's liable to turn the DET loose. A soils report was in the process at that time. Chairman Swickerath commented that the Orange County Agriculature Department has a very fine extention service. They have been in the business for years and there's probably nobody that knows more about this area then they do. Have City Staff get one of those people to come out and make some kind of assessment of what the nature of the problem may or may not be on this site, and what 'fir.- they would recommend to do to test for it. Or, come up with a similar alternative (John Bateman with the Environmental Protection Agency). Then the matter should be addressed. Board Members and City Staff agreed upon to the request. 14. Access to retention areas should be at least fifteen feet wide with block pavers used to stabilize the accesss. From the back of curb to the right -of -way line, we will need a 6" reinforced concrete driveway at access point. COMMENT: Mr. Atwood commented that the stabilized access is provided in all the other areas to the retention areas is sufficient. It will be Block Pavers. They plan to provide a 20 foot wide access into the retention area instead of the stated 15 foot. This will be adressed in the final engineering plans and will meet ordinance requirements for those access. 15. OK 16. Why can't Tracts B, C, and D be dedicated to the City of Ocoee under one tract? COMMENT: Atwood commented that this would be done along Itro with the platting of each phase. B, C, and D represent park requirements for Phase I (Tract C), Page 10 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 Phase II (Tract D) and (Tract B) is another subdivision he ownes across the street (Richfield). Senior Planner Harper suggested staff get a legal opinion, the board and developer agreed. 17. OK 18. OK 19. OK 20. According to the Subdivision Regulations, provisions would have to be made to extend Lake Johio Road to Street B and Court G would have to be realigned. If the Board wishes to waive this requirement then access rights from Lot 138 to Lake Johio Road should be dedicated to the City of Ocoee. COMMENT: Developer wanted to discuss further. (SEE ZONING ITEM #4) 21. OK 22. OK 23. *iirr 24. OK 25. OK 26. OK 27. Street C appears to be too close to Clark Road to provide adequate stacking space during peak traffic hours. COMMENT: Developer needs to discuss adjustments. (SEE ZONING ITEM #4) ZONING COMMENTS - Listed individually 1. OK 2. OK 3. Show the Flora Avenue right -of -way on the plan. COMMENT: Flora Avenue is no longer a right -of -way going out to Johio Shores Road, this has been vacated. Staff asked for a letter from the developer stating that this was vacated. Developer agreed to send letter. 4. The internal street system, as proposed, does not provide for an orderly nor soud traffic flow, the major objection being the "straight- shot" nature of Street "A ", which will encourage persons not living in Candlewood to utilize Street Page 11 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 "A" as a sub - collector. I feel, in addition, that the curve designed into Street "A" at Lots 52 and 62 will be a definite traffic hazard and at its intersection with Street "B ". There is a good chance that Street "A" will have inadequate vehicle storage between Lots 76 and 154 (ingress - egress) to Clark Road and possibly on Johio Shores Road, = 1,540 vehicle trips x 15 -20% during peak hours = 150 -300 vehicles per hour waiting to get out onto Clark Road. COMMENT: Mr. Atwood stated that Street "A" had been designed by standards and with the design to be a sub - collector street they did not see a problem with. Atwood already agreed to the 60 foot right - of -way. Sr. Planner Harper mentioned that if the developer widens the R -O -W to 60 foot and puts a 24 foot typical cross section road through, he personally didn't see a problem with it, as far as the first part of the #4's comment. As far as the curves, if the developer puts in a 24 foot paved surface it will make it better but won't eliminate the problem. If the developer wants to have a street that encourages through traffic in his dirt subdivision it would be more of a marketing decision than a planning decision. Richard Russell stated that the curves were put in to slow the traffic down. Swickerath stated that if Street "A" was going to be a through street that the developer need to make sure that the homes meet all the requirements for off street parking. He would like to see "No Parking" signs on the street to limit parking. Harper commented that at the rewritting of the preliminary plat staff is going to give a formal written specification formalizing the 60 foot right -of -way with 24 foot pavement. Also, if necessary, a stop sign would act as a further discouragement. COMMENT: Second part of item #4 (vehicle stacking) - The developer will comply with the City Engineer's requirements for stacking space out onto Clark Road and /or finance their own study that reputes that, and present the evidence to the P &Z board. In any event, provide more stacking space onto Clark Road. Bob Campbell of P.E.C. should run the numbers. Board Member Linebarier commented that there were several items in the staff report that were tied together. Item #4 (zoning), #20 (general), and #10 (general). He commented that information relating to these comments were not available to make a sound Page 12 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 judgement on either side, for staff or developer on the above three items. Linebarier recommended that to solve the three particular items that a traffic study be made to provide figures on the Lake Johio Road when it's paved, Clark Road intersection with Street "A ", Johio Shores intersection with Street "A ", and Johio Shores intersection with Silver Star Road. Linebarier would like impacts on the above roads. Sr. Planner Harper commented that access to Clark Road should be modified to a limited amount. Chairman Swickerath stated that any time a project is brought before the Planning and Zoning Board that staff is to bring a drawing of Clark Road so the Board can see it, with the intersections drawn in red. Unfortunately, the city does have some intersections that are already approved on Clark Road via Development Agreements and plans. Planning Director Behrens stated that P.E.C. is working on such a drawing which also will include curb cuts on Clark Road. John Linebarier moved that items #4 (zoning), #10 (general) and #20 (general) be referred to staff and the developer to work out in the developers agreement, or see a traffic study. THIS MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN DUE TO A STATEMENT THAT THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WAS ALREADY DONE. John Linebarier moved that a traffic study be provided on the Clark Road intersection with Street "A ", Johio Shores intersection with Street "A ", and Johio Shores intersection with Silver Star Road. Linebarier would like to see traffic impacts on the above roads. And, on the feasibility of opening up Lake Johio Road (opening up means require developer to remove lot 138 in order to provide access to Street "B ". Burton Smith mentioned that a second ingress /egress should be required. Swickerath went on to say that he thought Lake Johio Road is there and is unpaved and what the board may want the developer to do is through lot 138 up on the alignment for Street "B" and then east on Street "A" to the Phase I line, provide some kind of stabilized base and it could be gravel, clay topping, dirt topping, but a secondary means of ingress /egress for emergency vehicles to Phase I. Mr. Atwood stated that he didn't have a problem with using Lake Johio Road as a secondary emergency access, but if and when Clark Road is built he would like to see the interium access eliminated for security reasons. Swickerath stated that there is still a question that John Linebarier wants studied in the traffic analysis about the importance and advisability of connecting to Lake Johio Road. Burton Smith seconded the motion, Chairman Swickerath made clear that the motion specifically applies to the last sentence in item #4 of the zoning commments. The motion carried unanimously. Page 13 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 5. OK 6. OK 7. No provision for the Arbor Ordinance, expecially on Tract "E ", which has great trees. Is Tract "E" going to be dedicated to the City? COMMENT: Mr. Atwood stated that Tract "E" would be dedicated to the city in access to park requirements, and a Tree Survey will be provided. Staff stated that they wanted the developer to meet the provisions stated in Chapter 12.5 in the Land Development Regulations book. 8. Suggest Tract "A" retention area to be redesigned so as not to offer such an obtrusive land use by incorporating the necessary retention area along waterfront or series of swales upland, notably where lots 120 -124 are not designated and lots 46, 47, 50 and 51. COMMENT: Mr. Atwood stated that the retention pond had been designed, Tract "A" is in the low area with a 'err► natural collector for a run-off. To do it as suggested by the staff they feel they would ruin all the lakefront lots and they would create addition retention areas in the upland areas. They feel the would create more eyesores in the subdivision. The retention pond is set behind the back of the lots and would not be visible by anyone but the landowners themselves. They feel that engineering wise is in the best location within the subdivision. After discussion with staff, the board and the developer Chairman Swickerath commented that he liked the idea that the pond would catch all the water on the low side before it goes to the lake. In doing all the pollution control there and by moving the retention pond up hill what we do is say that everything down from them goes in the lake or gets caught in the shallow uneffected swale along the lakes edge. As long as the pond makes good engineering sence is permittable by the water management district and PEC's approval. If Site Engineering Consultants has to do some compensating storage, that has to be worked out. John Linebarier moved to recommend to approve the design of Tract "A" retention area subject to approval of P.E.C. and St. Johns Water Management District. Seconded by Harold Switzer and the motion carried unanimously. Page 14 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting December 13, 1988 9. OK 10. Some provision should be made for safe access or crossing to the park sites in Tracts "B ", "C ", and "D ". Also, integration of park sites with Silver Glen and BML Investments. COMMENTS: Mr. Atwood commented that the crossing over to the park would probably be addressed in the traffic study, as far as integration of the park with Silver Glen and BML Investments. City Staff has indicated that they wanted to work with those people. Tract "C" would be dedicated to the City in Phase I. Staff, the board, and Mr. Atwood continued with a discussion on how children would cross Clark Road. Chairman Swickerath commented that he would like to see City Staff revisit the whole concept of fences around retention ponds. Sr. Planner Harper commented on an additional issue that should be addressed is that the City's ordinance does not provide for phasing of err recreational space, like Mr. Atwood is providing with his plan. When the plat is approved reguardless of Phases all the recreation space is to be set aside and dedicated all at one time. Mr. Atwood stated he ownes Phase I which Tract "C" would go with. Phase II is under option. As Mr. Atwood dedicates Phase I the owner of Tract "C" would join Mr. Atwood and dedicate it to the City. Because it is required by the City to have a 5% dedication. John Linebarier moved to make a motion that item #10 under "Zoning Comments" be referred to the staff to reconcile with the developer. Burton Smith seconded and the motion carried unanimously. BURTON SMITH MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IF THE DEVELOPER ACCEPTS THE CORRECTIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THEY AGREED TO. JOHN LINEBARIER SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PLAN COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD. OLD BUSINESS Page 15 "4w,, Planning and Zoning Board Members December 13, 1988 OTHER BUSINESS The Planning and Zoning Board Members would like to have coffee at these meetings. Secretary to arrange for a small coffee pot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The board would like to see the previous elements (work products) and the ongoing elements that are being worked on, go through a public hearing. Bring elements in one or two at a time. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:40 PM „, i i , //AA/ C' =7.:. .A1' ir-CKE'ATH NW" ATTEST: '--k-e,,-,.__ "'7V- c 1, , t___ - ELLEN KING, SECRETARY