Loading...
08-22-1989 "F PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES I L E The Schertz Planning and Zoning Commission convened in a regular session on Tuesday, August 22, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. in the Municipal Complex Conference Room, 1400 Schertz Parkway. Those present were as follows: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OTHERS PRESENT TY BRISGILL, CHAIRMAN MERWIN WILLMAN BOB ANDREWS GEORGE VICK JIM SHRIVER BETTY DIXON, WINDY MEADOW DAVID DIXON, WINDY MEADOW BOB MCLAREN, GARDEN RIDGE QUALITY CLOSEOUTS CITY STAFF MEMBERS ABSENT JOE POTEMPA, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEITH VAN DINE, SECRETARY KEN GREENWALD, COUNCILPERSON STEVE SIMONSON, ASST. CITY MANAGER NORMA ALTHOUSE, RECORDING SECRETARY 11 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brisgill called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Regular Session August 8, 1989 B. Joint Public Hearing and Special Session August 15, 1989 A. Regular Session August 8, 1989 Bob Andrews made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular session August 8, 1989. Merwin Willman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: M. Willman, B. Andrews, G. Vick, J. Shriver NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: T. Brisgill Motion carried. B. Joint Public Hearing and Special Session August 15, 1989 Merwin Willman made a motion to approve the minutes for the Joint Public Hearing and Special Session August 15, 1989. Jim Shriver seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: T. Brisgill, M. Willman, B. Andrews, J. Shriver NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: G. Vick Motion carried. -, 13 CITIZENS' INPUT OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS There was none. '4 CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION: steven L. Lance, on Behalf of G.E.C.C., Request for Variance to the Mobile Home Ordinance to Allow Placement of an R. V. in Windy Meadow Mobile Home Park at 409 Meadow View Drive Betty and David Dixon of Windy Meadow Mobile Home Park were at the meeting to represent this request. Chairman Brisgill asked for staff input. steve Simonson reminded the Commission it is clearly stated in the ordinance that an R.V. is not allowed in a mobile home park. Mr. Simonson continued on saying this is a serious situation because of a former lawsuit regarding a mobile home park. Mr. Simonson coinmented under normal conditions sometimes these things can be worked out. He thinks the reason for the request is legitimate and. the managers are making good efforts in maintaining the mobile home park, however, because of the former lawsuit, he advised the Commission to think about this very carefully. Betty Dixon informed the Commission the gentleman who will be living in the R.V. is a general contractor for G.E.C.C. and he will be taking care of maintenance at Windy Meadow. Mrs. Dixon further commented it would be advisable to have him on the property. They need someone, for example, for protection from vandalism around the pool. Betty Dixon asked the Commission to give this request favorable consideration because the R.V. will be located in the maintenance area of the mobile home park and this will be a one time thing - never again will an R.V. be allowed to locate in the park. Bob Andrews asked if it wouldn't be feasible to place a mobile home in the park for the same price as an R.V. Betty Dixon replied the gentleman already owns the R.V. and has for 4-6 years now. There was further discussion about the ordinance with Betty Dixon saying she had asked several times for a copy of the ordinance but had never received one. Chairman Brisgill assured her that if she came to the Municipal Complex and requested a copy of the Mobile Home Ordinance, someone would be glad to see that she received one. George Vick expressed the same opinion as Bob Andrews about installing a mobile home rather than an R.V. for the same price. -2- Betty Dixon, once again, stressed that the gentleman who would be living there already owns an R.V. George Vick then pointed out the mobile home could be provided and installed by the park since he is going to be doing their maintenance. Bob Andrews remarked it is hard for the city to differentiate and say because he works there he will be allowed to have an R.V. and then say to a citizen you can't locate an R.V. there because you don't work there. Betty Dixon then asked if it isn't the park manager's responsibility to say there can be no more R.V.'s in the park. Bob Andrews responded Q~ saying he thinks that may possibly be fringing on discriminatfon. Chairman Brisgill noted the general contractor would be the same as any other neighbor in the park. Merwin Willman suggested it would be better to move in a mobile home rather than an R.V. Betty Dixon still insisted it would benefit the park to have this gentleman live there and then asked why R.V.'s are allowed in Pecan Grove Mobile Home Park. ~~~ Steve Simonson acknowledged that was a pre-existing condition on this side of the Creek and they were "grandfathered" when the new ordinance went into effect. Mr. Simonson further noted that the new owners (if the deal comes about) have been informed they will not be able to have R.V.'s in a mobile home park. Bob Andrews said the City has attempted to take steps to correct such situations by making a non-conforming use (i.e., R.V.'s in a mobile home park) non-transferable to a new owner or tenant. Betty Dixon informed the Commission the R.V. had been moved into the park before they knew the ordinance prohibited it and she wishes they would all drive out to the mobile home park to see how well it is maintained before they make her ask the gentleman to move his R.V. out. Jim Shriver commented he had driven through the park just an hour ago. Chairman Brisgill observed that probably all of the Commission members have driven through the park. Mr. Brisgill further commented that usually when an item is on the agenda, they try to take a look at the location and/or situation before the meeting. -3- George Vick made a motion to deny the request from' steven L. Lance, on behalf of G.E.C.C., for a variance to the Mobile Home Ordinance to allow placement of an R.V. in Windy Meadow Mobile Home Park at 409 Meadow View Drive. The reason for the denial was cited as Section XI, Paragraph B .1. b. of the Mobile Home Ordinance which states "Travel trailers and/or recreational vehicles (R. V. 's) shall not be permitted within a Mobile Home Park". Bob Andrews seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. After the vote, Betty Dixon asked if there is anyone steven Lance can speak with about this. steve Simonson advised Mrs. Dixon about the right to an appeal through the Board of Adjustment. The Commission also discussed the possibility of amending the motion to include a time frame for removal of the R.V., but it was decided that should be a Staff decision. Steve Simonson told Mrs. Dixon she will be getting a letter from him officially -notifying her of the denial and her right to appeal. Merwin Willman reminded Mr. Simonson about a copy of the Sign Ordinance for Mrs. Dixon. Mr. Simonson said she would have to purchase a copy of the ordinance and the fee is $5.00. Chairman Brisgill thanked the Dixons for attending the meeting. '5 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Discussion on Proposed Change to Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Parkland Merwin Willman had written up some proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding parkland which the Commission received copies of in their packages. (Copy attached) Mr. Willman commented if the Commission has any questions, he will try to answer them. Steve Simonson related that a lot of research has gone into these proposed changes, using for example, ordinances from other cities. Mr. Simonson said, currently, the City covers parkland in it's ordinance only vaguely and from a Staff point of view, parkland is one of those things the City needs to demand. The Commission reviewed several questions regarding the proposed procedures: Will the implementation of these procedures discourage developers/builders? -4- This was discussed only briefly with the feeling being, regardless of regulations, there still has to be parkland for the City. - Money-in-lieu-of-Iand, $225 per dwelling unit per acre, is it too much or not enough? George Vick asked where the $225 per dwelling was derived from. Merwin Willman answered he had used the College Station ordinance for this figure because that particular ordinance has been court- tested and College Station won the case. George Vick then asked if the $225 is to be set aside to procure and/or develop parkland and was told yes it is. Ty Brisgill questioned whether there should be some type of assessment system to cover fluctuations in the market value of land. Merwin Willman felt that question is answered under 24.8 b. where it says "Land dedication may be met by a payment of money in- lieu-of-Iand at- a per-acre price set from time to time by resolution by the City Council, sufficient to acquire land and provide for adjacent streets and utilities for a neighborhood park. Unless changed by City Council, such per-acre price shall be computed on the basis of $225.00 per dwelling unit". Chairman Brisgill asked Bob Andrews if he has any input as far as fluctuation in the market value of land. Mr. Andrews, after some discussion about what the price should be based on, said he thinks the per dwelling unit per acre price is a good idea. At this time the Commission took a short break and reconvened in the Council Chambers so City Council could use the Conference Room. Bob Andrews noted it is the job of the Commission to review ordinances periodically and Merwin Willman pointed out the price can be decided when talking to the developer. Jim Shriver asked if the money will cover the development of the park or is it an estimate. Chairman Brisgill commented he felt this would be up to the City Council to decide. steve Simonson commented that an example of costs would be that to construct a small pavilioni and to provide adequate parking and restroom facilities for such pavilion would run about $25,000. Merwin Willman indicated this could be more of a neighborhood type park, not necessarily an elaborate one like the City Park. -5- Mr. Wi llman once again stressed the developer can' tell the Commission where the parkland is when they review the preliminary plat. Jim Shriver remarked that.~" more parkland was one of the items recommended by the Citizens Leadership Panel in it's report. - The dedication of 1 acre of land for each 133 proposed dwelling units, is it too much or not enough? The Commission agreed this was an adequate request. - Is 2 years long enough for the City to spend the money given in-lieu-of-Iand? Jim Shriver indicated he feels two years is not long enough. Bob Andrews voiced the opinion he would like to see the two years tied in some way with development. There was then discussion about where the parks, for which money is given in-lieu-of-Iand~ have to be located. Merwin Willman commented the park could be located within a half mile radius. Bob Andrews then mentioned the. possibility of there being no land available for a park anywhere near a large subdivision. Merwin Willman pointed out that big developers will give land and not money, and Steve Simonson said these proposed procedures leave room for "negotiation at the time the preliminary plat is reviewed. Several other problems were discussed such as diverting money given for one area for use in another area, how long the City has to develop a park after the land is acquired, and possibly tying the hands of the city by requiring them to buy land from a developer at two or three times the original price which was given as money-in-lieu-of-Iand. steve Simonson suggested tabling this item so the Commission has time to review it more carefully. Bob Andrews made a motion to table ITEM #5 (CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Discussion on Proposed Change to Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Parkland) until the Commission has time to review it more carefully and come up with their recommendations for any changes. Jim Shriver seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. -6- Chairman Brisgill, reminding the Commission that 'the next regular ly scheduled meeting is not until September 12th, said that should be enough time to review this item and requested it be placed on the agenda. '6 CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Discussion on Sign Ordinance Robert McLaren from Garden Ridge invited to attend the meeting for present. Quality Closeouts had been this discussion and he was Chairman Brisgill remarked that Don Brodeur, City Inspector, has already given his input and the business community has been surveyed for their input. The following subjects pertaining to the Sign Ordinance were discussed: (a) auxiliary signs the definition of such signs and the possibility of limiting their use even though it doesn't seem to be realistic; (b) banners, flags and pennants - the definition of these and how they are being confused with auxiliary signs; (c) suggestion to just let the staff tell the Commission what they can enforce (it was stated the Commission needs to plan ahead regardless of whether or not the ordinance is enforced); (d) the number of signs allowed seemingly presenting the biggest problem; (e) suggestion that maybe the entire ordinance needs to be rewritten; and (f) suggestion that maybe only those sections of the ordinance pertaining to auxiliary signs and to banners, flags and pennants need to be rewritten. Robert McLaren spoke at this time saying he feel s only those areas of the ordinance pertaining to auxiliary signs and to banners, flags and pennants need some rewriting. Mr. McLaren alsofel t the Commission should examine similar ordinances" of other cities for a comparison. He singled out the City of Austin Sign Ordinance as an example of a very conservative document. Bob Andrews made a motion to table ITEM #6 (CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION: Discussion on Sign Ordinance) until the Commission can receive input from the City of Austin and other city Sign Ordinances for purposes of combining their ideas and reworking the current ordinance, specifically those sections dealing with auxiliary signs and with banners, flags and pennants, and can come up with something workable for the City of Schertz. -7- George Vick seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. 17 GENERAL DISCUSSION George Vick: (a) Is glad to be back. Cb) At a house between Maske Road and old Live Oak Road there's a trailer and it looks like they're making it into a permanent facility. Is this allowed? (Steve Simonson said he would have the Inspector check into it.) .Steve Simonson:_ ~~~.. ". Said he had an inquiry from a gentleman in the Schirmerville area about subdividing his land. This is proposed to start as a small project, but could get big. Mr. Simonson noted that according to the ordinance, the gentleman could cut out 1 or 2 lots and not have to subdivide. It is in an area where they have to use septic tanks, so the lots could not be less than one half acre. The gentleman wants to be off FM 1518, so it would require rezoning. Mr. Simonson asked the Commission if they want all business along FM 1518 or would they considering allowing residential. Mr. Simonson further stated this probably won't develop into anything because of the lack of adequate water lines in the area, but he would like to have their feelings on the matter. Bob Andrews commented residential is okay with him because the City already has too many miles of land zoned for general business. George Vick remarked it will be a long time before general business develops in that area and he would like to see more residential development in the near future. Merwin Willman agreed with Bob Andrews, but said he definitely would like to see big lots, not a subdivision like some of the others in the City. Mr. Willman said the Commission needs to review some of it's current zoning and see if that's what's best for the City. Jim Shriver expressed the desire to see a combination of zonings. Indicated one of the representatives on the Citizens Leadership Panel was hoping for more services to the people in that area. Chairman Brisgill indicated his agreement with everything said by the Commission members. The possibility of a marginal access road was mentioned by Bob Andrews, and Steve Simonson said he doesn't want to see a bunch of individual driveways pop up in the area. -8- steve Simonson thanked the Commission for their input. Chairman Brisgill: (a) Has any thought been given to putting a sign in front of the Municipal Complex, the type of sign with a means for changing messages, so the City could keep the citizens informed about current meetings and ev~nts? Steve Simonson replied the Landscape Committee has been thinking of putting up a nice sign to try and enhance participation from the citizenry. Chairman Brisgill suggested maybe having the Clemens High School students participate in a contest to come up with a design for the ~ign. George Vick wondered if anyone knew how much one of those electronic message signs would cost. steve Simonson replied they are very expensive. (b) Asked if there was any update on the fencing situation at Jack's Auto and at T & M on FM 1518. Steve Simonson said the City has been in contact with Jack's Auto, but hadn't heard anything back from them. After a brief discussion on the location of T & M, it was determined it is not within the City limits. '8 ADJOORNMENT Chairman Brisgill adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M. The next regularly scheduled meeting is September 12, 1989. -9-= I' .. Subject: Proposed Change to the Subdivision Ordinance - Parkland To: Planning and Zoning Commission 1. Attached are proposed procedures for the acquiring of land for parks in proposed residential subdivisions. You will note that our current procedures are very vague on this subject. It is very important that all persons effected by these procedures understand them and that they do not hinder the growth of our City. Our first responsibility is to the City. 2. In studying these proposed procedures, there are a few things you should pay special attention to: a. Will the implementation of these procedures discourage developers/builders? b. Para. 24.2 The dedication of 1 acre of land for each 133 proposed dwelling unitsl is it too much or not enough? c. Para. 24.8.b. Money-in-lieu-of-Iand, $225 per dwelling unit per acre, is it too much or not enough? d. Para. 24.9.b. Is 2 years long enough for the City to spend the money glven in-lieu-of-land or too long? e. Para. 24.12 Are the restrictions placed on the dedication of flood plain land too stringent? 3. These proposed parkland dedication procedures were compiled for ordinances from the City of College Station, City of Corpus Christi and City of Austin. It is interesting to note that the City of College Station procedures have been court tested. 4. If these procedures had been in effect when some of our current subdivisions were platted, the following number of acres would have been dedicated as money-in-lieu-of-land: Woodland Oaks 459 Units 3.45 Acres Savannah Square 408 Units 3.067 Acres Silvertree 59 Units .443 Acres Greenshire Oaks 53 Units .498 Acres Money-in-lieu-of-land @ $225 per dwelling unit: Woodland Oaks Savannah Square Silvertree Greenshire Oaks $103,275 $ 91,800 $ 13,275 $ 11,925 ADD the following as Paragraph "r" to Article II, Section 15, Para. 15.5, Specifications (Page 11): ( 1) The boundary I ines and acreage of the land proposed to be dedicated to the City for public park land. (2) The boundary lines and acreage of the land proposed for a private park (if applicable). Plat notes indicating ownership and responsibility for maintenance, Paragraph 24.14. (3) Plat note indicating the calculation used to determine the acreage for the public park land. (4) Plat note that the proposed park land will be dedicated to the city by a general warranty deed upon acceptance of the subdivision by the city. --2- INDEX OF ARTICLE III, SECTION 24 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 24.9 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.13 24.14 24.15 Purpose Park/Recreational Land in a Residential Subdivision to be Used for Single-Family, Duplex and/or Apartment Residential Purpose Development of Areas Smaller Than One (1) Acre Dedication of Less than Two (2) Acres Dedication Procedures Park Land Dedication by Commercial or Manufacturing Subdivision Development of Subdivision by Units Money-in-Lieu-of-Land Special Fund: Right to Refund Conveyance of Title Location Within subdivision Flood Plain Development of Neighborhood Park by Subdivision Private Park Land Submittal Requirements -3- ARTICLE III Section 24 Design Standards Public Sites and Open Spaces (Deleted) Change to: Section 24 Parks and Recreation Areas 24.1 Purpose. 24.1-A This section is to provide the procedures for the dedication of, adequate land for local public parks in residential subdivisions and/or provision of cash payments in-lieu-of park land dedication, and establ ish procedures for the receipt and expenditure of these payments. 24.1-B Neighborhood parks are those parks providing for a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities and located within a convenient distance from a majori:ty of the residences to be served thereby. 24.2 Park/Recreational Used for Single-Family Purposes. When a final plat is filed for development of a residential area within the city, or within the area of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, the plat shall contain the dedication of an area of land for park purposes. Each area shall equal one (1) acre for each one hundred thirty-three (133) proposed dwelling units. Any proposed preliminary plat submitted for approval. shall show the location of the area proposed to be dedicated for park land. Land in a Residential subdivision to be Dwelling and/or Apartment Residential 24.3 The Development of Areas Smaller Than One (1) Acre. The development of areas smaller than one (1) acre for publ ic parks purposes is considered impractical. Therefore, if fewer than one hundred thirty-three (133) units are proposed by a plat, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable cash-in- lieu-of-land amount rather than to dedicate any land area. No plat showing a dedication of less than one (1) acre shall be approved. 24.4 Dedication of Less Than Two (2) Acres. When less than two (2) acres is required to be dedicated, the City shall have the right to accept the dedication for approval on the final plat, or refuse same, and to require payment of cash-in-lieu-of-Iand. 24.5 Dedication Procedures. The dedication required by this Section shall be made by filing of the final plat or documentation. If the actual number of completed dwelling units exceeds the figure upon which the original dedication was based, such additional dedication shall be required and shall be made by payment of cash-in-lieu-of-land. -4...; ,. 24.6 Park Land Dedication by Commercial or Manufacturing Subdivision. Land to be solely for' nonresidential use, located within the city or within the area of extraterrrtorial jurisdiction of the City, shall not be required to be dedicated as park land or have monies paid in-lieu thereof. Provided, however, that if it should be desired to make residential use of the property at some future time, no building permit shall be issued for residential construction and no residential construction shall commence until the owner satisfies the then existing requirements in the platting for park dedication or park payments. 24.7 Development of Subdivision by Units. When the subdivision is to be developed in stages or by units and the final platting of the park area to be dedicated is to be included in the second or later unit, the subdivider shall complete or deliver to the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the final plat of the first unit of said subdivision, a contract subject to City Council approval, executed by the subdivider, providing for the future dedication of such park. The form of such contract shall be provided by the City Attorney. 24.8 Money-in-Lieu-of-Land. a. Subject to recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and final approval by the city Council, a landowner responsible for dedication of land may elect to meet the requirements of this Section in whole or in part by a cash payment in-lieu-of-Iand. Such payment in-lieu-of-Iand shall be made at or prior to the time of final plat approval. b. Land dedication may be met by a payment of money in-lieu-of- land at a per-acre price set from time to time by resolution by the City Council, sufficient to acquire land and provide for adjacent streets and utilities for a neighborhood park. Unless changed by City Council, such per-acre price shall be computed on the basis of $225.00 per dwelling unit. c. All required fees and letters of credit must be paid/posted as a part of the final plat approval. 24.9 Special Fund: Right to Refund. a. A .special fund for the deposit of all sums paid in-lieu-of- land dedication shall be established. This fund shall be known as the Park Land Dedication Fund. b. The City shall account for all sums paid in-lieu-of-Iand dedication with reference to the individual plats involved. Any funds paid for such purposes must be expended by the City within 2 years from the date received by the City for acquisition of development oJ a neighborhood park. Such funds shall be considered to be spent on a first in, first out basis. If not so expended, the owners of the property on the last day of such ~eriod shall be entitled ,to a prorata refund. The owners of such -5- property must request such refund within one (1) year of entitlement, in writing, or such rights shall be barred. 24.10 Conveyance of Title. In addition to a formal dedication on the plat to be recorded, the subdividers shall convey the required land to the City by general warranty deed. The land so dedicated and deeded shall not be subject to any reservations of record, encumbrances of any kind, or easements which, in the opinion of City Attorney, will interfere with the use of the land for parks or recreational purposes. 24.11 Location within Subdivision. a. A central location within the subdivision which the park will serve will be acquired unless the location at the edge of a subdivision will facilitate the combination of dedicated park area to form a single park to serve two or more subdivisions. The subdivider will contact adjoining landowners and present a schematic plan proposing joint dedication with the preliminary plat. If necess~ry for optimum park placement~ proposed parkland may be split into two (2) or more separate parks. In no case will a park contain less than 2 acres. b. At least 50 percent of the dedicated park site shall be level, well drained and suitable for open play. c. Potable water and sewage connections shall be readily available at the p~rk site, with water and wastewater lines located along the street frontage. The applicant must demonstrate that sufficient living units equivalent to serve the park are available .,within these water and wastewater lines. d. Any detention ponds and/or other drainage facilities to be placed in areas which are to be dedicated as park land must be designed and constructed to also allow for recreational use. Construction plans may be required to demonstrate that the design, placement and construction of such ponds meet the requirements of the city. e. If the city determines that sufficient park area is already in the public domain in the area of the proposed development, or if the recreation potential for the area would be better served by expanding or improving existing parks, the City has the right to accept the final plat or to refuse same. 24.12 Flood plain The flood standards shall apply to all land proposed for dedication or park land which is located in the 100 year flood plain: a. Every acre of dedicated park land located inside of the 100 year flood plain shall count as 1/2 acre of land toward the subdivision's total park land dedication requirement. -6- 4.i t, b. Flood plain areas will be considered based on the following criteria: The. flood plain area is easily ~ccessible and provided.- with adequate street frontage. ,,:u,", " - There has been minimal alteration of the natural character of the waterway and the flood plain area. - In no case will flood plain areas be accepted which are less than 100 feet in width. - The area' s configuration and topography is suitable for the placement of low-intensity facilities such as playgrounds, picnic facilities and open play fields. 24.13 Development of Neighborhood Park bv subdivider. The subdivider may have the option of developing the park, with the city's concurrence, prior to acceptance of the subdivision~py the City. Such park improvements shall be in compliance with the recommendations of City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the final approval. of the City Council. Should this option be exercised, - the City and the subdivider shall, prior to initiation of work ..onsuch improvements, enter into a contract for reimbursement of' subdivider expenses for authorized park improvements upon final acceptance of improvements in the park. Such contract, if all parties agree, may provide for reimbursement over an extended time period with interest on the unpaid balance. 24.14 Private Park" Land. a. No more than'" 50' percent of a subdivision's' total park land dedication requirement may receive. credit as private ..parkland.- A combination of land and facilities may be counted toward the allowable 50 percent credit. b. The applicant must submit a condominium declaration, homeowner's agreement or similar document which establishes the private ownership and maintenance responsibility of any private park areas established to meet the requirements of this Ordinance. In addition, a plat note must be included on the preliminary plat and final plat stating the ownership, and maintenance responsibility of all private park areas. c. A covenant. to be recorded and to run with the _ land restricting use of private parks and facilities for park and recreational purposes must be submitted prior to final plat acceptance. 24.15 Submittal Requirements. All information required by this Section of this Ordinance must be submitted at the time the preliminary plat is submitted to the PI~nning and Zoning Commission for review. -7- _______._-.___..._--r-"_._--"'!___ .------ ---- - ---- --..--------~_.~_._--.- ------~. . - - ..- _._.~