Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 02 12 Regular MEl"10 DATE: February 11, 1976 TO: Winter Springs Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Dianne Kramer ~J~ Planner .ICI'1'...- RE: Tuskawilla Presentation Representatives from the Tuskawilla PUD will be present at your February 12, 1976, meeting because of a previ9us discussion I had with them regarding Final Approval of a condominium section of the development. It is my understanding that the developer contends that he conforms to the Preliminary Plan and is asking only for Final site plan approval and preliminary plat approval. It is my opinion that his proposed plan is a change in concept from the approved preliminary plan and should be reviewed in that res)ect before proceeding with any final approval. The approved preliminary plan indicated condominiums as 12 du/ac for the subject area. Supportive documents which were submitted at the time described the "condominiums" as being clustered garden apartments and townhouse type units. The proposed plan indicates "condominiums" at 4 du/ac. This concept invloves single family detached u~its on individual lots with common yard and street maintenance. Because we could not resolve this issue, I suggested that the plan be presented to you so that the Board can determine whether it is a change in the approved plan or not. If you decide that the plan is not a change in concept, I would suggest that you ask the developer to submit a package in accordance with the draft of our Final Development Plan requirements so that you can better evaluate the proposal. If you don't want to do that, I would at least insist that he conform to the preliminary plat re~uirements of your subdivision ordinance since he has indicated that he is platting the property and therefore falls under those regulations. Copies of these requirements are attached. If you decide that the proposed plan does constitute a change in the preliminary plan, you may either deny the chngs, approve the c;lange as reQuested, or cRll for a public hearing to evaluate the change because you deem it substantial enough to, 'arran t a public hearing. ;.ttorney's COl'aments: I discussed this matter ':lith Hr. Eassey and he does riot even acc8l1t the idee\ that the ne,"i pl3.n is a "condomini~';;-." cOl1ce:\;t. He ac~ees that the proposed plan is a change in the original concept and nlust DC; ar)nrOV2Q as s'--~ch before procee::ling v:i th lllinE:.l -,'ir)T)-:,'OV _L. ~ 14-23 SUBDIVISIONS ~ 14-30 of this ~h~pter, shall be submitted originally in preliminary form for prellmlnary approval by the city council and then in final form to the city council for final approval prior to the recording of such map or plat. Final submittal to the city council shall be preced~d by. the approval of the appropriate city agencies as indi- cate~ ln thlS chapte~ who shall determine whether all applicable requlrements have been complied with by the applicant. (Ord. No. 50, ~ II, 1-5-70) Secs. 14-24---14-29. RESERVED. Division 2. Preliminary Plan Sec. 14-30. FILING AND CONTENTS OF PRELIMINARY MAP AND PLAN; REPORT TO CITY CLERK. The applicant shall cause to be prepared a preliminary sub- division map and plan, together with such other supplementary material as may be specified, and shall submit the same for re- view by the planning and zoning board. Reports from the board shall then be forwarded with the plat to the city clerk. The .~ information submitted shall include the following: (a) The name of the subdivision and the legal description of the property as well as the names of all abutting subdivisions. (b) The name and address of the owner of the lands and the subdivider and a statement as to the title of property and the existence of mortgages or liens. (c) The name and address of the person preparing the pre- liminary map and the subdivider's surveyor and engineer. (d) The approximate acreage, the dimensions of the tract, the boundary lines, north point, date and scale of the map which shall be at a scale consistent with a clear presentation of information. (e) The location, width and anticipated names of the streets, alleys and easements within the proposed subdivision and on the land abutting the subdivision. (f) The proposed land use such as single f~mily, multiple family or business and the applicable zoning. The use of land abutting the subdivision shall also be shown. 777 ~ 14-30 WINTER SPRINGS CODE ~ 14-31 (g) The topography of the tract, including contour lines at one (1) foot intervals, utilizing u.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey datum and indicating lands subject to periodic in- undation or flooding. (h) A typical cross section describing proposed street im- provements. (i) A description in writing or by a suitable drawing of the proposed storm drainage system, water supply and distri- bution facilities, sanitary sewerage collection and treatment facilities and other improvements such as sidewalks, streetlighting, electrical power systems and filling of lands. (j) The lands to be reserved and/or dedicated for public use will be shown on the map and described in writing. (k) The major pertinent existing or proposed features such as roads, railroads, lakes, streams, watercourses and swamps. (1) The lot and block layout to scale with approximate di- mensions. (m) A description of any proposed subdivision protective covenants or restrictions. (n) The results of borings or a general description of the soils generally to be found on the tract. (0) The overall subdivision development plan including any stage development and planned platting for the future recording of the tract in sections. (p) Any landscaping, tree planting, buffers, fences or sim- ilar improvements planned. (Ord. No. 50, ~ II, 1-5-70) Sec. 14-31. ACTION ON PRELIMINARY PLAN BY CITY COUNCIL. Within thirty (30) days after the preliminary plan and all re- quired information has been submitted; the city clerk having re- ceived reports from the planning and zoning board as indicated in section 14-30 the city council may take action at any regular or special meeting and report to the applicant its approval, condi- tional approval, disapproval or request for additional information to the applicant. (Ord. No. 50, ~ II, 1-5-70) 778 11 11. The- priority and phasing of the development in map form and the manner in which each phase of the development can exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability. Recreational facilities and other development facilities and amenities shall be specifically delineated in this phasing plan. 12. The proposed method of providing for all necessary road improvements, water and sanitary sewer service, storm water management system, and fire protection. 13. All exhibits must indicate the title, graphic scale, the date of submittal, and the dates of any subsequent revisions. 14. In order to protect the public interest, the Planning and Zoning Board and/or the City Council may request any additional information deemed necessary for the decision 'making process. Submittal of this additional information is at the option of the applicant, although failure to submit the requested information could result in the denial of the application. SECTION (44.85.2) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLP~ The Final Development Plan, consisting of properly identified exhibits and supporting materials, shall include the following: 1. Identification of the present owners and developers of all land included in the development. 2. Identification of all consultants involved in the preparation of the Final Development Plan. 3. A location map indicating the relationship between the area proposed for final development, the remainder of the area within the approved Preliminary Development Plan, and the surrounding area. 4. Boundary survey, legal description, and gross acreage of the area submitted for final approval. 5. A preliminary subdivision plan (preliminary plat), if the applicant proposes to create 3 or more parcels. 6. A plot plan with scaled dimensions including but not limited to the following: a. The na~e, location, width, and design of existing streets, including abutting arterials within 200 ft. of the subject property. b. The na~e, location, ROW width, and width of pavement of proposed streets, easements, pedestrian ways, bicycle paths, and water courses. c. The lGcations, dimensions, and uses of all buildings and structuEes, includinG pro~osed property lines, utility plants and permanent signs. 12 d. Open and covered off-street par~:ing areas, including landscaping and external lighting systems. e. Distance of dwelling units from vehicular accessways and parking areas. f. Walls, fencing, or landscaping between private and common areas, along streets and highways, drainage ways, railroads, and along the periphery of the development. g. Refuse storage areas and method of solid waste disposal. h. Areas to be conveyed or dedicated and improved for roadways, parks, playgrounds, school sites, utilities, and other similar public or semi-public uses. i. The number and type of permanent or transient dwelling units; the floor area ratio of commercial and/or industrial uses; density by number of dwelling units per gross residential acre; minimum floor areas for each residential building type; minimum setbacks and building separations; maximum lot coverage; minimum floor elevation; and height of structures. 7 . 'A. general landscaping and tree planting plan indicating areas and vegetation to be preserved and the proposed method of preservation, in addition to proposed irrigation systems and landscaping. 8. Design elevations and/or renderings of all proposed buildings or structures. 9. Total acreage and types of open space and recreation.' 10. Specific recreational facilities and improvements. 11. Preliminary engineering plans for roads, water, fire protection, sani tary sewer, and storm '"a ter management systems including existing ground surfaces and proposed elevations; typical cross-sections of proposed grading, streets and sidewalks, canals and waterways; and proposed types of pavement. Said plans must be approved by the City E..rt gin e er. 12. Covenants, con~itions, restrictions, agreements, and grants which bove~~ the use, illaiTItenance, and continued protection of buildings, structures, lenciscaping, and common open space and recreational areas and fac~lities wittin the development. Said documents shall indicate to. the satisfaction of the City Attorney an acceptable method of insuring th"t all obligat~ons and improvements designated in the Final Develop- m~nt ~lcn can and stall be completed. Bonds or an escrow account may be re~uired in order m satisfy this concern. 13. ~ll extibits must indicate the title, name, graphic soale, and date of sub~ittal and any subsecuent revisions. Art. XIV, ~ [44.85.5] WINTER SPRINGS CODE Art. XVI, ~ 44.87 (1) Minor alterations or modifications may be per- mitted after review and approval by the planning and zoning board provided they are substantially consistent with purposes and intent of the develop- ment plan. (2) Substantial changes in permitted uses, location of buildings, or other specifications of the plan may be permitted following public hearing and approval by the city council, upon receipt of the recommen- dation of the planning and zoning board and city engineer. (b) After completion of a planned unit development, the use of land or the modification or alteration of any build- ings or structures within the area covered by the plan shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 44.14 or 44.21 as appropriate. (Ord. No. 56, ~ 5, 3- 12-71) ARTICLE XV. CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS ~~ SECTION 44.86. CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS. The city council, in conjunction with the zoning commission, may from time to time amend, supplement, change or repeal the regu- lations, restrictions or district boundaries and designations as set out in this ordinance after public hearing as provided in Chap- ter 176.06, Florida Statutes 1965, and any amendments thereto, and as provided by the intents herein contained and in accordance with the intents and purposes of the Florida Statutes. ARTICLE XVI. PENALTY SECTION 44.87. PENALTY. Any person or persons, firm or corporation violating or failing to comply with the terms and provisions specified herein, shall be, upon conviction and at the discretion of the court, .. fined a sum not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding sixty (60) days, or by both fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. 1010 NEMO DATE: February 16, 1976 TO: Winter Springs Planning and Zoning Board FRON: Dianne Kramer Planner RE: Tuskawmlla Disposition and General Procedures I. Concerning Tuskawilla and the action taken by the Board on February 12, 1976: I was negligent in not making .you aware of the attached portion of your existing PUD ordinance. While I was aware of this procedure, I was more concerned about establishing exactly whet Tuskawilla should be requesting, what ~aterials should be submitted, and what action your Board wanted to take. Perhsaps if you had been aware of the fact that a "substantial" change requires a public hearing before the City Council, you would not have called for a public hearing before your Board. Nevertheless, at this point, I have been instructed not to schedule a public hearing before your Board. I discussed this problem with the City Attorney briefly over the phone, and his initial opinion was that the final decision would of course be up to the City Council, but that the Planning and Zoning Board does have a right to call for a public hearing if they deem it necessary in aaking a valid recommendation. - Much in the same way as when both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council hold public hearings on a change of zoning request. Since there seems to be a definite procedural problem here, I would suggest that something definite and permanent be resolved with the Mayor and the Council so that we can incorporate it in our policy procedures and avoid it in the future. II. General Procedures In drawing up and working with your Board on PUD and general rezoning policies and procedures, I am afraid that I was operating under a couple of important misconceptions. One, I thought that the City did not have any- one who was administering the ordinance and establishing procedures; and two, I thought that this was a recognized need. This past week, however, has put things in a more enlightened perspective. First, I think the Board should review the proposed policies and procedures directly with the Mayor and the Building Official/Zoning Administrator since it appears that they have more contact and influence with the developers and applicants. It is important that the City work out its differences and establish one direction at City Hall before there is a chance for developers and applicants to be confused by a variety of opinions and information. I have not had any success in dealing with Tuskawilla on the submittal procedures, etc. and perhaps one of the reasons is that I am asking for something different from what they have done in the past. Another is that they may have been given different information from other, more established sources. """'- 2 Whatever the problem is, it needs to be resolved before anything will proceed smoothly. It may be that the Planner should not be involved in the administration of the PUD ordinance, and that the Building Dept. should work more closely with the Planning and Zoning Board. There is a definite communication and procedural problem, however, that I hope we can work out. III. Planner's Recommendations It is my opinion and that of the Attorney's that the proposal presented by Tuskawilla is a revision to the original concept approved in the Prelimi- nary Development Plan. Only after the revision is approved can the applicant and the Board proceed with Final Development Plan approval on that section. Technically, the Final Development Plan involves approval of site plans and development details; whereas, the general land use concepts and densities fall under the Preliminary Development Plan approval. Because the Tuskawilla proposal represents a change in the land use concept, the Preliminary Development Plan should be revised accordingly before any Final Development Plan approval is gr nted. As a reouest for a revision to the Preliminary Development Plan, I vJOuld recommend that the applicant submit the following items: 1. a completed application form as attached 2. a copy of the Preliminary Development Plan fOI the entire PUD, indicating the proposed change in land use and density. For example, the approved Preliminary D;:velopmen t Plan has an area labeled "condominiums" and the land use table indicates a density of 12 du/ac for these areas. The revised plan which is to be submitted for review should re-Iabel that area according to the newly proposed use - such as "single family detached 'condominiums'" at 5 du/ac. 3. A general descripticn of the pro:;;osed land use concept which will become part of the record and as such will regulate the development of that area. (These items should be in writing and may include height limitations, minimum floor areas, etc. or any additional information requested by the Board or proposed by the applicant). IV. Present Status A. The Planning and Zoning Board has agreed that the proposal, as presented by Tuskawilla, is a revision to the Preliminary Development Plan. B. The Planning and Zoning Board has also determined that the change is substantial and that a public hearing should be held. The Board has called for a Public Hearing before their body on March 4, 1976, in order to make a valid recommendation on the request. C. The Mayor has cancelled the Planning and Zoning Board hearing at this time because he feels that the approval should be handled by the City Council and that the Planning and Zoning Board cannot call for a public hearing unless it is so specified in the Ordinance - which it is not. The Attorney has indicated that they can. D. There are still many questions to be resolved. 1. Does everyone agree that the request is a revision to the Preliminary Development Plan? 2. If so, does the action of the Planning and Zoning Board on February 12, 1976, deem the revision "substantial" and therefore automatically require a public hearing before the City Council (regardless of whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board holds a public hearing), or does the City Council decide for themselves whether to hold a public hearing? 3 3. Can the Planning and Zoning Board call for a public hearing when they deem it necessary? 4. Ttlhat total process and procedures will be foIl wed to expedite this matter? Because of the generated controversy and difference of opinion, I have sent nothing in writing to Tuskawilla and will not do so until this prohlem has been resolved. cc: Mayor Troy J. Piland Ernest Hendrix, Plannint; and Zoning Commissioner Ray Bradshaw, Building Official/Zoning Administrator . " BROCK, MASSEY & WALDEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SUITB 102,SBMORAN BUD.DlNO 616 EAST SEHOHAR BOULEVABD ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32701 NEWMAN D. BROCK OARY E. MASSEY PRA1>""KLIN T. WALDEN TELEPHONE l30Dl634-6lU MEMORA1~DUM FEBRUARY 10, 1976 FROM: Gary E. Massey, City Attorney, City of Winter Springs, Fla. TO: Diane Kramer, City Planner and Planning and Zoning Board, City of Winter Springs, Florida RE: Recommendations on reviewing revised draft of pun Ordinance CL Let me begin my comments on the revised PUD draft by stating that I think the Planning and Zoning Baord as well as the City Planner has done a tremendous job in redrafting the Ordinance and I believe the Ordinance as redrafted will better serve the citizens of the City of Winter Springs, Florida. r-My first comment as far as the revised draft is concerned is that I still feel that old Section 44.85.3(3E) should be retained in some form. My reason for including this in the revised PUD Ordinance is that a developer requesting PUD zoning who has a combination of residential and commercial establishments within the PUD zone could develop the commercial area without ever developing the residential area which it is designed to serve. Asking for the PUD zoning could, in effect, be a subterfuge to getting commercial zoning in this manner where the developer would not otherwise be able to establish a commer- cial zone. I therefore feel that some control feature should be placed in the ordinance which would establish that the commercial uses must be built along with the residential buildings. The old Section E of 44.85.3 (3e) could be revised to read as follows: "All commercial uses or buildings devoted primarily to a commercial use shall be built or established at no greater than an equivalent rate fuan the construction of the residential structures which they serve." In this same regard in the area of control of a PUD development, I question the leaving out of Section 44.85.4 (J) of the first PUD revision which read as follov.7s: "If a plan unit development is to include a mixture of residential, commercial and/or industrial land uses, the parcel must contain a minimum of 100 acres." This I believe is a good control feature, although I am not sure that 100 acres is a realistic figure. I would state though that anything under 50 acres should probably not receive PUD zoning where the plan , ~~mines residential with commercial or industrial. If the Planning ~nd Zoning Board would think about fuis, 50 acres is not a very large CL b C- MEMORANDUM PAGE TWO parcel of land and to try to combine residential with either one of the other two uses, in my opinion, would be a disaster. I feel that (J) of the old Section 44.85.4 should be retained in some form for the minimum acreage put in and i.f there is some question about the 100 acres, then it should not be lowered, in my opinion, below 75 with a designated percentage such as only 1/3 being devoted to commercial. In Section 44.85.5(8) I would still recommend that when the three copies are submitted to the City Clerk, that the three copies of the Preliminary Development Plan shall be placed in a permanent file and kept in the City Hall, open to public inspection at all times. As I stated before, I believe this should be added to Paragraph 8 since I had been in- formed that in the past, Plans for some of the developments in and around Winter Springs have totally disappeared from the City Hall. The reason being that, there was no permanent file located within the City Hall where these plans were to be kept and that the plans could not be removed from the City Hall. 11. As I have been informed by Diane Kramer, you areJconsidering two proposals, one of which would eliminate Section ~.85.6 and one to include the same within the PUD ordinance. It is most important that Section 44.85.6 be retained. As I indicated before, you could have a developer ask for a PUD zoning and never carrying through with PUD development and in order for the orderly growth of the City, you would have to have either another developer who wants to use PUD zoning or you could have someone who wants to use the land but must go in and ask for another change in zoning. I therefore, feel that if the PUD developer does not carry through with his development plan that the area in question. under pun zoning be rezoned to a zoning classification which would be most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. After all, the only reason an area is zoned PUD at the beginning is because the Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan which has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council has been approved by both parties as being compatible with the area in question and the surrounding neighborhood. I am afraid that where a PUD development is not developed that the PUD zoning could unreasonably tie the land up. If, Section 44.85.6 is retained, and I feel that it should be, then I believe there should be some standard place in Section 3 thereof as to what the substant.ial development means. As an example, I believe that substantial develop- ment could be deemed to be the building of roads or the laying of foundations or some other criteria which would give the City Council a definate mark as to when substantial development has been obtained. This, of course, would alleviate a situation which I understand, occured on another PUD development in Winter Springs where there was a question MEMORlu~DUM PAGE THREE C- between the City Council and the developer as to when substantial development has begun. Any standard placed therein would be approp- riate as long as the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council agree on the same. I believe such a standard would eliminate the possibility of a suit between the ctty and the developer in the future with the result that there would be a savings in the area of legal expenses. In Section 44.85.8, subparagraph 12, I believe was placed in as a control feature to help alleviate my concern about the promises of PUD developers as to the building of residential units and the common open space and recreational areas to serve those residential units. I am not sure this would be the best method, but if this feature remains in the Ordinance, I of course, will do my best to insure that the City as well as its inhabitants are protected in this manner. My last comment is in regards to Section 44.85.10, subparagraph 2(a), I still believe from a legal standpoint, that any minor extentions, alterations or modifications of existing building structures or. utilities must be authorized by the Planning and Zoning Board instead of the building official. After all, the reason the planned unit development is granted is upon the over-all plans of the development itself. The delegation of authority to the Building Official to grant approval of d minor extensions, alterations or modifications would be granting to the Building Official, the authority to grant variances or special exceptions within a zoning classification and I do not believe that this can be legally done. I can appreciate, possibly your concern over the Planning and Zoning Board gettine involved in the approval of these minor matters and that time will be taken up thereon. However, PUD zoning is a special zoning classification and to allow the Building Official to grant these minor exceptions would be delegating authority to that official which is legally not permissible. Let me again state, over-all, I think the revised draft of the PUD Ordinance is an exceptional job by the Planning and Zoning Board and accomplishes the purposes of a PUD development more so than the old PUD sections. You are to be congratulated upon your efforts in this respect and if I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. ~ /ft~ M~O DATE: February 13, 1976 TO: Mayor Troy J. Piland Winter Springs City Council FROM: Winter Springs Planning and Zoning Board RE: pun Ordinance Draft We have attached a copy of our PUD ordinance draft dated 2-12-76. This draft represents the results of many months of work, research, and dis- cussion, and in our opinion is the document that best serves the needs and interests of the City. We have also attached a copy of the City Attorney's comments for your review. We incorporated many of the Attorney's original comments, but there are still some points which we have not resolved with him. For that reason, we have either offered explanations for differences or offered alternative solutions. It is on these points that we feel there will be the most discussion and that we are most anxious to have your input. The following statements relate to the lettered paragraphs of the Attorney's memorandum: a) In recommending the inclusion of "All commercial uses or buildings devoted primarily to a commercial use shall be built or established at no greater-than an equivalent rate of the construction of the residential structures which they serve", the Attorney has assumed that all commercial areas included in the PUD will be serving the residential units of the PUD - when in reality, it is very possible that the commercial area could serve existing units. Furthermore, the included statement is vague and could create problems in determining whether development is actually pro- ceeding according to the stated standard. The Board also feels that in requiring a phasing plan with the Preliminary Development Plan, we can adequately control problems that might arise in this area and that are of concern to the Attorney. On the final point the Board feels that minimum land acreages and percentages of commercial uses are restrictive and limit the flexibility of the City to evaluate each individual development. b) This recommendation has been incorporated into the draft. c) Comments regarding this section are included in the draft. d) The Board has not incorporated this recommendation because we feel that "minor extensions, alterations, or modifications"~are construction problems which logically fall under the authority of the building official and could be an excessive waste of time for the developer, the contractor, and the Board. MEMO DATE: March 1, 1976 TO: Councilman Ernest Hendrix Planning and Zoning Commissioner FROM: Dianne Kramer ~ Planner /"'\ RE: Service function to Planning and Zoning Board In response to your request, I have attempted to outline my role with respect to the Winter Springs Planning and Zoning Board. Since I am not completely sure what information or explanation you want, please feel free to ask for expansion and/or clarification of the statements presented below. For the past 5-6 months I have been attending Planning and Zoning Board meetings and assisting the Board in preparing the PUD ordinance drafts and in establishing basic operating procedures. I have served basically as a resource facility to help the Board organize and coordinate their efforts, and to furnish them with additional information, alternatives, and experience to broaden their knowledge and decision making expertise. From the beginning, the Board and I both understood that these functions were subject to my prime responsibility of service to the Planning Commission in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. The nature of the preparation process, however, is extremely conducive to the present work program because of the many peaks and lulls in the Comprehensive Plan workload. These peaks and lulls are the result of external and basically uncontrollable factors, but in serving the Planning and Zoning Board, I am able to fill in the lulls with productive activity. In addition, it is most important that the activities of the Planning and Zoning Board and those of the Planning Commission be coordinated and funneled into the same direction. The Planning and Zoning Board, in revising the zoning and subdivision regulations, is in effect creating the tools of implementation for the Comprehensive Plan, and in recommending changes in zoning, etc. must actually implement the Plan and thus understand the full intent and concept of growth management. The City of Winter Springs has a tremenduous opportunity at this point in time to coordinate the Comprehensive Planning process so that the final product will be a viable, functional tool to guide the development of the City. As the Planning Commission proceeds in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Zoning Board is proceeding with revising and preparing the ordinances and regulations that will insure the implementation of that Plan. These two processes are extremely important and must be coordinated and directed so that the end products are compatible and functional. The planner can assist in this coordinating process and in supplying the necessary information and resource materials on the concepts and implementation of growth management. As far as time is concerned, it has been my practiue in the past to integrate the two efforts, but never to sacrifice time which could be spent On the Comprehensive Plan. Thus far I have had no problems handling both the Comprehensive Plan and the needs and desires of the Planning and Zoning Board. I take compensatory time off for night meetings only when it does not inter- fere with my established work program and schedule. It was my understanding when I was hired that I was responsible for my own time and I have operated under that assumption ever since. I know what work has to be done, and when it needs to be done. It would nevef occur to me to "take 'comp' time" when it might interfere with that program - regardless of the amount of overtime that might accumulate. At the present time the work load has been heavy and my overtime has built up, but I have not and will not take the compensatory time off until my work load can handle it. This system permits maximum production and in my opinion, is of maximum benefit to the City.