Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/1979 P&Z MinutesSeptember 26, 1979 The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 8:10 p.m., September 26, 1979 by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: Bob Doocey, Vi Schwankl, Jerome Heath, Lawrence Johnson, Vernon Reinert and Council Liaison John McLean. Members absent: James Shearen. Also present were Mr. Short, planner, and his associate, Kevin Locke. It was not thought necessary for Mr. Gotwald to attend. Mr. Gourley turned the meeting over to Mr. -Short for his presentation, and indicated there would be a break later in the evening to take'care of three items of business on the agenda. Mr. Short indicated that this ,was to be an informal work/discussion meeting, the second of two meetings intended to address land use. The purpose at this point was to generate a land use plan with general committments on location,densities, and so forth on which to base the rest of the Comprehensive Plan process. A street system or thoroughfare plan, a sewer plan, and a park plan update would be included. Mr. Short had drawn up a land use draft plan map and had available other maps and drawings which were consulted throughout the meeting. Mr. Short briefly reviewed the first map, outlining the conditions in- fluencing the way the community developed, both opportunities such as access points, and constraints to construction and movement. He had broken land use down into three basic categories at the previous meeting: commercial, industrial and residential. The commercial uses map showed those areas presently zoned commercial, those outlined in the 1974 plan and those recommended by Mr. Short. He had shown commercial use along County Road J, as discussed at the previous meeting, in what he felt were logical market areas. It was his opinion that the population of Lino Lakes, North Oaks and Shoreview would be capable of supporting what was referred to as neighborhood centers, which would be similar to the one in Lexington, only smaller. These would be about ten acres in size, to support a grocery market, drug store and a few small shops, with a total of about 100,000 sq. ft. of retail space. He had allotted two parcels ten acres in size on either side of Highway 49 and north of County Rd J as a logical size and location for commercial; there was some commercial and residential there already. He also recommended a ten -acre parcel on the northwest corner of County Rd J and 1-35 E, which was a half -diamond interchange for City -bound traffic only. Presently, White Bear township had about a 15-acre parcel zoned commer- cial and also industrial, both developed and undeveloped along Center- ville Road; with that use and the potential for growth with the exis- ting commercial south of County Rd J, he felt the demand for commercial on the Lino Lakes side of the interchange was good. Mr.Johnson asked if there were a wildlife center on the northwest cormer presently; Mr. McLean indicated that this was privately owned and there was state coo- peration for protection of the wildlife, but it was not.a goverment unit The old gravel pit was next to that, was commercially zoned, and the owner had in the past proposed various commercial developments for the property. It was suggested his whole piece, about 19 acres, be designa- ted commercial. 1 Mr. Short summarized the consolidation of commercial land use at the major intersections rather than the strip zoning along Lake Drive. The proposed locations were: The interchange of 35-W and Lake Drive, the interchange of 49 and County Rd 23, the County Rd J areas, the Main 54 Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 Street and Lake Drive intersection, the interchange of 35-E and Main Street, and the possible future interchange at 35-W and County Rd 14. This last was contingent on whether the interchange ever developed, which would be discussed .atthe thoroughfare meeting. Also, the de velopability of;the land there was a consideration, as ,it was generally wet. Mr. Short raised the question of whether there was room for private development to occur south of the interstate, and Mr. McLean indicated that the property had been left out of the open space specifically for the intechange and there would not be a lot of land left over for comme- rcial development. Mr. Short felt the best location would be the north- west corner, as most of the land on the east side was fairly wet, al- though there was some potential for filling in along the county road. There was one existing house, and the interchange would also take part of that land. Assuming it was, put in, there would be good access and visibility, and travel to and from the park could generate a demand for a service -type commercial.The Strip zoning had been disscussed at the last meeting and the intention was to go through a rezone procedure at some point after the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up to protect the res- idential already existing, and at the same time protect the good commercial land there. This would not be done in detail yet; the public hearings in December would determine which areas would go residential and which commercial. Mr. Short reviewed the map of industrial areas. Moline, the proposed industrial park and Feedrite Controls were all zoned commercial, but represented the nucleus of an industrial use area and should more properly be zoned industrial. The area was logical for industrial use, as it was adjacent to the freeway, the good access and visibility, and sewer was available. Mr. Short recommended the area be expanded to include the area south of the training center, which also represented some light industrial use. He felt there could be a possible land use conflict with the area that presently was being platted for residential development to the north; this was also further away ,from access, and for these reasons he had designated it residential rather than indus- trial. Mr. Heath suggested expanding industrial to the area on the other side of County Rd 23 north of 35-W. He felt the same reasons for industrial would apply for this area as well, such as proximity to existing industrial usage, good addess and the location next to the freeway, which was not suitable for residential use. Mr. Locke pointed out that there was a lot more freeway frontage than there were things to put there; also, although it was a vible site, he questioned whether the industrial area should be spilt up as generally it should be kept to- gether as much as possible. Mr. Short noted there was already more area designated industrial than the City needed. He and Mr. Locke had done some reasearch to answer the question of how. much Lino Lakes should plan for; Mr. Locke noted there were a number of ways to estimate industrial use in a community, none of which were very precise because industrial in particular did not have to locate near the market. They had reviewed what was typical in the Metro area in terms of percentage of land used for industrial,and then applied that percentage to Lino Lakes for a target amount for development. Mr. Reinert asked whether a community the size of Lino Lakes could set aside a certain number of acres for industrial and expect it to develop, considering that sewer and water were not available. Mr. Locke agreed that these were cons- 55 Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 traints, but felt that there were other favorable considerations that made it advantageous for the City to allow for industrial in suitable areas, and to protect it from other uses to give it a chance to develop. The question was how long the City shoJd. wait fot .that development. . However, the City should not overzone for industrial and commercial uses; for example, the land zoned industrial in the Metro area four times what could possibly develop. He felt the land use plan should remain flexible, and if a developer proposed something for the area east of County Rd 23, it should be considered even if it was not designated in,the land use plan. Mr. Gourley noted that the planwould be revised, in 5 to 7 years, and also it had been discussed that areas could be traded; if industrial developed on the east: side of County 23, then other uses could be allowed on the west side. He felt the northwest corner was the best of the two locations, however, since Lilac Street was already a ten -ton road, and any intensive use on the east side would have to build a road. ,The southeast corner of theintersection was discussed, and Mr. McLean in- dicated it already had a sandblasting operation, and although it was presently being litigated in court, it would probably stay that way. Mr. Gourley felt it would be better as commercial than as industrial, but it could be handled when the actual zoning was done. Mr. Short had also indicated use south of the Main Street/ 35-E interchange. Some of this area was already zoned commercial, and Centerville presently had: industrial proposed adjacent to that area. Because the property was locked inbetween this and the interstate, industrial would be the most suitable land use for the area. Mr. Short asked if Cedar would provide an appropiate.division Tine between industrial on the north and resi- dential on the south; Mr. McLean felt that Cedar and Elmcrest up to Main Street would provide a complete perimeter for the area. There had already been an application by land and Oaks, Inc. for industrial in the area east of the present Action and north of Main. There was also a forced main running down Cedar, with the possibility that it could someday be used. Mr. Doocey suggested the area south of Cedar for Multifamily, but Mr. Short indicated that multifamily was dependent on sewer, and probably should not be planned until there were some committ- ments made on sewer service. Mr. McLean suggested rural residential for the area:, which would leave it open for rezoning later; however, Mr. Short felt, it might develop as large single-family lots. Mr. Reinert suggested the intersection of Highway 49 and Birch as an ideal location for multifamily because of the sewer, road access, and the heavier traffic would not run through the whole city. Also, the area was over 40 acres of open farmland, and there would be no conflict with adjacent land uses. Mr. Short noted that most of the areas des- ignated. multifamily in the 1974 land use plan had developed single family, and the City should be looking at other areas. The location dis- cussed at the previous meeting had been between County Rd 23 and Marshan Lake and Rice Lake. This, however, wouldbe influenced by the air park and whatever safety zone occurred aroung the seaplane base. Mr. Gourley indicated the land there was not suitable for the airpark to expand any further, the use was Tight, and the dry -land base was limited as to what type of plane could use it, due to size and water problems. Mr. McLean asked if the corner of 49 and old highway 8 was indicated as commercial, because the west corner was being discussed as the site for the new corporation coming in. Mr. Short indicated that commercial was shown to the east and to the west of 49 south of 23. Page 4 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 The sewered area located between 49 and the wetlands and the open space would be a good location for multifamily, and had been indi- cated on.the 1974 plan; because of adjacent land uses, access and sewerit could go, multifamily.or commercial. The triangle formed by.the roads, about 17 to 20 acres, would be indicated as multifamily and commercial. In reference to;the intersection of149 and Birch, Mr.,Short felt the area would be suitable and logical for either multifamily or commercial, and if either developed, it could generate the other. Mr. McLean suggested PUD zoning, a situation where both uses, multifamily and commercial, would be allowed. Mr. Short indi-. cated that an area couldn't really be zoned PUD, but it was used to allow the overlay of many different zoning districts and •the City could be flexible enough to allow PUD. Mr. Gourley -felt the north side of Birch Street would be more desirable as commercial as there was already a commercial use there, and the land was marshy. Mr.: Short will show commercial on the north and multifamily on the south, which was presently zoned residential. Mr. Short had researched the logic of the area Mayor.Karth had suggested for multifamily; it was a high amenity area, meaning the more amenities, the more people it would be attractive to. Sewer was available, there was an existing bus route, and it was close to the commercial center in Lexington. He felt it was a good idea to locate more intensive uses nearer to commercial because of the increased traffic. There was access to 35-W and Lake Drive, and multifamily could buffer itself from the traffic more easily than other, lower density uses through the use of garages, fences and so. on. The adjacent land use, mostly residential in a commercial zone, would not conflict too much with multifamily. The area was welldefined, and most of the soils on the east side of Lake Drive had marginal or no, limitations. However, the City should be aware that the area would fall within the shoreland management zone by Marshan and Rice Lakes, although multifamily would be able to handle that kind of expense be- cause of the more intensive land use. Mr. Short indicated that the state had developed recommended shoreline regulations and had passed a law in 1975 that all communities will have to,adopt them. the DNR was enforcing the adoption by community, with the problem areas at the top of the list, and Lino Lakes could expect to be notified and given a year to adopt the regulations by 1980 or 1981. Mr. McLean indicated the City intended to do so as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and asked Mr. Short to obtain copies of the regulations or a model to adopt. Mr. Short indicated the state was very cooperative, and they were available to give assisstance in modifying the ordinances. Mr. Reinert felt that the intent to adopt was important. Mr. Short addressed the residential areas, referring to the draft plan map and a map of residential areas. Residential could be broken down in several different ways: Sewered, and unsewered areas, multifamily and single family uses within the sewered areas, and the rural residential and rural uses in unsewered areas. Rural residential referred to the area that had developed to date as one acre residential lots with on - site systems. These were the areas in the northwest; the Rehbein sub- division along the east side of Lake Pelletier and north of Centerville; the areas outside of Urban Service Districe 1 but including Shenandoah and areas along Birch street; and the southeast corner of the City in- cluding West Oaks, Otter Lake Estates, the Bloomquist property and the 57 Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 older subdivisions. The rural areas referred to parts of the city that had not developed, and consisted of three basic geographical locations. The northeast corner of the city and the area around Rondeau Lake; the northwest corner (sod farms); and a large piece, generally lowland, in the south central part of the City. Mr. Short suggested development be encouraged in the rural residential areas, and discouraged outside of those areas, using minimum lot sizes or densities. By increasing the minimum lot size in rural areas, it would become more desirable and economically feasible to develop in the rural residential areas. Development should be encouraged in the areas where the City had already made committments in terms of services ---road maintenance, police and fire --so as to utilize these more efficiently, rather than extending these into undeveloped parts of the city. Mr. Short and Mr. Locke had researched the question of minimum lot sizes and had drawn up a map of subregional lot size influences, illustrating what was happening with mimimum lot sizes in adjacent communities. Each of these cities had been contacted for the most current information on minimum lot sizes and how these were developing. The City of Blaine had sewer with the exception of the northeast corner. In this area they required a minimum lot size of 5 acres, and were proposing increasing that to :10 or 20 acres to discourage development. Hamm Lake had no sewer presently and wouldn't until after the year 2,000. They had a 21 acre minimum lot size, which was currently being reviewed,and for which there seemed to be a large demand. Andover had a 22 acre minimum lot size in all but a few areas. They had a sewer service area within which were areas with 22 acre lots without sewer service; they hadcut up their sewer service area by allowing 21 acre lots, which were im- practical to serve with sewer in the future. Columbus township had no sewers, and a 5 acre minimum lot size, but were considering increasing that. Their 5-acre lot size was connected with meets and bounds, and also their platting was tied into this. They were getting some 5-acre subdivisions and some larger as well, but not much growth. Forest Lake Township had no sewer, and had a fairly complicated proposed zoning district map with areas of 5, 10, and 20 acre minimum lot sizes. Presently the areas closest to Lino Lakes were zoned at a 22 acre lot size, but would be increased to either 5 or 10 acres. Hugo also had a fairly complicated new zoning district map, and in the areas adjoining Lima Lakes they were requiring either 10 or 20 acre minimum lot sizes; the 20-acre zone was conservation land, and the 10-acre was agricultural. In reference to road requirements, Mr. Short indicated that Hamm Lake in their 22 acre subdivisions required hard -surfaced streets, but other than that he did not know. He felt that the information on the adjacent communities would provide a basis on which to make a decision as to whether the 21 acre minimum lot size, which was the consensus at the last meeting, would encourage or discourage development. He felt he obvious conclusion would be what Hamm Lake was experiencing, which was a fairly significant development at 22' acres. He recommended the City go to a 5 or 10 acre minimum lot size. Mr. McLean suggested a 5 acre minimum lot size for the northwest and northeast corners of the city, the rationale being the bordercommunities having activity and the improbability of sewer in that area, and a minimum lot size of 22 acres in the south central part of the city, as it was possible this would be sewered at some time in the future. Page 6 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 This would be.consistent with Equity Estates.. He also felt that the. rural residential area should be enlarged to include the area between the freeway and Centerville Road., Mr. Locke noted that 22 and 5 acre. subdivisions were more frequent in recent years, and it.would be ad- vantageous to,the City to keep the land open for future development. Mr. Short felt that the areas already developing at this point were making a certain demand for,police,street maintenance and so forth; and in order for;the,City to utilize the services most efficiently and least expensively, growth should basically be encouraged where it was already occurring. Mr. Short indicated that one of the reasons why Urban Service Districe 11had been decreased was_that so many single family developments had been allowed at a 1 acre lot size, which was uneconomical to serve with sewer.There were ways for the City to,plan for resubdivision,so,that,sewer could be economically extended; steps could be taken to supervise the location.of houses within a segment of a one -acre lot, or to require four per unit, and then allow the deve- loper to build on one of the four lots. Mr. Short had included a new residential category called urban expansion, which was basically an , area reserved.for planned future sewer expansion. It connected with the, two present urban sewer districts, with the exception of some sub- divisions that were not designed so they could easily be subdivided. Mr. Locke indicated that these.areas where sewer was planned within a reasonable period of time should be identified, so the buyer understood that if he built on 22 acres he would be paying a higher sewer assess- ment. Mr. Gourley felt the Sunset Oaks area should not be written off as being unserviceable, as there had already been some lot splitting; he felt it should be in the urban.expansion area. He also was in favor of some sort of control of developers. Mr. Johnson suggestedla 10 acre minimum lot size in the northeast and northwest corners, and a 5 acre minimum lot size in the south central area. .The soils map was referred to for the south central area, and although there were large areas of wetlands, there were also some high spots with developable soils. Vi Schwankl asked what the rationale was for allowing the 5 acres in the south, but requiring 10 in the north. Mr. Short recommended an overall density of 1 unit per 10 acres, but allowing a 1 acre minimum lot size. This could be done by ownership, and although there would be problems if, for example, there were five property owners in a 40-acre parcel, it would still be feasible. This would preserve the remaining acreage for future development and also minimize the number of people to provide services for. Mr. Heath raised the question of problems with resale, but Mr. McLean indicated there was little activity in that area, and this had never been a problem before. Mr. Johnson asked if the City had controls for that density, as the communities to the south were developed and as the next area north, Lino Lakes would probably be experiencing a great deal of growth in the next few years. Mr: Short indicated that density was a guideline; if an owner had enough acreage for the density to be applicable, for example , 40 acres, and wanted to subdivide, then the density of one unit per 10 acres would allow him to spit* off 4 one -acre lots. Mr. Gourley expressed concern over the possibilty of getting long, narrow Tots. A five minute recess was taken at 10:00 p.m. Page 7 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 Mr. Gourley called the meeting to order again at 10:08T.m. to handle three items of business on the agenda. The first itemmas an application by Donald Altic and Wendy Snyder for a. long driveway for lot,15, Equity Estates, with Mz. Kahs, who was associated with the builder; appearing for the owner. Due to the lowness of the land along the front section; the -house had been set back 430.ft. on a high spot of buildable land. The property was a 5-acre peice located on Talle Road. Mr. Gourley ,indicated that the major consideration where long driveways' wereiconcerned was that the City would not be responsible for the main tenance of.the driveway; if an emergency vehicle such as a fire truck did not have enough hose and could not get back to the house due to the condi- tion of the driveway, the City would not be responsible. Secondly, there was no provision for subdividing any property along the driveway;.in other words the driveway could not be access for additional lots, Beyond these considerations, it,was just.a procedural matter. Vi Schwankl moved to re- commend to the Council to grant the variance to the owners for the 430 ft driveway, subject to the liabilities and considerations mentioned previously. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson felt there should be ahard-: ship involved because of.the character of the land. There was no further discussion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean will carry this to ,the Council meeting on October 9. The next item was a problem with a building permit for Mrs. Hagstrom, to' errect a pole barn -type building on her property. Mr. Mobley had not issued the permit based on the fact that the property had no frontage on a city street. Mrs. Ekstrom had spoken with both Mayor Karth and Mr. Gourley, and itmas felt she should present this problem to the P & Z. Her property was landlocked, with access by a long driveway. She presently had three sheds, two of which would be replaced with the larger storage building, which would be 12 feet larger than her garage. It would be used to store a tractor, garden tools, lawn chairs and maintenance equipment for the driveway. Mr. McLean asked what the frontage street in that area was; Mrs Ekstrom indicated that the'villiage would be putting in Birch Lane as soon as there was another house. This was similar to a previous problem with Maple and Orange streets before they were ,put in. It was noted the ordinance did not allow an accessory structure to be any larger than the principal dwelling. The dimensions of the new structure would would be 26 x 40, or a square footage of 1,040. The house measured 24 x 30 on the ground, with an:extensioni,of 12 x 24, a total square footage of 1,008. There was some question as to whether the attached garage, 24 x 28, or 592.sq. ft. could be included in the square footage; the ordinance was consulted, ,and any accessory building located less than 6 feet from the principal building was considered an intergral part of the principal building. .Thus the garage dimensions could be considered, and the ,new structure would not be larger than the principal building. ,Mr. McLean also noted the hieght of the accessory building could not exceed the hieght of the principal building. He felt if the sheds•were eliminated, the new structure would be an improvement. Mr. Reinert noted the side yard setbacks would have to be checked with the building inspector. The ordinance required a side yard setback of 5 feet for an accessory build- ing in a residental area, and 2 feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Doocey raised the question of whether the property was within 300 feet of the road, or whether it was a residential area. Mr. Reinert moved to re- commend to the Counci that they grant permission to put up the building _Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 providing they,met all the requirements,as the building inspector may lay. out for them, with the demolition of the two existing. buildings, and pro- viding they observe all zoning requirements; the rationale being it pre- existed the ordinance pertaining to frontage requirements. Mr. Johnson, seconded the motion. All were,in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley noted that in effect this waived the:frontage requirement, and would not be a variance. It was suggested Mr. Locher be asked for his opinion on this. Mrs.;Hagstrom asked how soon she would be permitted to put the structure up, as there was,a time problem; Mr. McLeani ndicated that it would go,the the Council on October 9 and she should wait until then. It,was,suggested she order the..pole barn and make,the contract conditional on Council approval. The next,item on,the agenda,was,a request from Mr. Burgerman that he be allowed to put in streets that were narrower than required by,the ordinance.. He had been referred to the P $ Z.by the Council. The ordinance,required a 32 ft.-street curb to curb, and the request was for streets that were 27ft curb to curb. The Location was West Qaksion,the southeast corner of. Bald Eagle Lake, Mr.. Gourley read the letter from Mr. Gotwald dated September 26, whi;ch included the typical rural street sections for Stillwater and North Oaks, as they were similar .to the,area., He noted that,Don Volk had, been asked to respond to this, and expressed some concern over making a decision about roads without his input. The developer presented his reasons for the request. The biggest.amenity;in the area was the natural wooded beauty, or trees, as there was no -;sewer or water. The homes were on one,. acre lots, and ran $150,000 to $200,000..In view of the density, 13Q acres of land to 60 homes, or 2-21 acres per,home, the kind of streets required by the ordinance would be unnecessary to meet the traffic flow. The ordinance was primarily designed for a typical development of 130 acres with 22-3 homes per acre, or a total Apf 300-400 homes, and the population required streets that would accomodate the traffic. He did not want to create a hazardous situation as far as emergency vehi,cles,or internal. traffic were concerned, but was trying to salvage the uniqueness of the area. A 60 foot swathe cutting through the trees would destroy ,the appeal of the area, which was what,he wanted to retain.:-- He felt this was a much different situation than, for example, an open pasture -type land. From talking to Mr. Gotwald, and in view of hi,s letter on rural. road;crossections, he felt that what had been done in other areas such as North Oaks would be acceptable. This was a 24-foot wide bituminous surface with a 10-foot boulevard on either side for snow,removal and utilities, which would be underground electric and telephone. It would be a bituminous curb. Mr. Gotwald had been considerate on the slopes, and there was complete erosion control. He noted that the main road around Bald Eagle lake, which had a lot more traffic than they would have internally, was only 20 feet of hard surface, and the, boulevard in places was only 2 feet. Mr. McLean.noted that it was still a 60-ft right-of-way, although they would only be operat- ing in 44 feet of that. The developer indicated the 60-foot right-of-way would be there if utilities were put in at some future time .and the road improved. Mr. Gourley asked on what basis Mr. Dobie had been worked with, and Mr. McLean indicated that the situation and been different, in that there were bigger building sites, and due to the character of the land, it had been decided that a rural section was more than adequate. Again, there was the argument of low traffic flow. Mr. Gourley asked if a variance had been issued, and Mr. McLean indicated that no platting had been 61 -Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1979 required. Mr. Gourley expressed concern over possible legal problems if the ordinance was changed; Mr. McLean suggested legal advice be requested if positive action was taken. Mr. Gourley noted that Mr.Gotwald had referred to the possibility of maintaining the 32-ft. road width, and then being liberal on boulevard areas, possibly not requiring the 10-ft flat area on each side, and allowing the trees closer to the road. Mr. Heath felt that because of having to fill in, the trees might have to be taken out anyway. Mr. Gourley indicated the slopes vould be worked with, and that the benefit was that they would not need to change the ordinance or grant a variance. It was noted that a 32-ft wide street plus at least a 5-ft flat area on either side would be a total width of 42 feet, as opposed to doing it the other way, which was a total of 44 feet. The developer felt that although. they anticipated no on -street parking, the flat area was almost as important as adequate street width , because of snow pile up and utility installation. Mr. Gourley felt that it was not necessary to plow to the full extent; there would be no difference between a 24-ft road surface and a 32- ft surface plowed only to 24 feet. Also, utilities were installed with a 4-ft wide trencher which should not be a problem. Mr. Heath noted that snow removal in rural areas was not a problem, as it didn't get dumped in someone's front yard or on a sidewalk. The developer felt that Mr. Gourleyis suggestion would be acceptable with the added width as part of the snow re- moval. Mr. Heath moved to recommend that the Council accept the lack of the 10-ft burn areas and stay within the 32-ft width of the hard surface in order to save the environmental look of the neighborhood and that George Gotwald be directed to work with the developer on maintaining it. It was noted this_ would in essence remove the restriction of a relatively level 10-ft boulevard. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be on the Council agenda for October 9, and a representative should appear. The work/discussion meeting with Mr. Short and Mr. Locke was resumed at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Locke had an illustration of the impact of different lot sizes on the City, and briefly reviewed it. As an example, he had broken down a 40-acre parcel into three categories: A One-third acre lots B. 22 acre Tots, and C. a one unit per 40 acres at a one acre lot size. He reviewed these as to how many dwelling units there would be on the 40 acres as a tax base, the road expense, and police expenses. Example B would be the kind of development like Equity Estates. In terms of a tax base and cost of services, area C would be the option with the best re- sults for.the City. He felt this background information would support the idea of trying to control development in the rural areas, so that it could later develop at a higher intensity. He also had information available as to the amount of land the City should set aside fo industrial and commercial use, but felt this had been fairly well covered, and a more specific discussion could be included in the draft plan. He indicated they would try to have the draft plan put together by the next special meeting, October 10, to hand out. The main focus of that meeting would be thorough- fares and sewers. The October 24 meeting would be primarily addressing parks. Mr. Gourley will direct the Clerk to remind Mr. Gotwald that the transportation and sewers would be discussed at the October 10 meeting. The regular meeting was_set for October 17. Mr. Doocey moved to adjourn at 11:05 p.m. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.