09/26/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

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.