Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 26 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />development of over 100 lots with only access onto Sunset Road, staff did not believe <br />this was a good idea. He stated no viable a lternative has been presented to have this <br />connection. He explained the last discussi ons indicated the connection would be made, <br />but this traffic report ignored this connec tion and assumed traffic would only flow out <br />onto Sunset. He stated the Ca rl Street connection had to ha ppen. If this connection did <br />not go through, the City had some serious circ ulation problems that would arise in the <br />future. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated there were different locations in the City where there were temporary <br />cul-de-sacs. He asked if this was the same with Carl Street. He asked if it was intended <br />to go through. Mr. Smyser replied different pe ople remember different things regarding <br />this and he was not here at that time. He stated the record is foggy regarding this. He <br />stated there had been an original concern regarding the wetlands and the connection not <br />being able to go through because of this wetland. He stated what was originally <br />determined wetland originally was now not c onsidered wetland. He stated this was a <br />concern and it would need to be addressed as far as what was wetland and parkland. He <br />stated the answer to Mr. Rafferty’s question was murky as to what happened in the past. <br />He stated the assumption was that there wa s wetland to the west and it would not go <br />through, but the wetlands had been reanalyzed. He stated there was a resident in that area <br />that was upset with this being reanalyzed. <br />Mr. Robinson stated they were not recomme nding the connection to Carl; they were just <br />looking at the traffic impacts at what was curr ently existing. He stated the impacts would <br />not be any different if Carl went through. <br />Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Smyser was correct a nd the only place that they could build a <br />road from Carl to Sunset at the present time was along the existing Carl alignment. He <br />stated the residents along Carl were very unhappy with that conclusion and that was the <br />reason they were looking at an alternative connection. He agre ed this was a big issue and <br />it significantly impacted the plan. With respect to we tland, there was not any in-depth <br />ground water analysis done, and they had si nce done that analysis and what was <br />previously defined as wetland did not meet th e wetland criteria. He stated they would <br />confirm this with the Rice Creek Watershed Di strict also. He asked for feedback with <br />respect to this collector street. He stated they were not opposed to making a connection, <br />but the issue was where the connection should be. He indicated the other big issue was <br />the amount of parkland proposed. He stated th is was not an easy subdivision and it had a <br />lot of issues that needed to get resolved. He stated they had also had attempted to work <br />with the current residents in the area. <br />Mr. Lyden asked if it was possible to do opt ion 4, that might be the best option with <br />respect to the road. <br />Ray Kirchoff, 7742 Mustang Lane, stated there were a lot of residents upset on Mustang <br />Lane also. He stated the reason they paid the extra money for their lot was because they <br />were told there was wetland behind them that was going to stay. He stated he felt like he <br />had been taken advantage of, misinformed, a nd lied to. He expressed concern of the <br />environmental impact of this development and the loss of wetlands. He stated he felt <br />very threatened.