Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 10, 2002 <br />Page 21 <br />the residents stood with respect to traffic issues. He stated he did not have any intention <br />of subdividing his property in the future. Chair Schaps replied he owned his land and it <br />was up to him if he was going to sell it or subdivide it. <br />Mr. Breyer asked what would happen if someone decided to allow Holly Drive to go <br />through. Mr. Lyden replied the residents did not come up with the idea of the road going <br />through, the City did and the City does have the right to take land for roads. <br />Chair Schaps pointed out again that this road issue was not a part of this development <br />proposal. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. <br />The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. <br />Motion carried 6 -0. <br />Mr. Grochala stated drainage was heading to <br />in the northwest corner of the development. <br />developments. <br />a new pond. It would end up <br />t the existing <br />Mr. Studenski stated the design was mad <br />was flowing through there was the <br />development went in. Mr. Lyde ; - Q=ed th <br />volume and these could be ent''fferent. <br />Chair Schaps requi <br />nothing flowed <br />conditions. <br />Mr. Lyden m <br />with the Compre <br />old flow through there after this <br />ifference between the rate and <br />d not increase. He noted what <br />ook at the drainage issue and make sure <br />replied that was already a part of the <br />this issue giving staff the opportunity to look at this <br />ation goals of 2010 and to review the consensus. <br />The motion was supported s. Lane. <br />Mr. Grochala pointed out the deadline for agency action was August 14 and they had <br />previously received two extensions from the developer. He stated this would be going to <br />the City Council for action. Mr. Lyden asked the developer for another extension given <br />the issues. <br />Mr. Weiland stated his position was that they had been working on for 7 months and this <br />was a statutory requirement. He stated there had been adequate time to address this issue. <br />He stated they had met all of the requirements of the City. He requested a decision be <br />made to approve or deny at this time. <br />Motion Failed 3 -4. (Yes - Zych, Lane, Lyden. Nay — Corson, Schaps, Hyden, Rafferty). <br />Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Stoneybrook, Birch St. /Sherman Lake Road, <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA allocation, with adding condition A2 to state <br />