Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 26 <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 alternative has been presented to have this <br />connection. He explained the last discussions indicated the connection would be made, <br />but this traffic report ignored this connection and assumed traffic would only flow out <br />onto Sunset. He stated the Carl Street connection had to happen. If this connection did <br />not go through, the City had some serious circulation 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 people 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 <br />being able to go through because of this wetl <br />determined wetland originally was now not c <br />concern and it would need to be addressed a <br />stated the answer to Mr. Rafferty's question w <br />He stated the assumption was that there was w <br />through, but the wetlands had been reanalyze <br />that was upset with this being reanalyzed <br />ds and the connection not <br />what was originally <br />He tated this was a <br />d parkland. He <br />pened in the past. <br />west and it would not go <br />e was a resident in that area <br />Mr. Robinson stated they were not recd <br />looking at the traffic impacts at w <br />not be any different if Carl went <br />Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Smyser <br />road from Carl to <br />stated the reside: <br />reason they w <br />it significan <br />ground water <br />previously defin <br />confirm this with the <br />respect to this collector <br />ection to Carl; they were just <br />stmg. He stated the impacts would <br />ect and the only place that they could build a <br />was along the existing Carl alignment. He <br />e verb; ,Rp appy with that conclusion and that was the <br />ative onnection. He agreed this was a big issue and <br />ith respect to wetland, there was not any in -depth <br />had since done that analysis and what was <br />of meet the wetland criteria. He stated they would <br />atershed District also. He asked for feedback with <br />e stated they were not opposed to making a connection, <br />looking at <br />acted the pl.`" <br />done, and <br />g g�, eland <br />but the issue was where the onnection should be. He indicated the other big issue was <br />the amount of parkland proposed. He stated this 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 option 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, and 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. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />