Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />May 12, 2004 <br />Page 6 <br />lights on County Road J and Highway 49. Mr. Grochala replied there were no plans at <br />this time. <br />Marvin Emily, 590 62nd Street, stated all of this property used to be good hunting ground <br />and now it was not. He expressed concern about the wetland changes over the years. <br />Cindy Lambert, 6339 Deerwood Lane, expressed concerns about the traffic and the new <br />developments in the area and the increase of traffic with those new developments. She <br />expressed concern about the water drainage. She noted they had a wetland section right <br />outside of her backyard and asked what would that do to her wetland. <br />Janice Beach, asked if there was going to be a decision made tonight or would it be <br />continued. Mr. Schaps replied it was the intent to make a decision tonight. <br />Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and was supported <br />by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5 -0. <br />Mr. Grochala indicated this was a challenging site. He stated if they could do a project <br />that would benefit the City, then that was a reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Mr. Tralle asked the traffic engineer what dictated the upgrade of a road and what was <br />the prime mover of designing or redesigning the road. The Traffic Engineer replied the <br />traffic volumes of the road dictated when it needed to be upgraded. He indicated this was <br />not a straightforward calculation and was based on many different factors including <br />accesses, driveways, etc. He noted Deerwood Lane had not been set up as a collector <br />road and it was not fair to the residents to make this a collector road. <br />Mr. Tralle stated the driving force to an improved road was after a development and not <br />before. The Traffic Engineer replied that was the typical procedure. <br />Mr. Tralle reminded the residents that the people who lived around the association before <br />their development had been build had said the same concerns about traffic. However, he <br />understood their traffic concerns. <br />Mr. Pogalz asked if the neighborhood meeting was well received. Mr. Black replied <br />there were 30 -40 residents at the meeting. He stated they had presented a concept plan <br />that as very similar to this plan. He noted the general concern was traffic, but he <br />struggled to find an answer to that concern. He indicated drainage was also expressed as <br />a concern. He noted there were favorable and unfavorable comments made at that <br />meeting. <br />Chair Schaps asked if there was enough time before July 9 to rectify the issues. Mr. <br />Grochala replied staff would be hard pressed to do this. He noted there were a couple of <br />options available to the developer. He stated he would prefer to see an extension by the <br />developer to extend the time period or withdraw this application and draw up with a new <br />application. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />