Council discusses Landrow connector road option; planning commission opposed, council directs further joint review

City staff and councilors discussed a long-standing concept for a western connector road between Pontiac Trail and West Maple tied to a potential private development (300 Land Road Drive). Assistant City Manager Benson summarized that negotiations with a potential developer could secure additional right-of-way dedication (paper-street) as part of a planned unit development (PUD). In the scenario described, the developer would build a private drive meeting city standards for two-thirds of the distance; the city could acquire additional right-of-way to extend to Maple Road and retain the option to make the drive a public road later. Benson emphasized the city would not be obligated to build the road immediately; the conversation was about acquiring right-of-way to preserve the future option.

Benson reported the Planning Commission considered the concept and voted unanimously not to favor acquiring that additional right-of-way in exchange for the zoning deviations requested by the developer. Planning commissioners cited concerns about future traffic, the character of potential routes, and how a new connector would affect surrounding neighborhoods and trails. Council members weighed the trade-offs: some said the connector could improve emergency access and mobility, particularly with a new elementary school in the area, while others flagged high cost estimates (millions), potential traffic shifting onto city-maintained Maple Road, right-of-way and trail crossing complexity (including franchise trail crossings), and the perception that benefits might accrue mainly to adjacent townships or the developer.

The council did not make a final decision to accept or reject acquiring right-of-way. Several council members indicated they wanted to keep the option open; others said it was a low priority and recommended letting the developer proceed without the additional right-of-way negotiation. Benson said the typical path for a PUD requires approvals from both the Planning Commission and City Council and recommended a joint meeting between council and the Planning Commission to discuss citywide priorities and reach common ground if council wishes to pursue the right-of-way option. Staff noted that any acquisition would include negotiation of a development agreement and that acquiring right-of-way would typically be followed by design, engineering, and budgeting decisions before construction.

Council gave staff directional guidance to schedule further discussion; Benson said city staff will seek dates for a joint meeting (master plan / planning commission / council / DDA as appropriate) to better define priorities and potential budget implications.