Committee member urges study of second egress for northwest development, flags drainage risks

A committee member asked the council to research adding a second egress for a planned development on the northwest hill and outlined three route alternatives, while flagging drainage and wetland risks and requesting the matter be scheduled for a future planning session.

The requested review matters because neighbors have asked for an additional exit from the new subdivision and because the site’s drainage could affect adjacent wetlands and properties. The member said the development was described at a recent neighborhood meeting as about 12 houses on the triangle of land atop the hill and pressed the council to explore feasible access and water-handling options before final approvals.

The committee member—identified in the transcript only by role—proposed three possible access options. One would extend a street straight across the municipal park area below St. Francis School to connect to the existing road network. A second would run a street past a parcel described as 'Rich water' and seek to acquire two to three acres from a parcel identified as Schultz’s to extend a connection to Lake Road. The third would seek permission to route a short access through roughly 200 feet of woods on land described as belonging to 'Kinders' and connect west to Lake Road. The member said these alternatives should be researched with property owners and the HOA to determine legal and practical feasibility.

The transcript records several practical constraints the member said limit alignments: a pond and an existing bike path lie south and east of the proposed development, a nearby dead-end street may be private or designed as an internal circulation route for townhomes, and HOA ownership could prevent slicing a public street through private parcels. "You could put a street right through the middle of that," the member said, noting it might cross the bike path and that ownership and design covenants appear to restrict options.

On drainage, the committee member suggested that if the developer installs a holding pond, the developer should place "an 8 in intake in the middle of your pond" and run tile across the committee's park property to carry water away, but acknowledged wetlands, floodplain and permitting issues could affect that plan. The member also repeated neighborhood concerns that any holding pond could overflow into the adjacent wetland, saying residents are "convinced that any holding Pond is going to go into that Wetland" and that the water could back up toward nearby properties. No engineering decision or formal directive was recorded in the transcript; the member asked staff and the council to research the options.

The member also noted a related procedural point: several routing options would involve private land or multiple landowners, so the council would need to determine how many parcels and owners are affected before advancing a preferred alignment. The speaker asked that the topic be placed on a near-future agenda for study and discussion with stakeholders; the transcript records no formal motion or vote on the matter during this session.

Next steps in the transcript were limited to the member’s request to schedule the item for further study; the member said they will be out of town for an upcoming conference and suggested adjournment in their absence. No formal decision, motion, or vote on access or drainage measures is recorded in the provided transcript.