Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 6 <br />July 6, 2021 <br />----------------------------- <br />developer did not have control of the remaining parcel to complete the connection. <br />Councilmember Westgaard asked why Planning Commission had a split vote. He <br />questioned why some members believed the streets were inadequate when it is <br />constructed to the same street standards as every other development in the city and <br />works. He would refer this back to Planning Commission for further explanation on <br />why the street is inadequate and why a split vote for not allowing the developer to <br />finish building out the West Oaks plat. He further noted the City Council can't <br />govern outside its boundaries and questioned why this project is contingent upon <br />Big Lake Township access. <br />Councilmember Westgaard stated it's a common occurrence where the first of many <br />phases of a development are completed, people get used to it being quiet and having <br />less traffic, then get upset when there is change. He stated original planning of this <br />project called for increased traffic when additional phasing was completed, and the <br />streets were designed and built to service the entire plat. Councilmember Westgaard <br />stated the lone property owner on the yellow route has never been part of the plan to <br />develop West Oaks and it's not fair for him to give up his property to benefit the <br />other neighbors. He further commented it would be good to work with the property <br />owner to find a solution to establish the yellow route. <br />Councilmember Wagner concurred with Councilmember Westgaard's statement <br />regarding development phasing and people having a hard time with change. She <br />further cited many examples where the city completed planning for large areas and <br />residents are later upset about changes happening in their neighborhoods, which <br />have already been planned out. <br />Councilmember Wagner stated it is not fair to take away land from the one property <br />owner and she is surprised by the amount of people who were for using his property. <br />She further commented she doesn't feel right making it a condition in the CUP when <br />the property owner has nothing to do with the development of this plat, but she <br />would be willing to work with him to make the connection work. <br />Councilmember Wagner questioned when emergency vehicles/response became a <br />bad thing and would want this service easily accessible to her home. She stated the <br />street was developed for handling additional traffic and the project is zoned <br />correctly. She noted there will more traffic on Yankton Street whether the road <br />extensions are added. She stated this is a good project and is difficult to say no <br />because if follows the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances and the <br />infrastructure is in place to handle it. <br />Mayor Dietz asked for clarification on Big Lake Township's support for the project. <br />He expressed concern for traffic at the Highway 10 access. He is taken aback by <br />resident's comments who don't want people to use the streets they live on. He would <br />like to see the yellow route completed but doesn't know how the city can force an <br />adjacent property owner to participate. He is willing to work with the property <br />owner on a solution. He also stated the city can't require the extension for the <br />P 0 1 E R E 0 81 <br />NA TUR <br />