Laserfiche WebLink
Councihnember Cook inquired as to why the grading lines were not changed when the road <br />alignment changed in Area A and how was it missed by everyone checking the plans. <br /> <br />A representative from Loucks Association explained that with the many modifications they made <br />to the plan during the approval process they focused their efforts on road alignment and road <br />width and in all honestly the grading line was never moved. The grading itself was not being <br />altered it was simply a fact that in the computer a line did not get moved. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated that in the original plan they had talked about saving the trees in the <br />areas marked B and C and questioned what was requiring the change. <br /> <br />Loucks Association representative replied that he did not know how to answer that specifically, <br />but explained fl~at the difference in grade dictated what happens in the area. <br /> <br />Todd Bjerstad, Village of Sunfish Lakes, explained that in Area B they changed the configuration <br />of the driveways and the lots were elevated to minimize the slope. They may be able to leave the <br />trees but they are at the point where the retaining wall will have to be built. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that he thought that with Area A they needed to hold the developers <br />responsible to raise the elevation or change the lots to look outs. He stated that they have <br />residents that currently live along the area and the Council promised the residents that those trees <br />were going to stay along the property line. On Area B he felt that the developer should make <br />every effort to leave as many of the large trees as possible. He also suggested that someone from <br />staff go to the site and make sure the roots are protected. With Area C he stated that he would <br />not be opposed to all of those trees being removed because they are at their life expectancy if <br />they are replaced with other trees. <br /> <br />Councihnember Strommen stated that it would be great to provide alternate screening in Area C <br />if the pines are removed. She stated that she wanted to find some way to preserve the screening. <br />She did not want to lose any more oaks on the property. Ms. Strommen questioned why this <br />happened, stating that she was personally disappointed because it was an issue for the neighbors. <br /> <br />Councihnember Pearson stated that the oaks are very important and should be saved. He was not <br />as concerned about the evergreens, but would like to see something in their place. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig agreed. He reiterated the concern of how they got to this point. He stated <br />that the Council has to rely on the assurances provided to them. He emphasized that it was very <br />important to bring forward other screening options. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen recommended that if there is going to be a loss of screening for the <br />existing neighbors that the developer work with adjacent property owners on the issue. <br /> <br />Counci hnember Elvig inquired as to how the process would move forward. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon explained that staff would bring back the <br />issne on September 23rd for Council action and, in the meantime, notify residents and have <br />discussion with the developer on the issue. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/September 9, 2003 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />