Laserfiche WebLink
first got involved, they were given an alignment from the City. He commented that Ms. Pearson <br />commented that she did not want Riverdale Drive to go through her living room and staff was <br />great with providing alternative ideas for the alignment that do not go through the Pearson's home <br />or Bowers Drive. He stated that there were neighborhood meetings for Pearson Place which <br />brought forward Riverdale Drive alternative one. He stated that the road alignment could be <br />moved to the east, which would be almost a football field from Bowers Drive. He explained that <br />the Pearsons prefer that alignment because the road impacts the Pearsons and their home along <br />with their businesses. He stated that the Pearsons do not want to have a service road. <br />Mayor LeTourneau stated that the additional feedback is important as it tells the City there are <br />many things still on the table. He stated that there is flexibility in those topics. <br />Councilmember Riley noted that each member of the Council had different ideas on some elements <br />and asked for input from staff, as he was unsure the draft motion captures those ideas. <br />Mayor LeTourneau commented that the framework allows for all of those discussion points to <br />come forward. He stated that the framework was not very clear about the idea of extended tree <br />preservation and suggested that be added. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that everyone agrees that Riverdale Drive is important <br />and both alternatives should be explored deeper. He commented that the second connection <br />between Riverdale Drive and Bowers Drive needs to happen, whether that is a public road or just <br />for public safety. He provided details on the possible tree preservation options as well. He noted <br />that the framework would provide direction and limit some options compared to the things that <br />have been on the table thus far. <br />Motion by Councilmember Menth, seconded by Councilmember Kuzma, to Adopt Resolution <br />#20-136 Approving Planning Framework Document for Riverstone South, including the <br />discussion related to tree preservation. <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Heinrich asked what the language would be related to tree <br />preservation. Councilmember Menth confirmed that he would suggest the language as proposed <br />by staff. Councilmember Specht stated that he likes the idea ofno park fees with the higher acreage <br />of preserved trees. Councilmember Heinrich stated that she struggles because one of the options <br />is continuing to explore 20 plus acres of tree preservation. She stated that she would like to work <br />with the developer on a tree preservation plan but was unsure that acquisition of 20 plus acres <br />would be feasible. She commented that there are a lot of variables included in the language <br />provided by staff. Mayor LeTourneau stated that the intent is to provide direction and to let staff <br />and the developer work out those details. He stated that full acquisition of the trees would most <br />likely fall off the discussion pretty quickly as this moves forward. Councilmember Heinrich stated <br />that she cannot support the motion as drafted which includes the full acquisition of the 20 plus <br />acres of wooded area. Councilmember Menth stated that he understands that this would provide <br />direction to the staff to negotiate and work with the developer. He commented that anything <br />between one acre and 23 acres would be on the table for discussion and simply provides flexibility. <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill offered an amendment to move this along. He stated that <br />unless the Council is willing to bring cash, the full acquisition would not happen and therefore <br />City Council / June 23, 2020 <br />Page 19 of 21 <br />