02/14/2005 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting February 14, 2005 Mr. Ollendorff said if the City approves this no rights to a private action are being removed, no legal rights are being denied. Ms. Brungardt said her concern is that the City is being used as a” determining pawn” within any legal play that may occur after this. She said she believes more questions need to be asked. Mr. Schmitt called the subdivision covenants a “red herring”, stating they are not applicable to this question and said the Mayor was right. If the City Council approves the Bill tonight, the neighbors’ action is against the developer. Mr. Ollendorff is correct in stating that there needs to be focus. This is not a conditional use permit. If there is a lot which meets the square footage requirements, has the frontage requirements, then the bill needs to be approved. The developer can only work with what the City has stated as required. Any issue between the residents and the developer is exactly that, between these two parties. It is a separate cause of action and has nothing to do with the City’s determination tonight. Ms. Brot commented about her continuing concern regarding the trees on the property. Mr. Schmitt began to speak about the City Arborist and Mr. Ollendorff interrupted him, speaking for the City Arborist. He said when the plan was submitted by the applicant last week, he asked the City Forrester who is a certified arborist, to look at the plan and indicate whether it would result in saving the trees. He also made suggestions about how to improve the plan. The plan before them tonight is the City Forrester’s plan indicating how the trees in question can be saved. Added to the original plan are his suggestions, for example exactly how to take the trench, exactly how to place the fence, exactly where the construction entry ought to be, and exactly which trees can be saved and which cannot. In his opinion, under these conditions, there is a good chance the trees can be saved. Mr. Ollendorff asked the applicant to add to that a statement that in the event one of the trees is destroyed, would his client agree to replace it with a substantially-sized tree and they agreed. It is not a matter of law, but they gave their word to protect those trees identified by the City Forester and if that fails, they will replace. Ms. Brot expressed her gratitude for that effort. She would like to see the home at 9565 Old Bonhomme, cited earlier as an example of work done by this company. Mr. Schmitt said roots are “cut clean” during construction in order to save them. This provides a compensation to other areas. Mr. Schmitt added that there is nothing in the restrictive covenant that prevents the developer from doing what he proposes to do and that prohibits the City Council from approving the Bill tonight. The Council’s concern is that if the minimum requirements are met, then there should be approval. Ms. Brungardt asked about the property at 9565 Old Bonhomme and when the construction was done and the answer was within the past twelve months. That was not sufficient time she suggested to know the efficacy of whether the trees would survive. Mayor Adams asked the Council if they were saying that the owner of a property has no right to do on his property that which is not illegal. Is the Council telling the property owner that he cannot cut down trees? He then mentioned individual property rights. Ms. Page 12