03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat and city character is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that define the city character and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the ~30 healthy trunks (some trees were marked with multiple trunks) this plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half feet around (65 inches) at chest height. Some of these trees have been here since before MN was state. The mitigation plan involves replacing them with 30 trees, mostly evergreens, averaging 3.5 caliper inches. Even if they pay to have the trees put elsewhere or simply use some of their profits on the project to pay the minimal fee - you can't just replace an oak tree that's nearly 10 FEET around. The next generation of trees, which you can see in the above photos, help provide shelter for wildlife and fully flesh out the density of this wooded lot, aren't even noted on the plan. What is the point of a tree preservation plan - which at least 3 of the current city council voted to approve in 2008 - if this is allowed to happen?? All of this (including lot sizes and other items) points to the fact this just doesn't fit the area. People move to this area of Arden hills for the large private lots with mature trees and nature... it is an essential - I'd say defining - characteristic of our area of Arden Hills. The plan, as stands, significantly and permanently damages that character. Developers: Tim Horita, the owner of 3685 New Brighton Road is moving away from the area soon. He won't be around to follow this through and as he's not selling the homes, just the lots, he won't care if how things fit within the neighborhood. What power does the city have to force his compliance once he no longer lives there. Richard Kotoski, the applicant, has done (or attempteed) this in multiple places in the immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The 3-property subdivision he was responsible for around 1978 Thom was not finished according to the original plans. I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area) and Kotoski's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly.. Previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have found this to be a bad idea: In 2006 the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] though I understand a plan allowing this was eventually passed that included my land and only one additional home in the 'backyard' of 3685 New Brighton Road. The plan that eventually passed included only one additional house on 3685 out to Thom, removed considerably fewer trees, encroached on the easement less (and only on one side - a request to expand on the other side to maintain access for lift station was made by city engineer and accepted), and involved much less complications and 'design by conditions'. (the proposed subdivision has 19 planning commission coniditions as well as a host of additional conditions from RCWD) During the discussions for the subdivision that was denied, they further found that while large enough, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] During that meeting, the developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot [through my property] because of lot size and topology [of the western side of 3685]". [8]