03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The next generation of trees, which you can see in the above photo, help provide shelter for the excellent wildlife (Deer, rabbits, foxes, owls, possum, and turkey's (that we use to teach our kids to count as they waddle out of this area daily)... and of course tons of birds and smaller fauna ... the stuff people brag about being 'in their backyard' when they talk about living in Arden Hills. Again, this is city character stuff.) 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 ordinance - which at least 3 of the current city council voted to approve in 2008 - if this is allowed to happen?? This is clear cutting (forbidden) and even if you don't believe it is 'clear cutting' the mitigation goes against the spirit and the letter of the tree preservation ordinance. Further, while the city staff caught it, the applicant attempted to claim 70 caliper inches of trees as 'saved' even though they were diseased - including trees labeled as “Major decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. When the submitted plans include the boilerplate rules about not encroaching on drip lines, city code explicitly prohibits it, and they still put construction entrances and driveways through no less than 5 trees' drip lines (and further they attempt to claim diseased trees as 'saved' and that 'cottonwoods shouldn't could' and 'we don't want to pay the park dedication fee'), one must question the accuracy and care put into environmental protection and follow-through for the rest of the plan. This is our city character, being ravaged and sold off to an outside developer. Areas like this define this part of town and should be protected from needlessly destructive development. A different grading plan, stormwater plan, or building/driveway plan could save some of these trees. The current plan is clearly designed to maximize profits rather than following the letter (or spirit) of our city codes, which are in place to offer protection and preservation of our city's character and resources. In addition to the flat-out forbidden nature of clear-cutting, the intent of the tree preservation ordinance is right there, in black and white: "It is the City's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Arden Hills and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development. The city council finds it is in the best interest of the city to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development and property alteration." 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. Page 10 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html