Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MARCH 12, 2018 11 <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler explained the property had 72 significant trees and 22 trees would be <br />removed and 50 significant trees would remain. He reported that additional trees would be taken <br />out, but they were not considered to be significant. It was his opinion the lots would not be clear <br />cut. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung commented it appears that a stand of trees was being clear cut based <br />on the proposed plans (trees 855 through 870). <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler stated the provision within City Code regarding clear cutting did not <br />provide staff with a great deal of guidance. He reiterated that diseased trees were removed from <br />the City’s tree preservation calculations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes commented on the trees on the plan that would remain. She questioned <br />why trees 856 through 861 were being removed. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler explained his understanding was these trees were being removed to allow <br />for the grading work that would need to be completed on the site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated it appears more trees were being removed from Lot 1 and on Lots <br />2 and 3. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler commented this was the case. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung asked if the stormwater requirements for this plat would be less if <br />only one new lot were developed instead of two. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler reported the stormwater requirements would be less for only one lot. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung indicated the crowding on the lift station and loss of trees would also <br />be less if only one lot were developed. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler stated this was correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden commented on Condition 14 and asked if metal stakes were necessary. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler explained the City had a similar requirement for the Fox Ridge <br />development and the developer had to place stakes on the property around the catch basins for <br />future property owners. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden recommended the abstract have language that would require the <br />homeowner to keep the stakes in place. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes requested further information on the two plans for this neighborhood <br />that were not passed by the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler discussed at length Planning Cases 06-038 (Burroughs Lane Plat) and <br />Planning Case 06-05 (2015 Thom Drive). He commented on the similarities and differences