My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-22-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
02-22-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2021 3:32:51 PM
Creation date
2/18/2021 3:31:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 25, 2021 14 <br /> <br />A roll call vote was taken. The motion to publish a summary Ordinance for <br />Planning Case 20-022 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 carried <br />(5-0). <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the Planning Commission <br />recommended approval of the PUD and Site Plan at 2 Pine Tree Drive based on the findings of <br />fact and submitted plans subject to the conditions listed within the CUP. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to <br />approve Planning Case 20- 022 for a Planned Unit Development and Site Plan <br />at 2 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, <br />subject to the thirty-three (33) conditions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes questioned if the conditions for approval for the CUP and PUD were <br />the same. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the conditions were the <br />same. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes recommended the Council address the tree concerns at this time. She <br />indicated the applicant was not making a cash contribution to the City but rather was required to <br />make a payment in lieu of trees being planted. She did not believe flexibility should be given in <br />this area, due to the fact flexibility was given in other areas. She recommended the tree <br />replacement cost be further investigated in order for the applicant to properly follow City Code <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant questioned how many caliper inches were being removed of cottonwood trees. <br /> <br />Chris Buday explained the caliper inches were not divided by tree categories. However, based <br />on his review of the plan a significant number of trees being taken down were cottonwood. He <br />reviewed a portion of City Code noting cottonwoods are not to be planted in the City under any <br />circumstances. He indicated this City Code language factored into the contribution amount the <br />developer was willing to pay to the City for tree mitigation. He questioned why the City would <br />deem cottonwoods as significant trees. He commented further on the requested flexibility within <br />the PUD noting it goes beyond the trees. He explained this development would create 80 new <br />jobs, would provide housing to 146 seniors and would provide a great deal of property taxes to the <br />City. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant noted he has several cottonwoods on his property as well and noted they do drop <br />cotton seeds. <br /> <br />Chris Buday commented after reviewing the tree surveyor’s information further, a large number <br />of the trees being removed were boxelders, ash and cottonwoods. He stated in City Code 360.30 <br />states under no circumstances should boxelders, cottonwoods or ash be replanted. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla clarified that this portion of City <br />Code states these trees shall not be planted within the City right of way.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.