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 15 <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes understood the City did not favor these types of trees on City right of <br />way, but explained these trees were counted within the tree survey. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported this was the case noting <br />cottonwoods, ash and boxelder were considered significant trees. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes noted this was a heavily wooded area that the developer was looking to <br />cut down. She believed residents valued trees no matter what their species. She wanted to see the <br />developer follow City Code caliper for caliper. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung commented he understood why the developer was trying to pin one <br />section of Ordinance against another. However, this does not apply in this situation. He reported <br />the trees being mitigated were in the middle of the property and not on City right of way. He <br />discussed the Ordinance that covers tree mitigation and commented on how the City valued trees, <br />no matter its species. He explained he agreed with Councilmember Holmes and recommended <br />City Code be followed for this matter. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated she was going to play devils advocate and noted this was private <br />property. She indicated Bethel University could have gone in and removed all of the cottonwood <br />trees at any point in time. She appreciated the fact that Bethel and Country Financial have allowed <br />citizens of Arden Hills to walk on the private trails. She commented the developer was also <br />proposing to construct a trail on private land. She stated in an effort to keep the trails open to the <br />public was it worth charging the developer fully for the tree loss. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes agreed Bethel has been very good to the community to keep the trails <br />open. She questioned if Bethel University could have removed all of the cottonwood trees on the <br />site. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported Bethel University could <br />have removed up to 10% of the trees on the site prior to the subdivision. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant commented the Council could land on either side of this issue. He indicated he <br />believed the $20,000 payment for the trees was reasonable for this development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden disagreed with this statement because she didn’t know what the actual <br />amount should be. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant stated this was a PUD. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes also disagreed with the Mayor and stated she too would like to have the <br />actual numbers for the tree loss and subsequent payment amount. She questioned why the City <br />would give up the right to the actual payment amount. She stated she would like staff to bring this <br />number back to us. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant questioned how much time the Council had to render an approval on the PUD. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.