My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-25-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
01-25-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2021 10:36:21 AM
Creation date
2/23/2021 10:35:09 AM
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.
/
19
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 />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 />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 />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 />Councilmember Holmes questioned if the conditions for approval for the CUP and PUD were <br />the same. <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the conditions were the <br />same. <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 />Mayor Grant questioned how many caliper inches were being removed of cottonwood trees. <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 />Mayor Grant noted he has several cottonwoods on his property as well and noted they do drop <br />cotton seeds. <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 />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. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.