My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-12-25-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
05-12-25-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2025 4:04:52 PM
Creation date
5/8/2025 3:56:17 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.
/
162
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 — APRIL 28, 2025 12 <br />director and the developer. He reported it turns out the trail was going to be more expensive than <br />originally thought. He stated this matter was now being brought back to the Council given how <br />much more the trail was going to cost. He did not believe this reflected poorly on the Public <br />Works Director or the developer. He explained he was looking at this as a project that would <br />benefit the City in a lot of different ways and he sees an opportunity to get a trail segment on a <br />portion of North Snelling. He stated if the Council did not want to spend the additional funds on <br />Old Snelling, the City did not have to do this. Rather, the dollars could be used on parks. <br />However, the dollars were available to closely fund this gap. He was of the opinion a north south <br />connection from Roseville to Highway 96 was important and the City was close to achieving that. <br />Councilmember Weber stated the word he used was conflate. He pointed out again, that the <br />funding the City would lose from agreeing to this would take away funding from Old Highway 10 <br />and giving it to the developer. He explained to Councilmember Holden's point that she reached <br />out to the Public Works Director regarding a grade separated trail. He did not believe anyone <br />driving through this area would state this was a super easy trail. He reiterated that the developer <br />was readily agreeable to building this trail within the original agreement. He explained when he <br />asked for affordable housing he was a City Councilmember and was no longer serving on the <br />Planning Commission. <br />Councilmember Holden called for a point of order stating she felt like she was being attacked. <br />Councilmember Weber stated he was responding to Councilmember Holden's comment. <br />Mayor Grant encouraged the Council to speak for themselves. <br />Councilmember Monson reported she was not confused about the cost for the trail. In her mind, <br />this was what the City was going to do for the PUD, whether or not it was because this was a <br />PUD or because of the extra density. She recommended the developer pay for the entirety of the <br />trail and that the $1.2 million be used for the Old Highway 10 trail. She explained she could <br />support the City Council having further discussions about the cap. She indicated the $90,000 was <br />not acceptable to her. <br />Councilmember Holden questioned where the $90,000 came from. <br />City Administrator Jagoe deferred this question to the applicant, noting this number came from <br />the applicant through this narrative. <br />Councilmember Holden stated she came up with the trail idea and the Council supported it. She <br />commented further on how she proposed the trail and that costs were not fully understood at that <br />time. She indicated she works to try and get a public benefit out of every PUD. She recommended <br />the $1.2 million be put in the City coffers and not be allotted for any one project. She stated the <br />developer agreed to complete the proposed trail along with the trail to the Ukrainian project. <br />MOTION: Mavor Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adobt <br />Resolution #2025-040 — Amending City Resolution 2025-007 to revise <br />Condition 28 in the conditions of approval of a Master and Final Planned Unit <br />Development and Conditional Use Permit for Lot 1, Block 1 for the Arden <br />Heights Addition. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.