04-28-25-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 28, 2025 11 Councilmember Weber stated denying this portion of the project would not end the project. He anticipated this project would move forward. He expressed frustration with the fact there was now push back from the developer after the City had been very generous in approving additional density. He did not recommend that discussion about this trail segment be combined with the Old Highway 10 trail. He indicated the developer was not offering to pay more, but rather was offering to pay less. Councilmember Monson recalled Condition 28 had a lengthy Council discussion and required the developer to build a trail because they wanted density. She explained this was seen as a benefit to the City and the trail was to be funded by the developer. She commented the developer offered to complete the 396 foot trail also. She stated now the developer was not going to fund the 396 foot trail and now they would only be funding a portion of the entire length and the trail was to be funded by the $1.2 million. She expressed frustration with the fact the recording of the final plat was extended presuming the City was almost there, and now there was a sticking piece. She indicated she did not want to go back on what the Council approved, but she was open to having a negotiation on a cap amount. She believed there should be a priority on where this money should go and she was uncertain if that priority was the Old Highway 10 Trail. Councilmember Holden questioned how much additional density was approved for this project. City Administrator Jagoe explained the project received an additional 17 units, noting 102 were allowed and the project was approved with 119 units. Councilmember Holden stated this project was a PUD, and whether or not the developer received additional density, the project had to offer a benefit to the City given the flexibility that was being considered for the project. She noted she was making a decision on this project asking for a trail based on information received from the public works director. She understood the trail was proposed to be next to the curb and has since learned the trail had to be grade separated. She reported the trail was proposed because the project was a PUD and not because extra density was being requested. She was sorry that people didn't get what they wanted out of this, but noted she wanted a 10 by 20 easement. Councilmember Weber called for a point of order regarding Councilmember Holden's statement. Mayor Grant commented Councilmember Holden was making a general statement about the Council and was not speaking against any one Councilmember. Councilmember Holden indicated to her when she was strong arming these people, it was based on information from the Public Works Director. To her, she was ready to negotiate,but she would never ask for another $300,000 because the City didn't get everything they wanted. She reported it was the Council's fault because when Councilmember Fabel brought it up at the meeting, the rest of the Council sat silent. She reported the Planning Commission are not elected officials and they do not get to say, give us this, or we will not approve it. She understood this threat was made even before this item came to the City Council. She believed this entire thing was ridiculous. Mayor Grant explained one of the interesting aspects for this project was that that Council added a condition regarding the trails because this item was a PUD. He indicated there should be some give and take with this project and he believed a trail would be good for the project and the City.