CC 09-10-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 12 . policies. He stated submittal of this plan would be a good faith effort to show the Metropolitan Council that the city was attempting to adopt a Storm Water Plan as part of its overall Comprehensive Plan. He noted this draft would be sent to the Metropolitan Council and the Rice Creek Watershed District for comments. He added those comments would come back to the Council for discussion. He stated Mr. Ron Leaf was present tonight from S.E.H., Inc. Mayor Probst asked if they made modifications before the final adoption of the plan, would the plan have to go back through process of review by the various agencies. Mr. Leaf responded that would depend on the nature of change. He stated if the change was a substantial deviation from the Rice Creek Watershed baseline than it would probably have to go back for review again. Mayor Probst asked if anyone doing development would have to follow the Rice Creek Watershed goals and polices. Mr. Leaf responded that was essentially correct. He stated the Rice Creek goals and policies would apply whether or not they were adopted by the city. Mr. Lynch stated this was the case unless the city wanted to be the agency to make the final determination in these matters. He noted the Council had stated they did not want to be that agency. . Councilmember Grant stated Figure 11, number 4 indicated proposed stormwater treatment. He noted the reference on page 42 was P4. He added these references make Valentine Park into a water retention pond. He stated he had previously indicated that if Valentine Park were to become a retention pond he would not vote to send this plan out for review. He noted he did understand that this area needs some stormwater treatment, but would not support the destruction of a city park to do that. Mr. Leaf stated that would be a minor change that could be made after the review. He noted on page 24, they had tried to layout 13 proposed ponds. He added the language tried to identify the fact that regional ponds were not the only practice recommended. He stated other alternatives could be considered. He noted this was not clarified in section 5, but that was the approach he understood the city wanted to highlight. He added these were just possible locations. Mayor Probst stated this has been identified as an area that does need treatment. He noted where it might end up on the schedule is unknown. He added they needed to let citizens know this was being considered. He stated the city needed to be up front about this issue. Councilmember Aplikowski noted it might remain a park but with something done to it. Councilmember Grant added his concern that at some point Rice Creek Watershed or future City Councils might consider making the park a holding pond. Mayor Probst stated the city has absolute control over what happens to this park. . Mr. Leaf stated that was his understanding as well. He noted these were possible locations. He added whether it would be a pond or other alternative would be determined later. He stated his experience with Rice Creek Watershed District indicated they had been favorable to considering alternatives.