CCP 10-09-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 ~"~!"' 13 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 others could destroy the park. 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. Councilmember Larson stated that this pond was estimated to cost $300,000. He asked what size pond that would cover. Mr. Leaf noted Appendix D indicates the approximate size of the pond. He added the surface area of the pond would be 2.46 acres for pond. . Councilmember Rem noted the language about this pond, conflicts with statements made in the document regarding the importance of city parks. Mayor Probst stated he urged caution on the part of the Council to pre-judge a solution. He noted Valentine Park now has significant drainage problems. He added the fill resulting from the construction of a pond could be used to bring up the standards of the park. Councilmember Larson stated they should add language to ma](e sure that alternatives have to be considered. Councilmember Grant stated the area of Valentine Park was three acres. He noted he would rather the plan would indicate the city was looking at something other than a pond for that location. He added that did not mean the city could not choose a pond later. He stated he would not support a pond. Mayor Probst stated the language would need to be similar for all the locations. He noted the Council needed to keep in mind the purpose of the document. He added a pond would raise the same issues at every location. He stated tllat until they tried to design a solution, the city would not know what would be best. . Councilmember Grant stated he was fine with the descriptors at other locations. He noted his concern that a future city council would not think this Council advocated destroying a park.