CCP 10-09-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL ~ SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 14 Mr. Leaf stated the intent of the plan was that it should be a guide. He noted it was not intended to be a hard and fast document. He added the plan needs to be moved into the agency approval stage. He stated he would view this issue as a clarifying change and not an intent change. He noted the plan would not need to go back for another agency review. He added the plan was intended and written to be flexible. . Councilmember Rem stated that since some of the text refers to these ponds as projects the plan could define "p" as "project" instead of "pond". She noted the word project gives it a slightly broader implication. She added the city could look at a broader solution than a predetermined pond. Councilmember Grant stated on page 32, F2, stated Rice Creek Watershed had the authority to approve changes. He noted the Watershed could consider it a plan. Mayor Probst responded this was not a plan from the standpoint of a predetermined solution. He stated the city was not committed to spend this money. Councilmember Grant stated it would be wise to reword the plan. He noted right now a pond was costed and sized. Councilmember Larson stated Councilmember Grant had a legitimate concern. He noted it looked foolish for the Council to approve a plan that shows this kind of pond. He added they needed to indicate that the city considered this issue. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . Councilmember Grant stated he wanted to remove the word pond. Mr. Leaf stated it was important to get this plan to the agency review stage. He stated he viewed this issue as a minor change. He noted the contradiction in the language should be viewed as highlighting the flexibility. He added the feasibility stage of the process would evaluate whether there should be a pond or another item. Councilmember Rem stated she agreed that there should be text changes. She suggested a more generic word like project. She noted she agreed it would be good to get the plan out to the necessary agencies. She added her concern that the longer this language remained in the plan the more it became a precedent that was expected to be followed. MOTION: Mayor Probst moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to amend the plan to add a footnote to table 7 that states "The plan anticipates stormwater activities at all locations and has used a pond approach for the purposes of cost estimates. This should in no way be interpreted as a commitment by the city to utilize a pond at all these locations, especially where private property is involved or in the ease of Valentine Park." The motion carried unanimously (5-0). .