Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1981 -4- <br />2. Comp Plan Status <br />=_Mazanec --Noted that in communities where estimates are higher <br />than the need they can reallocate the difference ibb communities who <br />need more. Clarified that Lake Elmo maintains that all the <br />capacity that has been allocated to Lake Elmo would come out of <br />Section 32 into the WONE intercepter and current flows would be <br />increased between 1985--1990. <br />Whittaker this is what Lake Elmo thinks, Have always made <br />this type of clarification - feel need to leave the option open <br />presently in the middle of a 201 Study that will not be completed <br />for 6 months. <br />--Mazanec -- Main concern is that the flow volume is ok. If this <br />is .'o.k,, will not pursue farther on the 6,000 units. Other question <br />that needs clarification is the location of the trunk sewers that <br />are built in Section 32, The letter indicates the City has several <br />unknowns such as the exact configurationof development or- <br />how much it might be or whFt_her it may be necessary to reallocate <br />to other parts of the City They normally have to know where <br />the trunks would be, if built, even if built by private developers. <br />Need this to assess the impart, <br />--Whittaker - the only way the City can get to the main system <br />is through the intercepter that goes under the highway at Crossroads <br />Ford. Can state this in a letter. City has to presume that all <br />of the City's sewer will go through that pipe, <br />--Mazanec - This may be the only clarification other than natural <br />flow amount that may be need beyond the letter. A statement <br />to this effect with the letter would probably enable them to go <br />ahead, Could restart the process and get into the substance of <br />the plan. w.ant,ito emphasize the fact that if there are adjustments <br />to be made on reallocations of the flow,,can amend the plan. Does <br />not see this as a problem, something that can be done down the pike <br />when 201 studies are done, Thinks this clears it up with the <br />afore mentioned clarifications. Would encourage the rest of the <br />staff to look at it this way; <br />Whittaker -- Explained the reason for the tone of the letter <br />was the deadline, basically 17 days to correct a problem that <br />has been discussed for 16 months. Aware this is a part of the <br />new procedures that were adopted for plan review, but .feels the <br />City should have been given 30-60 days or some prior warning that <br />this was going to happen aside from the notice of amendment to <br />the procedure which was received 60-90 days ago. Hoping this <br />does not permanetly affect the City's eligibility for planning <br />assistance funds. If review the correspondence over the past <br />16 months, will find the City has responded to all the Met <br />Council''s letters within 1 month of receipt and waited 12 months <br />between letters for any further resolution of the problem. Have <br />had meetings during the interim but no clarification in writing <br />of what the staff was seeking. Does seem unreasonable now to <br />take the City off the entitlement list for funds when every effort <br />has been made to respond as quickly as possible upon receipt <br />of any correspondence from the staff on what more neddsto be <br />submitted before the plan was adequate. Would like this to be <br />considered, <br />---Mazanec - With the October 9 letter can basically say that the <br />City has replied within the time that was given. Only important <br />item left is to get the additional points clarified before the <br />end of the week. Council will act later in the week on the list <br />as to who might lose their entitlement. Will forward this information <br />to the Council. Does not think the City's entitlement will be <br />jeopardized. <br />