10-12-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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