12-13-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1982 -6- 4. WASTE/'ENERGX.PLANT: A. Di'scu'ss Energy Park - The Administrator up -dated the group on t ei County°s action, Engineer Bohrer passed out material outlining preliminary cost estimates of providing municipal services to Section 32, and reviewed- the planned use for this area. Questions -to be addressed included what is the.best use for this area, sewer capacity, sewer to areas outside of the energy plant location should the plant require all the reserve units, Battle Creek Watershed Plan covers a o of this area,- their involvement, City's role toward this development - will the City plan for, work with or react to develop- ment,possibilities in this area, can there be compatible industries that derive benefit from the plant - what type of other uses. Bohrer indicated that total planning could approach $4 million and indicated that it is important that the City actively become involved in planning this area. --Eder - attended last property owners meeting and supports their preliminary work - they are interested in working with the City to insure that compatible uses are planned for the area. Eder will urge these owners to submit their ideas for use so that they can be compiled with the City planning and submitted to the Joint Powers Committee. --Dreher - questioned what provisions will need to be made for storm water run-off by both Valley Branch and Battle Creek. --Bohrer - still will need a permanent ponding area in this area - Battle Creek has'devblaoped- an.over-all plan which requires about 165 acre ft. of surface water run-off storage or about 28 acres. Bohrer indicated,.on A.00lored map"y.-.the pondsaand�2-wetlands that holdowater year-round and hhe.wetland areas that are intermittent'ly wet and dry. A surface water management plan would identify the best areas to permanentlystore this water in compliance with the Battle Creek Watershed Plan. =®Lyal1.- suggested additional ponding rather than letting more of the run-off go into the sewer system. --Novak - should development plans be based on sewer usage. --Bohrer - have to believe that the energy plant will be built - City should look at the rest of the section and determine what is the highest and best use for the remainder of Section 32. --Whittaker - City still;_mdi.htains-thb:po"si iou-1,hhat-the developer share in the cost of development. --Dave Johnson, Conn -Co - City is on the threshhold of a tremendous opportunity and urged the Council to expedite their planning and use this area to develop a unified commercial/industrial area in this section thereby eliminating scattered industrial development throughout the City where services are not available. --Prince - not sure that extensive planning will bring an influx of commercial to Lake Elmo - area has been planned for commercial use for many years and to date there has been no great interest. --Whittaker - Comp Plan permits what Mr. Johnson is proposing - call for urban mixed use, it is anticipated here, area is expected to be sewered by 1990 and capacity is here. Council is interested in following through with this - still have to answer who initiates a plan for this area, who petitions, how do we go about getting from this point to the conclusion of this study. Believe that this plant is forcing us to provide services not otherwise provided and think these cost ought to be borne by the County or the plant operators/ developers. Need to know what the property owners want to do with their propery in order to design street and water systems and determine the capacity of those systems. What do the property owners see happening, what are they willing to commit to over and above what the County will pay for with the plant.