PL PACKET 01231995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 22 1 recommended by the MPCA are feasible and are a prudent alternative to the requirements that 2 Barr Engineering is abiding by. There is a significant difference in what the MPCA recommends 3 and what the Watershed District is requiring. 4 Commissioner Bergstrom inquired as to the timeliness of the Environmental Quality Board 5 (EQB). He also asked how long it would take to do the EAW, if that were required. 6 Mr. Haik stated that the local government unit that will be making the decision whether or not to 7 perform an assessment, has 15 days to make that decision. He was not sure how long it would 8 take to go through the EQB, but stated that.he felt they were usually very prompt. 9 Mr. Palmer explained that assuming the responsible agency moves forward diligently, that 10 responsible agency being either the City or the Watershed District, and they were able to fill the 11 EAW out within a week or two, and submitted it, a notice of it's availability is then published in 12 the State Registrar. It then begins a 30 day review period. If there is substantial public response, 13 this review period can be extended by 15 days. The responsible agency, again the City or the 14 Watershed District, needs to respond in writing to all comments received within 7-15 days. 15 There are then findings by the responsible government unit as to whether or not an 16 Environmental Impact Statement is required. This would be required if they found, for any 17 reason, that there was substantial and irreversible environmental impacts that required a more 18 detailed analysis. This statement would then have to be published in the State Registrar. He 19 stated that if all goes well, the process could be completed within 90 days. 20 An unidentified resident asked if the petition can be withdrawn. 21 Mr. Haik stated that the petition can be withdrawn. He proposed that another alternative would 22 be for substantial compliance with what the MPCA requires. Another alternative is for the 23 Watershed District to finance the necessary improvements which could be designed by Barr 24 Engineering. 25 Mayor Ranallo expressed his support for the project and the lake but reiterated that there are only 26 so many things that can be done. He feels that what the City has done thus far, is about all they 27 can do with the money they have available. He stated that the Watershed District has made it 28 clear that they will not be putting any money into this project. He stated that there appears to be 29 no options with the petition involved. Time is of the essence in this project and CUB Foods and 30 Knox would like to get started on the project. Also,Apache needs to move the tenants to the 31 other side of the building so they can begin demolition. He expressed concern that 90 days may 32 be too long to wait. He related a commitment from C. G. Rein Co., that when more construction 33 was done in that area, the drainage would again be addressed and more changes could possibly 34 be made at that time. 35 Mr. Haik stated that the association realizes that the City has made enormous efforts. He said 36 they are only looking for what is feasible and prudent.