Agenda - Council - 05/12/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

UPDATE ON PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES Since January 16, 1981, a multidisciplinary team of Council staff has been assigned responsibility for determining the content adequacy of incoming plans. The team was formed after an assessment was made of the Council's internal review process following the first round of reviews. The adequacy team was formed in order to stream- line the Council's review process. It was found that plan content adequacy was not being addressed consistently in the reviews, and that some means of standardizing this part of the review was needed. After a local comprehensive plan is received by the Referral Division of the Council, it is given to the adequacy team. The adequacy team reviews the plan to make sure that all of the elements required under the Metropulitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) are present. If they are, review of the plan continues under the direction of a principal reviewer. If some element(s) of the plan axe missing, the community is contacted to establish a time frame for delivery of the missing elements.' ~:~:': ~- -.'-'.' 5) Statement of the land use plan's 1990 staging. 6) On-site sewage management plan (w}ien required). 7) A statement regarding general obstructions to airspace (even if the community is not located near an airport). PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSIST,~,CE.A~ .- GRANT GUIDELINES The Council is considering changes to the 1980-81 Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines that would accomplish the following:. -- Allow for earlier distribution of 1980-81 grants. -- Clarify the priorities and ~:riteria for 1980-81 Th ...... e~ "e council's - · Earlier Disbursement of 1980-81 Grants . -,~,'.... - ~- -. _ r~viewprocessconslderably. In addition, ithas '---. ' '~. .... . -' _ ."' ~',' ..'_'L~;'~,~,,.._'__.ko't~i~'~ll~w'4~-',:-" . providedinsightregardingelem~ntsoflocalplans: - ~lne,pr°.P._°s.e.u c_n_a,.n.g~e_s_~°~c~l~'~n~';nt and..., '/-,'; .' which are often missing when these plans ate: -~' - discretionary funds when the comprehensive plan is .: ~.... ~ After reviewing several plans, the adequacy team has discovered several commonly missing elements _. ,. ~ Intercommunity sewer flows by location and .:, .'2} Existing and 1990 sewer flows by interceptor' when a community discharges to more than - _... one metro interceptor. - - . - -.~~ - ':~- 8) Environmental control~ and regulations. The team has also found that other elements oftbe environ- . mental section are often not as thorough as they.. submitted to the council for review. After amending the grant agreement, 50 percent of the grant award .-'. would be disbursed when the plan's content is found adequate for review; 40 percent would be disbursed. '-. after local adoption of the plan; 10 percent would '.:. be paid upon submission of the final progress report, The existing guidelines require local units to walt :, until the final progress report is submitted before they can apply for 1980-81 funds. The council. - is proposing the changes because several local units indicated they are having difficulty financing the completion of their plans. The reason for reimburse-., ment funding was to provide a strong incentive for local units to complete and Implement their planrd The proposed changes to the guidelines would %_ - preserve that intent by linking the disbursements to -. major milestones in the planning process, and also 4)-- Statement of financial ~ ~'mpac' on a commum'--.~.* help reduce some of the financial burdens on some_ ~ . . .. Iocalunita. ..... --~ ,:__:, ~-. --.~ · ; . . .,-. _ -~ . of proposed improvements under the CIP. k. % .... ,. . . ....-.-;~ :....-~ ......;:'-';..?:':.,'---:,: .V · .-'.-'- ' "~-~ : -..' .. ' - .~. '~ "':' ' .~'i:'. ...... ,' -:"-': '-'~':' '-:,-:'- - '" '.' '::-' 1 ' ' '- ': -' ' "'