Minutes from 1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

y LRRWMO Meeting Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 3 CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS Skallman reported reviewing permit application #90 -6266, a request by Bruce Hendry, 3524 Rum River Drive, Anoka, to construct a retaining wall in order to curb the erosion of the Rum River's bank in his area. Skallman's recommended response to the Department of Natural Resources is the proposed wall would not result in long -term erosion protec- tion because of a lack of structural permanency of the retaining wall. Upon discussion of this board's responsibility to notify the applicant of our consulting engineer's findings and response to the DNR, Skallman was unsure of the DNR's process relative to the applicant. He felt the applicant may be aware of the short -term solution he is creating, but may find it more economical to replace the retaining wall again in a few years than to construct it with long -term retention in mind. Motion was made by Mathisen, seconded by Raatikka, directing THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN APPLICATION #90 -6266 CONTAINING SKALLMAN'S COMMENTS INDICATING THE SHORT -TERM LIFE EXPECTANCY OF MR. HENDRY'S PROPOSED RETENTION WALL. SAID COMMENTS SHALL BE SENT BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. 4 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS ni_scussion of Water M anagement Plan Comments Received Skallman reviewed his May 10, 1990, informal response to comments-received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Board of Water and.Soil Resources (BWSR), and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding the LRRWMO Water Management Plan. He_ responded to these agency comments as though the Water Management Guidelines would be approved. Pollution Control Agency: Upon discussion of the Hydrologic System, Skallman indicated he would add comments on high water problems indicated in the City of Ramsey. He will discuss this further with Raatikka at a later date. Members concurred many of these agency requirements for the plan conflict each other. It was also agreed that while Skallman's recommended `response to these comments are simplistic, they are proper.