Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />May 22, 1991 <br />Page 10 <br />to take care of any erosion problems. Skallman stated this <br />project meets LRRWMO requirements and water quality guide- <br />lines. However, he did recommend the applicant check with <br />the DNR and Corps of Engineers to determine the limits of the <br />wetlands. <br />Skallman noted this is the first LRRWMO permit review and <br />queried how the board wished to proceed in issuing the <br />permit. He recommended it would be sufficient to direct him <br />to send a letter to the applicant, with a copy to the host <br />city, including the LRRWMO's comments. In the case of permit <br />#91 -01, Skallman indicated, if so directed, he would include <br />comments relating to proper erosion control, noting the host <br />city will be assuming normal inspection of the project. <br />Motion was made by Weaver, seconded by Jankowski, to APPROVE <br />PERMIT #91 -01, DIRECTING THE CONSULTING ENGINEER TO INFORM <br />THE APPLICANTS BY LETTER AND INCLUDE HIS COMMENTS ON THE <br />PROJECT. <br />3 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried. <br />Discussion 'followed concerning financial considerations <br />which should come out of the project's permit deposit. <br />Schrantz stated there should be administrative costs /overhead <br />in addition to engineering review costs. Members concurred <br />with Skallman's suggestion that the engineering review costs <br />plus ten per cent for administrative /overhead costs come out <br />of the deposit fee. This percentage could be adjusted in the <br />future should the board so desire. <br />Members further discussed when the remaining deposit fee, if <br />any, should be returned to the applicant. They concurred any <br />remaining deposit money should be retained by the LRRWMO <br />until the project is properly completed. Skallman indicated, <br />as a matter of proper project completion control, the cities <br />will not issue an occupancy permit until any damage created <br />during the project construction is remediated. <br />Skallman noted the receipt of a May 20, 1991, letter to <br />Connie David, 3541 East Mineral Pond Boulevard, Anoka, from <br />Tom Hovey, DNR, regarding the installation of a retaining <br />wall and its location to state protected wetland 2 -119W. The <br />proposed project was reviewed. Skallman indicated there is <br />no need for a response to the DNR. <br />Written quarterly project development reports were received <br />from the City of Anoka, showing no activity as of May 22, <br />1991; and the City of Andover, reporting city activity for <br />Genthon Ponds preliminary plat. Todd Haas, Assistnt City <br />