Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />January 15, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />December 19, 1991, meeting, information from the LRRWMO area <br />had already been received by the Metropolitan Council. No <br />further action was necessary. <br />CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS <br />Schrantz noted a questionnaire received from the Metropolitan <br />Council. No action taken. <br />Members noted the December 30, 1991, letter sent to Berry <br />Schaub, Technical College Facility Coordinator, with regard <br />to the LRRWMO request that they obtain the required LRRWMO <br />permit application and submit the $500 fee for the Anoka <br />Vocational Technical school's expansion project. <br />Also noted was the December 30, 1991, LRRWMO letter sent to <br />Ron Harnick, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, <br />indicating the LRRWMO's acceptance of the responsibility of <br />assuming jurisdiction for the regulation of the interim <br />wetland regulations through the July 1, 1993, interim period. <br />Schrantz provided a written response from Barr Engineering <br />with regard to two Department of Natural Resource (DNR) <br />permit applications sent to the LRRWMO for review: #92 -6104 <br />and #92 -6100. <br />#92 -6100 Jankowski addressed the City of Ramsey's permit <br />request for this proposed project affecting wetlands 2 -116W <br />and 2 -114P. The board noted the receipt of the $500 permit <br />application fee; however, no application form was attached. <br />Schrantz and Schultz concurred the comments received from the <br />LRRWMO consulting engineer probably have not yet gone to the <br />DNR, but, rather, have been submitted to this board for <br />consideration prior to submission. Schrantz explained these <br />permit comments were sent to him in Andover rather than to <br />the LRRWMO address. Unfortunately, they were overlooked <br />prior to the December regular meeting. The board concurred <br />this type of information should be sent to the LRRWMO address <br />for proper distribution to all members, rather than sent to <br />the Chairman. Schrantz stated any LRRWMO comment will be <br />received by the DNR after the deadline date; however, he felt <br />it necessary the LRRWMO make comment anyway. <br />Jankowski queried whether the engineer felt the rip rap was <br />sufficient. Schultz stated the water flow will be greater <br />than a velocity of eight feet per second. He queried whether <br />this will move it around. Jankowski did not think so. <br />Schrantz stated Skallman's recommendations on this project <br />indicates he does not like that portion of the plan. <br />