Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />November 18, 1993 <br />Page 5 <br />Third Quarter 1993 Reports -Andover. Coon Rapids <br />Haas distributed and reviewed a third quarter report for the City of Andover. <br />Ferguson submitted a letter indicating Coon Rapids did not have any new construction <br />projects within the LRRWMO boundary during the third quarter of fiscal 1993. <br />On-Site Project/Restoration Inspection Form <br />Not available; place on December agenda. <br />PENDING PROJECTS/PERMIT REVIEWS <br />LRRWMO Application #93-8, Wood Pond Hills 3rd and 4th Addition <br />Jankowski explained WPH Properties, developer of Wood Pond Hills 3rd and 4th Addition, <br />were asked to submit a formal letter of application to modify their permit. He stated this <br />letter has now been received. Beduhn recommended approval. <br />Motion by Weaver, seconded by Haas, to approve modified LRRWMO Application #93-8, <br />Wood Pond Hills 3rd and 4th Addition, as submitted by WPH Properties and recommended <br />for approval by Barr Engineering. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. <br />LRRWMO Application #93-10. Wicklund Construction. Inc. <br />Beduhn reported he inspected the Indian Meadows project and found it to be in order. He <br />reviewed this single family project has addressed drainage issues for filling 1,800 square feet <br />of wetland which will be mitigated by adding onto an existing wetland east of the site. <br />Beduhn reported he informed the developer to contact him when grading in finished to <br />schedule apost-project inspection. It was noted the petitioner has also contacted DNR and <br />BWSR and found no other permits are required. He stated Wicklund Construction has <br />satisfied all the regulations so he recommends approval of their permit. <br />Motion by Weaver, seconded by Haas, to approve LRRWMO Application #93-10, Indian <br />Meadows, as submitted by Wicklund Construction, Inc. and recommended for approval by <br />Barr Engineering. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. <br />Weaver asked if proof is provided that the mitigation in the new area is actually effective. <br />Beduhn explained that under the new rules the developer, property owner, or LGU will be <br />responsible for monitoring mitigation and documenting that it is effective. <br />