Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />August 19, 1993 <br />Page 8 <br />with other areas. In response to Weaver's query about who is <br />responsible for the ongoing maintenance of this system, <br />Schultz stated the City of Anoka will ultimately be responsi- <br />ble, which is why he wants the pond brought up to date. The <br />developer is responsible until the project is completed. He <br />would expect the applicant to submit his own drawings. <br />Schultz concurred with Beduhn's recommendation to table <br />further consideration of this project until the wet detention <br />and skimming issues are resolved. <br />Motionz was made by Perry, seconded by Ferguson, to TABLE <br />PERMIT APPLICATION #93-9 UNTIL THE WET DETENTION AND SKIMMING <br />ISSUES ARE RESOLVED. (Motion withdrawn further along in <br />discussion.) <br />Schultz stated this developer is ready to go and wants to <br />start construction. Schultz queried if he (Schultz) should <br />get the go-ahead from Beduhn that the applicant meets LRRWMO <br />requirements, can he tell them to go ahead with construction <br />prior to receiving formal LRRWMO approval on the permit? <br />Jankowski stated he would be willing to authorize them to <br />procede if Beduhn's recommendation was positive. However, he <br />indicated he believes a permit should not be issued until the <br />LRRWMO takes formal action. <br />Considerable discussion ensued relative to the project <br />location and boundaries, including addition retention pond <br />discussion. Schultz suggested approving the application <br />contingent bn favorable approval of the LRRWMO engineer. <br />Weaver stated he would have no problem with that. Perry <br />cautioned that this board be careful of taking such action <br />for every permit in order to avoid breaking down the entire <br />system. <br />Weaver stated the information received from Beduhn indicates <br />the pond is not large enough. The existing pond is silted <br />in, and the original filter system is ineffective. Jankowski <br />suggested perhaps approval could be granted contingent on the <br />LRRWMO engineer approving the specific technical deficiencies <br />once they are rectified. Schultz stated the applicant is <br />saying the size of the basin is not entirely his <br />responsibility. He disagreed with that position in that <br />requirements change as time changes. The need for a larger <br />holding pond is reasonable. <br />Ferguson queried whether the intensity of the development of <br />that basin has changed; more runoff than originally <br />anticipated? Schultz confirmed that assumption; originally <br />adjacent development was to be single family homes, now it is <br />