Minutes from 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes January 19, 1995 Page 11 while the project can't be constructed exactly, the intent can be followed. Jankowski added that they may install ditches as part of a future project. Haas noted that technically Ramsey should reapply and go forwazd with the 1989 plan, have the Engineer review it to assure it is exempt, and make a recommendation to the LRRWMO. Jankowski asked if the LRRWMO would consider approval contingent on it being in substantial compliance with the 1989 Plan. He advised that Beduhn has already indicated the project would be exempt if confined to the 1989 plan. Weaver asked if proceeding with the 1989 plan will result in lowering water below the OHW mazk. Jankowski explained it will not be lower than the OHW mazk and to do so would be in violation of the DNR requirements. Hendrickson reported that he has lost four significant sized oak trees (36"-48" in diameter) because of the increase in sustained ground water level combined with additional runoff being generated. He asserted the road construction has caused water to be maintained at an aztificially high level and he asked that it be returned to where it should be. Weaver asked if the DNR has acted favorably on this request. Jankowski explained the DNR has indicated no permit is required but added the caveat saying if the wetland. is negatively impacted, they may hold Ramsey responsible. He added that they have not received comment from the Corp yet, but felt a Corp permit would not be required if they follow the 1989 plan. Ferguson stated that he has no problem with the concept of what Ramsey is trying to achieve since the project would return it to the state existing before the roads were built. He supported allowing it based on the 1989 feasibility report. Motion was made by Ferguson, seconded by Haas, to approve LRRWMO Permit #94-17 submitted by the City of Ramsey based on Exhibit B of the February, 1989 plan and subject to review and recommendation by Beduhn to assure it falls under Exemption 24 and to assure compliance with the WCA. Hendrickson explained that Exhibit B was used for a presentation to the Council but he has and will make available a more detailed survey which provides greater detail. Schultz noted the comment from the Anoka Conservation District that this must be the same project to qualify for Exemption 24, and he would have a problem if Ramsey changes the project. Haas agreed. Jankowski stated he will provide Beduhn with access to other supporting documentation if needed for this determination. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried.