Minutes from 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes July 20, 1995 Page 13 Schultz suggested Ramsey apply for an exemption. Jankowski stated he will send in the permit application and materials. Motion was made by Weaver, seconded by Haas, to approve an exemption subject to review and approval by Barr Engineering. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. LRRWMO consensus was reached to advise the DNR that the LRRWMO is concerned that provisions be incorporated into the dewatering permit which will assure that the wetland is re-established to preconstruction conditions following construction and that it also contain requirements to re-establish preconstruction water elevations. Discussion turned to the previous request to obtain a legal opinion regarding LRRWMO jurisdiction. Weaver, Haas and Ferguson supported this suggestion to avoid future confusion. Motion was made by Weaver, sernnded by Ferguson, to request a legal opinion from Curt Pearson (LRRWMO attorney) whether the LRRWMO has jurisdiction over dewatering projects and request he review the LRRWMO Plan to provide specific direction on jurisdictional actions. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carved. Jankowski suggested the question of jurisdiction and types of projects requiring permits also be addressed in the implementation section of the Plan Update. All agreed. Lobermeier indicated he will clarify the language on this issue. LRRWMO Permit #95-i1 -Anoka AEP Phase IV Kevin Kielb, Hakanson Anderson, reviewed the proposed Anoka AEP Phase IV which is a continuation of the AEP Phase III that was approved earlier this year. He detailed location of the site and the storm sewer system which is the master drainage plan for the entire area east of Thurston. Kielb explained the drainage flow patterns and four separate ponds identified as being needed to handle water quantity and quality from this area. Jankowski questioned the water quality and whether the drainage goes into the catch basins and then directly into the River. Schultz explained the catches basins go into holding ponds for sedimentation before being discharged into the River. He further explained the existing pond will be rerouted into one of the new ponds for sedimentation. Kielb explained the drainage system has been designed to handle any potential development that is paved within the requirements allowed by Anoka for impervious surface. Jankowski questioned the proposed timeframe. Schultz explained the relationship between Anoka and the Community Development section and that he views them as being the developer. He stated he does not know their plans for timing.