Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />April 20, 1995 <br />Page 8 <br />Haas reiterated that Andover has determined this plat has expired in accordance with their <br />Ordinance #10. Gust asserted a court of law would find that implied approval is just as <br />strong as formal approval. <br />Jankowski noted the issue before the LRRWMO is whether or not Indian Meadows 4th <br />Addition is eligible for Exemption 24, and ~ a key requirement is City approval of the <br />preliminary plat within the "window" and cleazly implied wetland impacts. Haas concurred <br />and read a portion of the Exemption 24 Rules. <br />Beduhn restated that he does not have any of the needed documentation (as eazlier <br />specified) to make a determination and recommendation. <br />Haas advised Andover staff will be meeting with the developer to discuss these issues. Bruce <br />Kerber indicated he may support development of the 4th Addition in several phases to avoid <br />wetland impact. <br />Moved by Ferguson, seconded by Weaver, to table further discussion of Permit #95-4, <br />Indian Meadows 4th Addition Wetlands Exemption 24 Request until issues with Andover <br />have been resolved and the LRRWMO is in receipt of their determination of whether <br />approval was given within the required "window". Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. <br />LRRWMO Permit #95-5 -Anoka Enterprise Park -Phase 3 <br />Jankowski reviewed Permit #95-5 for the Anoka Enterprise Park/Phase 3. <br />John Harwood, Hakanson Anderson Associates, reviewed drawings of the regional pond that <br />was included in their feasibility report and their plan for phased development. <br />Jankowski asked if each pazcel is relegated to a certain discharge restriction. Harwood <br />noted the ten yeaz flow pipe design to all parcels. <br />Bob Beduhn, Ban Engineering, reviewed that some the developments on individual parcels <br />were more intense than considered with the regional pond's original design. Because of this, <br />Hakanson Anderson Associates revised the pond design and expanded it to adjust for <br />additional drainage. <br />Harwood reviewed the revision and new conservative design curb numbers. He advised they <br />want to assure enough water quality for whatever could occur with individual pazcel <br />development. <br />Beduhn stated he has reviewed the design assumptions for the regional pond and find they <br />meet the requirements of the LRRWMO, exceeds the required wet detention storage, <br />incorporates skimming devices and has submerged inlets which will assist in reducing scour. <br />