Laserfiche WebLink
Table 8: Stormwater Retrofit Analyses <br />Analysis County Complete Partner <br />(yr) <br />Sand Creek <br />Rice Lake <br />Anoka 2009 Coon Creek Watershed District / MCD <br />Anoka 2009 Rice Creek Watershed District / MCD <br />City of Cambridge <br />Isanti 2010 City of Cambridge / MCD <br />Woodcrest Creek <br />City of Isanti <br />Golden Lake <br />Martin Lake <br />Oak Glen Creek <br />Anoka <br />Isanti <br />Anoka <br />Anoka <br />Anoka <br />2010 Coon Creek Watershed District / MCD <br />2011 City of Isanti /MCD <br />2011 Rice Creek Watershed District / MCD <br />2011 Sunrise River WMO / MCD <br />2012 City of Fridley <br />Lower Coon Creek Anoka <br />2012 Coon Creek Watershed District <br />Moore Lake <br />Lake Sarah & Independence <br />Coon Lake <br />Fannie Skogman Lakes <br />South Columbia Heights/ <br />North Minneapolis <br />Pleasure Creek <br />Stonybrook <br />Springbrook I <br />Middle Coon Creek <br />Anoka <br />Hennepin <br />Anoka <br />Isanti <br />Anoka/ <br />Hennepin <br />Anoka <br />Anoka <br />Anoka <br />Anoka <br />2013 Rice Creek Watershed District / MCD <br />2014 Hennepin SWCD/ City of Independence / MCD <br />2014 Sunrise River WMO <br />2014 Isanti SWCD / MCD <br />2014 Mississippi River WMO / MCD <br />In <br />In <br />In <br />In <br />progress Coon Creek Watershed District / MCD <br />progress Coon Creek Watershed District <br />progress Coon Creek Watershed District <br />progress Coon Creek Watershed District <br />Table 9: Plat Reviews <br />Plat Reviews — ACD staff review <br />development proposals in several <br />municipalities and provide comments <br />from a natural resource perspective. In <br />reviewing the development proposal, we <br />provide an assessment of how the <br />development can have the least impact <br />on natural resources while still meeting <br />the community's growth needs and the <br />developer's financial needs. We approach <br />it with the attitude that development is not <br />bad, but it can be done poorly. <br />Municipalities incorporate ACD's <br />comments at their discretion. <br />Being involved in the development review <br />process enables ACD staff to make <br />progress on several high priority resource <br />problem areas. This process would be <br />significantly enhanced if ACD were to <br />become involved at the sketch plan phase <br />and if more cities utilized the service. We <br />Year <br />1992 <br />1993 <br />1994 <br />1995 <br />1996 <br />1997 <br />1998 <br />1999 <br />2000 <br />2001 <br />2002 <br />2003 <br />2004 <br />2005 <br />2006 <br />2007 <br />2008 <br />2009-12 <br />2013 <br />Plats <br />Reviewed <br />15 <br />29 <br />24 <br />34 <br />15 <br />17 <br />8 <br />9 <br />15 <br />12 <br />17 <br />18 <br />23 <br />15 <br />12 <br />3 <br />1 <br />0 <br />3 <br />Total Lots Total <br />Acres <br />222 736 <br />542 1694 <br />397 1163 <br />645 2203 <br />216 1006 <br />184 626 <br />75 362 <br />116 496 <br />208 858 <br />92 489 <br />562 1171 <br />186 865 <br />483 1866 <br />157 859 <br />90 659 <br />39 216 <br />7 25 <br />0 0 <br />46 53 <br />Anoka Conservation District Comprehensive Plan October 2014 page 27 <br />