My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-2010 Council Work Session Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2010
>
02-09-2010 Council Work Session Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2019 10:29:12 AM
Creation date
7/9/2015 12:40:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
169
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
� <br /> Public Works Deparfiment <br /> www.cityof�ichff eld.org/pu blicworks <br /> � <br /> January 26, 2010 <br /> MAYOR <br /> DEBBiE GQETTEL <br /> crrv couNc�� goard of Managers <br /> PAT ELLIOTf �yinnehaha Creek Watershed District <br /> TOM FITZHENRY <br /> SU2ANNE M.SANDAHL c/o: James Wisker <br /> FRED L.WROGE,�R. 18202 Minnetonka Bou{evard <br /> Deephaven, MN 55391 " <br /> CfTY MANAGER <br /> STEVEN L.DEVICH <br /> Re: Requesf for Reasonable�and Effective Rules <br /> (Rule D & Rule F Comments) <br /> Dear Mr.Wisker: � <br /> Richfield encourages the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct to deve(op <br /> reasonable and effective rules that can be supported by the pubfic agencies in <br /> which they govern. Making the naies as resource protective as possible without <br /> incurring excessive adminisfrative costs or placing an undue burden on those , <br /> subject to them is a great goal; however, the District is not thefe yet, <br /> Rule p Comments <br /> As proposed the City of Richfield does not have the resources to successfully <br /> implement Rule D (Wetland Proieation). Please consider and incorporate the <br /> following comments into the proposed rule:. <br /> • (SS 2.a) Remove language "wifh the fallowing exceptions:"and <br /> subsequently the replacernent, mitigation, and replacement ra6o that are <br /> not required by the Wetland Conservation Act <br /> • {SS 4.a.) Rernove language "N (Stormwater Management)"—it is nat <br /> reasonable to have Ru{e N trigger buffer requirements. This trigger would <br /> discourage site improvements on smaller sites that would not otherwise <br /> impact the wetfand. This inclusion is also very disturbing knawing that the <br /> board is current(y considering oversight on lots smailer than 1 acre. <br /> • An exemption from buffer requirements should be added for single-family <br /> residentia( lots, Isss than one acre in size, which are adjacent to wetkands. <br /> As Ruie D is currenfly written it is more likefy to discourage residents and <br /> businesses from making even minor improvements to their property <br /> (something a tully developed city like Richfe(d encourages) than it is to <br /> establish any measurable water quality benefit using mandated buffers. <br /> The Urban Hometown <br /> 67flQ PORTLANp AVENUE-RICHFIELD-MIPRdESaTA-b5423•612.SBi.979Q-FAX 612.861.9795 <br /> Yvww.ckynlrfcldddd.o� AN EQUAL OPPOHTUNITY EMPLAYER <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.