Laserfiche WebLink
· Comment letter from the Minnesota Department of Health, dated July 29, <br /> 1997 <br />· Comment letter from the Minnesota Historical Society, dated July 29 <br /> 1997 <br />· Comment letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, <br /> dated August 13, 1997 <br />· Comment letter from Dorsey & Whitney LLP, attorneys for Cargill, <br /> Incorporated, dated August 13, 1997 <br /> <br />The East Elk River Urban Service Area EAW was required by Minnesota <br />Rules Part 4410 due to the newly proposed north/south collector street in this <br />area (a realignment of County Road #13). Several comments the city received <br />were aimed at the issue of expanding the urban service district into East Elk <br />River. The City went beyond what most governmental agencies would have <br />done for an EAW on a proposed road and described the urban expansion to <br />more fully explore the potential impacts. <br /> <br />The following are city staffs responses to the comments received: <br /> <br />Minnesota Department of Health <br />The Minnesota Department of Health commented on the regulation for <br />sanitary sewer lines and their proximity to wells and municipal water lines <br />as well as the requirement to seal abandon wells. <br /> <br />Response <br />Appropriate permits will be obtained by the city and all regulations will be <br />adhered to when urban services are extended to this area. <br /> <br />Minnesota Historical Society <br />The Minnesota Historical Society feels there is a good probability that <br />unreported archaeological properties may be present in the project area and <br />recommend a survey of the area be conducted. <br /> <br />Response <br />City staff was in contact with Dennis Gimmestad on Agugust 26, 1997 in an <br />attempt to have him further define this comment. Staff was not sure if the <br />Historical Society considered the study area to be the proposed road corridor <br />or the entire East Elk River Urban Service Area. Mr. Gimmestad indicated <br />that he will have his associates further define their areas of concern and <br />make a recommendation on where to conduct an archaeological survey. <br /> <br />Mr. Gimmestad understands that there are no current development <br />proposals in the defined urban service area and that the City of Elk River <br />does not currently have the authority to conduct such a survey on these <br />privately held properties. He was also satisfied with the archaeological <br /> <br /> <br />