93-071 RES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e protection of the wetland area identified in Mr. Balcom's letter. c. Erosion must be controlled during construction activity. In response, erosion control will be implemented according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Manual. 5. Minnesota Department of Health, by letter dated March 17, 1993, from Judith A. Ball commenting on well permits and uses. In response, all requirements of Department of Health will be met. 6. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, by letter dated March 19, 1993, from Paul Hoff, stating that the Project does not have the potential for adverse environmental impacts and that the PCA does not recommend the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Mr. Hoff goes on to comment briefly on the issues of noise, air quality, and water quality. In response, an indirect source permit will be required before there is any construction activity on the Project. Indirect source permit application materials, and the permit itself, will thoroughly address all noise and air quality issues. See response to comment number 4 above regarding water quality issues. 7. Minnesota Department of Transportation, by letter dated April 12, 1993, from Gerald Larson, commenting that MnDOT has no environmental comments on the Project. WHEREAS, all comments received on the EAW have been responded to appropriately by the Developers and City as RGU; and, WHEREAS, the environmental review process mandated by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and implemented through the EQB Rules has been followed and this resolution shall be the City's record of its compliance with the EQB Rules and decision in this matter; and, WHEREAS, the City, as RGU, shall order the preparation of an EIS if the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects; and, WHEREAS, in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City is to apply the