Laserfiche WebLink
this is not a required action. We would suggest <br />removed Subp. 4c altogether. <br />The text should provide clarification natural <br />topography such that it is not inadvertently <br />interpreted to mean no alteration to grading <br />patterns are allowed. <br />Subp. 4g appears highly subjective and difficult to <br />administer. <br />Part 6106.0150 Subp 5 <br />Ramsey appreciates at least a minimum threshold in <br />which a permit is not required for vegetation <br />management. Please clarify that general pruning <br />activities do not require a permit. <br />Subp. 5a2 will be difficult to track over time. Aerial <br />photos may be available, but this may take more <br />time and resources than intended when drafting this <br />rule. <br />Part 6106.0150 Subp 6 <br />Ramsey prefers that the draft rules remain silent on <br />all stormwater issues, as there are already plenty of <br />protections, processes and rulemaking with MPCA. <br />We are concerned about duplication, overlap, and <br />potentially conflicting regulations. <br />Part 6106.0150 Subp 7 <br />Ramsey is opposed to requiring additional permit <br />processes for vegetation management. <br />Part 6106.0150 Subp 7 <br />The draft rules do not need to include language in <br />regards to temporary and permanent erosion <br />control and sediment control measures. These <br />standards are already covered in other statutes. <br />Part 6106.0150 Subp 7 <br />444 <br />Are City Staff Members qualified to make these <br />determinations on Vegetative Removal and Land <br />Alteration Permits? If not, what are the minimum <br />qualifications necessary to approve these plans? It is <br />possible that we will need to pass this cost on to the <br />homeowner. <br />Part 6106.0150 Subp 8 <br />It is assumed that the qualified person necessary to <br />determine if retaining walls, riprap, or other <br />measures can be constructed as a means of erosion <br />control at the shoreline can be determined by a city <br />employee. <br />Part 6106.0160 <br />This language regarding stormwater management is <br />unnecessary, as these standards are covered in other <br />statutes. <br />Part 6106.0170 Subp 2 <br />Ramsey is opposed to the lot size standards for new <br />lots, especially as it relates to the CA -ROS District. <br />The proposed lot size standards are in conflict with <br />our approved Comprehensive Plan. We suggest <br />focusing on protecting the key resources by <br />setbacks from OHW, bluff lines, and steep slopes. <br />Part 6106.0170 Subp 2 <br />Ramsey is concerned about whether incentive -based <br />approaches are acceptable and feasible as a policy <br />discussion with our community. <br />