Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to proceed <br />with the abat~nent process to reduce 1984 property valuation for Mr. Gary <br />Stritesky, P.I.N. # 11-32-25-33-0002, a net amount of $6,500; that net amount <br />representing the the $7,500 building site value minus $1,000 for tillable soil <br />value). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Counciln~mbers Sorteberg, COx, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />UNFIN/~gHED COUNCIL BUSINESS FROM APRIL 23, 1985 <br /> <br />A) Request For Conditional Use Permit For Mining; Case Of Mr, Bud Sauter - <br />Mr~ Sauter and sg~~ were present. ~ ~ <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that at the April 23, 1985 meeting a revised permit <br />agreement had been sutmitted, and the case was tabled in order to give Mr. <br />Sauter and Council an opportunity to review the revised agre~nent. <br /> <br />Mr. Sauter stated that he can't abide these last minute changes by City Staff; <br />the request had gone to Planning and Zoning; that board was satisfied with the <br />agreement as it was orginally drawn up. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman informed Mr. Sauter that Planning and Zoning approval does not <br />pre-empt COuncil from amending, adding to or deleting from. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox explained that the City received a previous application for <br />a mining permit, which has not yet been resolved but does have quite stringent <br />restrictions included in it and it would be considered very irregular of the <br />City not to request the same from other applicants. <br /> <br />Mr. Sauter stated that he does not agree with the term 'mining' permit; his <br />plan sukmitted was for a grading process to improve the development potential <br />of an industrial site. Mr. Sauter inquired as to how the City is defining <br />mining and grading. Mr. Sauter inquired if going for grading approval through <br />the platting process would be less of a problam. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman irguired if there was a particular aspect of the proposed <br />agreement that Mr. Sauter is opposed to. <br /> <br />Mr. Sauter replied that he is opposed to the $1,000 cash bond for <br />administrative costs and the $15,000 performance bond on the basis that he has <br />a considerable amount of money invested in the property and is not likely to <br />walk away from it before completion. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that Mr. Sauter's requires for a mining and grading permit <br />is the second application made to the City, the first being from Waste <br />Management of Minnesota, Inc. Heretofore, Ramsey has not issued a mining and <br />grading permit, other than through plat approval. The proposed agreement in <br />Mr. Sauter's case establishes bonding, phasing and restoration, all of which <br /> May 14, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />