Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Motion by Co~cilme~ber (Dx and seconded by Councilmmmber Sorteberg to proceed <br />with the abatement prooess to reduce 1984 property valuation for Mr. Gary <br />Stritesky, P.I.N. ~ 11-32-25-33-0002, a net ~ount of $6,500; that net remount <br />representing the the $7,500 building site value minus $1,000 for tillable soil <br />value). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hei~an, Oouncilm~nbers Sorteberg, (Dx, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />UNFINISHf~ OOUNCIL BUSINESS FROM APRIL 23. 1985 <br /> <br />A) Reg_uest For Conditional Use Permit For Mining; Case Of Mr. Bud Sauter - <br /> <br />Mr. Sauter and son were present. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that at the April 23, i985 meeting a revised permit <br />agrea~ent had been sutmitted, and the case was tabled in order to give Mr. <br />Sauter and Council an opportunity to review the revised agreement. <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 Hei~an informed Mr. Sauter that Planning and Zoning approval does not <br />pre-empt Council frcm amending, adding to or deleting fr~m. <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 suk~itted was for a grading prooess 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 prooess would be less of a problem. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman inquired 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 />a~inistrative costs and the $15,000 performance bond on the basis that he has <br />a considerable a~ount of money invested in the property and is not likely to <br />walk away fr~m it before (I)mpletion. <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 frc~ Waste <br />Management of Minnesota, Inc. ~eretofore, 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 />