Agenda - Council - 01/22/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Waste Bar~gement r~ all that soil fo~ clo~ure/p~t closure. I~r. Otter replied that they probably ~uld vt, l~ rotated that there are daily cover activitte~ 9ot~ on that cons~ soil like to leave that property in a useable form v/t. bout creating too deep of an excavation on the existi~ 160 acre~. Waste ~mna~nt is requesting a minir~ permit in order lm leave the property in decent c~ndition. ~r. Goodrich inquired if the Tri-CO property vii1 be acceptable for develolment when the mining proces~ is over with. Mr. Otter replied that it will be. ~lr. Bernanson - ~l~en soil is mir~4, will it be in conWur with the rest of the land. [~r. Otter replied that the mean across the property ~oaid be 9.1'. Mr. Studer stated that fill on the property tx)aid be considered a resource and maybe should be left alone for a greater future Ovnr~issioner Deemer stated that there is a ravratorit~ on the property because it is included in the County's Landfill Inventory List; Metro Council is not going to let someone else ~ome in a~d mine the fill and haul it away but it could be to Metro Council's benefit to let l~aste Management mine the fill in order to maintain an ecological situation on the current landfill. Ov~issioner 2ir~rman ir~juired as to what assurance the City has that the fill will be used as oover only. Mr. (k~drich replied that the use of the fill is not what the Omnission is supposed to be reviewing; (Im~ssion should be considering the conditions of the mining pemit. Om~issioner Zimrerman's question might better be answered by Metro Council; if the Metro Council is serious about Site P they may ~rant to keep that fill light here in Ramsey.. ~issioner Ber~riksen stated that the proposed time frame see~ quite lengthy to be considered a ~porary conditional use permit. Mr. (kx)drich replied that regular conditional use permits are perpetual; temporary conditional use permits are for uses that have a beginning and an end. ~he only guideline you have is that there is an end to the mining process in sight. Mr, Gvodrich stated that he has also discussed this issue with l~r. LeFevere ar~ based on his experience, he rec~ going with a t~mporary conclitionaI %~se permit. ~he only difference bet:~een a tt~porary an regular conditional permit is that a public bearing is not zequi£ed foz a temporary permit; a mining zequest is unusual but not sufficient reason to pu the applicant throl~3b the extra hurdle of a p~blic bearing. (kmmissioner ~.inmerman stated that be does not feel the time frame proposed should be considered ti~porary. Mr. (k~drich stated that O~u~cil did not know the mining ~ould be a 15 yea~ 1%~ 5 of 10