Laserfiche WebLink
1. ~e tit~ 'Prop~ Cor~{tioral U~e Per~.it A0r~s~ent' mbould be <br /> changed to 'PIoposed Min/n9 and Oradin9 l~mit'. <br /> <br /> I <br /> i <br /> ! <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br />2. All referenoes to 'ounditional use permit' in the propuse~ agreement <br /> ahoulfl be chan~e~ to 'minin9 and grading p~rmit'. <br /> <br />3. Bour~ of operation wi.Il be limited to the l~u~ of ?{00 a.m, - <br /> p,~,. Mor~1~y thru Satur~y and 9:0D a.m. - 5:00 p.~. on Sundays. <br /> <br />4. ~ amount of the performance bor~ will be 8eten~ined b~ the CitT <br /> Engir~ees. <br /> <br />Add lt~, $8 to the li~t of cur~litiorm as foll~s: 'Excessive build <br />up of fill materia] on t. be blacktop of C~nty Road $116 will be <br /> <br />6. Add It~, ~9 to t.he list of our~litions as follows: <br /> be utilized on t.he aco~ss road'. <br /> <br />'~k~st c~ntrol will <br /> <br /> Further Discussion: Commissioner Bendriksen inquired if aPlxovin9 the gra~ing <br /> plan, which is for future platting pturposes, also implies approval of that <br /> future platti~. (:~airman Peterson replied that it did not. (~%airman <br /> Peterson noted that there is no ~i,~ limit included in the agreement. City <br />I Planner Anne Borris stated that a tim~ limit should not be req~red with <br /> proper phasing and adeq_~uate restoration. O~sion ~nsensus is that if Mr. <br /> Sauter deviates fr~ his grading plan, his operation will be om~sed ~ wmy of <br /> <br />I a pen~it violation. C~ssioner ~cmer ~oted that the permit is no longer <br /> being called a ounclitional use and therefore cannot be p~ssed onto the next <br /> <br />property owner. <br /> <br />I Mot/on Voting Yes: Chaiman Peterson, Caumissio~ers ~iamennan, <br /> c~£riedo <br /> ~-~-uer, LaDue, {~end~iksen and Johnson. Voting lto: {~or~. Absent: <br /> Coumissioner Kennen. <br /> <br />_Request For Metes And Bounds ~ubdivision.. Case Of Mr. Iauren <br /> <br />Mr. Wetterlind was present and mt. md that he is requesting approval to <br />subdivide a t~o acre paroel fc~ his 10 acre tmro~l for each of his t~o <br /> <br />(lqainuan l~terson mm'ced that Ouuncil has not yet taken any action on the <br />Planning Cmzission's lXOPOSed resolution regarding the implying of the 1 <br />unit in lO acre rural resiclentlal ~.nsity requir~r.-.nt in the (k~prebenstve <br />Plan; action taken in the Wetberli~ case w~uld ~e ~ntl~ upon O~cil <br /> Apeil 2, 1985 <br /> <br /> <br />