07-07-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 P. 0. Box J / Thirty-third and Laverne Avenue / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 MEMO TO: The City Council cc: Council, Press, Engineer, FR: Larry Whittaker Attorney, Admin., Sec'y. DT : July 2, 1981 RE: Items on July %, 1981, City Council Agenda NOTE: The meeting is scheduled to start at 6:00. The Mayor and I discussed the number and portent of the many agenda items and decided we would have to meet early in order to consider the office plans at all. Please come at 6:00 p.m. Please review the latest Memo on the possibilities for an office in Lion's Park. OLINGER: The Olingers have apparently decided not to subdivide off the parcel that Dan Olinger's house is on. They do not see the need for a survey if they do not intend to subdivide (the Ordinance requires it for a mining permit to assure us the mining is being done only on the owners property). Carl Olinger said he could not understand why we would require a bond for haul roads, as they plan to haul a few loads once in a while. The do not plan large scale mining or hauling. He thinks this is an excessive requirement. He seemed to be willing to secure the elevations requested by the City Engineer - to determine current grade of the land - and final grade after mining. But, he has not hired anyone to do this yet. He started work on a berm between his operation and Tschumperlins; but, says he can't complete it without a mining permit. then I recommend we permit him to mine what is needed to complete the berm;vrequire the elevations as the Engineer suggested, forget the survey if he assures us that he will complete ALL mining within two years (because I think the haul road is actually on City property; and I don't think we should permit this use for any longer period of time). I don't think the bond for haul roads is too critical. After all required info. is in, we could issue the 2 yr, permit. I think, whatever position you take, this should be ordered now. We have been hemming and hawing too long on this. KLATKE: The Klatk6s--appeared before the Planning Commission last week. The Commission recommended against the Minor Subdivision because it requires a Variance from the lot size requirement, street off -set, and frontage on a public street. The Commission has long been opposed to private roads. Gary Paulsen, the adjacent property owner expressed concerns about: additional traffic if their joint driveway is extended to serve Klatke's second lot, having to shave in the cost of improving the road, losing trees if the road is widened, risks of future assessment on two frontages if water and sewer go in, and addi- tional run-off from the improved road, especially if it is extended to the east line of the property.