11-15-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lake Elmo City Council Meeting 11-15-83 Page 3 MIS/ Fraser/Mazzara-to extend the Hammes Mining Permit, as recommended by the City Staff, until April 30, 1984. Mazzara stated that Dorothy Lyons had contacted him and stated that she would like the mining permit extended for one year so as not to interfer with their mining operation. Deleted Fraser stated that April 30t-h-was an apbirtpapy-date,-t1te-weat-herr- per being a sor4sidering- €aetar,- however,- the pressure of a time limit Fraser has helped to get the improvements done to this point and would at 12/6/3be an assurance that the improvements continue. C.C. Dunn stated he still felt the mining permit should be tied to the Meeting mining violations, and anything more than that; he considered to be harrassment. He further stated that he had spoke with Chuck Swanson from Washington County and Mr. Swanson stated the County was not interested in restitution from the Hammes' for damage to County Road 70. Klaers stated that the condition of the road was brought to the attention of the City by the County Sheriff's Department, and that Dunn was correct in that Washington County was not interested in restitution for damages to County Road 70. M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn - to table the discussion until 9:30 p.m., or until the Hammes' were present to discuss the issue. (4 ayes) 6. Public Hearing: Shoreland Permit and Variances for Castle Design on Hill Trail North. Lots 226 thru 232 and the NEly 112 of vacated West Shore Drive adjoining Lot 22 , all in Lanes Demontreville Country Club. Pursuant to public notice, this public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Ken Gervais, Vice President of Castle Design, stated that he spoke with the County Recorder and that the splitting of this parcel from its original parcel was done in 1977, and there was no record with the County that Lake Elmo had given any instructions to the County Recorder not to accept lot splits. Eder stated that this policy for lot splits goes back to about 1974. Tom Kelly, Attorney for Castle Design, pointed out that the lot size variance requested is not out of line with variances that have been requested and granted in the past on similar lots. The problems with the drainfield has been corrected entirely, that it no longer required a variance. The drainfield is now within the 75 foot limit from the high flood mark elevation. He further stated that other agreements requested (limiting the dwelling to two bedrooms, having the drainfield and septic system inspected on a regular basis) were acceptable to Castle Design.