My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-17-84 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1984
>
07-17-84 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:08:40 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:03:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 17, 1984 <br />PAGE 4 <br />D. 1984 Street Improvement Program Update. <br />The City Engineer advised the Council that the grading work has begun <br />(about one week ago) and is progressing normally. He further stated <br />that additional fill is needed which is provided for in the contract. <br />The contractor has made arrangements with the John Berchen's to get some <br />fill material from some property that Mr. Berschen owns north of 45th <br />Street on the east edge of the powerline easement. The question comes <br />up whether or not this falls under the mining section of the City Code <br />and if it requires a mining permit. The code does exempt mining which <br />includes excavation, removal and storage of sand and gravel for road <br />projects, if it is within the construction limits of a road project. <br />This Berschen area was never designated as within the construction <br />limits because the City had not contemplated the contractor requesting <br />this. If a mining permit would be required, we would have to go thru <br />the public hearing process. This issue was addressed a few years ago <br />when the Highway 5 safety improvements were undertaken, and in that case <br />the contractor made arrangements with Lehart Freidrich, which in a <br />similar case wanted to get some fill from an Agricultural field adjacent <br />to the Highway. In that case, the contractor started without the <br />benefit of a permit. A permit was granted but the contractor was <br />charged a double fee for beginning without approval. If the contractor <br />is denied this waiver of a mining permit, he will probably make some <br />other arrangements. The contact stated we would need about 4000 yards; <br />but the contractor knows he couldn't get all of it from the Berschen's <br />because it isn't available. There is quite a bit of top soil and heavy <br />material on top so the contractor would push that off and mine out a <br />F , <br />certain amount and would have to close it up again. We would not allow <br />; <br />him to make any depressions that would hold water, and the property <br />owner wouldn't allow it either. <br />The Engineer stated that he did not see any problems with runoff or <br />erosion because all of the top soil, etc., would be pushed down slope <br />and create some kind of a dyke. It is beginning at the right-of-way and <br />working north, so as far as noise, etc., is concerned, it is probably an <br />equal distance from what is happening in the street itself. <br />Morgan suggested that if there was any excessive top soil from this <br />project, it could be used in Pebble Park. <br />M/S/P Fraser/Morgan - To waive the mining permit with the stipulation <br />that the immediate neighbors are notified of what is going to be done. <br />(Motion carried 4-0-1 <Eder>). <br />E. Public Hearing for application by Richard Bergmann for an <br />amendment expansion of his existing CUP; and side yard setback at Lake <br />Elmo Avenue and Highway 36. <br />Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 8:25 <br />p.m. in the City Council chambers. <br />Mr. Bergmann presented his proposed site plan and explained his reasons <br />for wanting to restructure his existing business. This reason is to <br />eliminate the infringement on his privacy that his present retail sales <br />building has created. His reason for requesting a 50 foot setback <br />rather than the required 100 foot setback is the topography of the land. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.