1989.11.20 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council meeting of November 20, 1989 Page b. Securing the required permits from the watershed district, DNR, and the Army Corps of Engineers is required prior to final survey approval. 7. All fees relating to this subdivision shall be paid by the applicant including the cost of recordinq documents with Washington County. S. Payment of fee in lieu of parkland dedication ($350.00) shall be paid to the City prior to final. plat approval. 9. No improvements, landscaping, or grading shall be permitted in the defined drainage areas without the express written authorization of the City and the approved watershed district. 10. All property owners shall be responsible for maintenenace of drainage areas within easements on their property. 11. The developer shall comply with all requirements and restritions applicable to identified wetlands. 12. No significant deviations from the approved survey shall be permitted unless reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to Council approval. 13. The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic inspections to assure conformance with the minor subdivision. 14. Legal descriptions of all parcels to be subdivided shall be included. 15. Road easements for the Elmcrest Avenue road alignment shall be deeded to the City. All aye. Motion Carried. MINING PERMIT RENEWAL EG. INDYKIEWICZ Mr. George Indykiewicz of 1920 Highway 96, New Brighton, MN., has made application to the City of Hugo for renewal of a Mining Permit to mine black: dirt and sand -fill from his property generally described as the W 1/2 of N 1/2 of Section 17, T31N, R21W, in the City of Hugo. The property in question is located in both Conservancy and Agricultural zoning districts, and consists of approximately 165 acres. Dating back to the early 1970's, Mr. Indykiewicz has been mining black dirt and other fill materials from the site in question, and the City has renewed this application on an annual basis subject to compliance with the special conditions of the Mining Permit. In reviewinq the existing Mining Permit, City staff would comment as follows: 1. Item #5 seems to be inconsistent with the application itself. Mr. Indyk:iewicz is requesting to remove the topsoil from the site, yet Item #5 says the topsoil shall be replaced and the area seeded. 2. Item #8 of the permit has not been complied with as is the case for Item #14. As of the time of this memorandum, the City has not been provided with proof of liability insurance as per Item # of the permit. In light of inquiries by Mr. Indyk:iewicz earlier this year for constructing buildings on the site in question, City staff would like to make special note of Item #6 of the Mining Permit, and the City's zoning ordinance which prohibits other types of commercial or industrial activities in Conservancy and Agricultural zones. City staff can see no problem with the request before the City Council regarding removal of black: dirt and