My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-27-1994 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1990 - 1999
>
1994
>
09-27-1994 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:29 AM
Creation date
9/9/2005 11:01:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
9/27/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />September 27, 1994 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />$5,000 letter of credit. Mr. Plaisted stated he felt the condition was <br />unnecessary and reflected poorly against his credit at the bank. Also, <br />condition 10 (d): Mr. Plaisted stated there was no "top soil" however, the soil <br />removed from the site would be replaced and top soil would be brought in for <br />reclamation. Steve Rohlf responded to Mr. Plaisted's requests stating the letter <br />of credit was merely an enforcement tool to ensure reclamation. Mr. Rohlf also <br />stated that there is no "top soil" however, vegetation must be established and <br />maintained for reclamation and top soil will need to be brought in. <br /> <br />Chairman Tveite opened the public hearing. There being no comments from <br />the public, Chairman Tveite closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kuester stated that since mining process reviews are somewhat <br />new to the Planning Commission, she used the recent Shiely Co. request as a <br />"standard" from which to review future excavation requests. Commissioner <br />Kuester suggested the Planning Commission and staff review the conditions <br />attached to this request and attempt to establish consistency for future mining <br />excavation requests. Planning Commission discussion included: hours of <br />operation; noise standards; condition regarding using Highway 169 hauling to <br />and from the site, not County Road 33; sign restricting road use; MPCA permits; <br />ground water contamination and protection; sedimentation pond and future <br />run-off with reclamation; 3: 1 slopes versus 4: 1 slopes; fencing around the <br />operation versus signage. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY THE PLAISTED COMPANIES FOR MINERAL <br />EXCAVATION AND PROCESSING, PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. CU 94-32, CITING <br />STAFF'S MEMO AND INFORMATION GAINED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AS FINDING <br />OF FACT. APPROVAL IS RECOMMENDED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: <br /> <br />1. ALL MINERAL EXCAVATION AND PROCESSING OPERATIONS ON THE <br />PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S MINERAL EXCAVATION, ZONING AND <br />OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCES; WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERMIT AGREEMENT AND THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TO BE EXECUTED BY THE CITY <br />AND OPERATOR; WITH THE CITY OF ELK RIVER'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT <br />STATEMENT ON MINERAL EXCAVATION; AND WITH THE APPLICATION MATERIALS <br />AND PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE OPERATOR, WHICH PLANS AND MATERIALS ARE <br />THE BASIS FOR THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. <br /> <br />2. THE OPERATOR SHALL ORALLY NOTIFY THE CITY OF ANY VIOLATIONS OF <br />THIS PERMIT WITHIN 24 HOURS AND FOLLOW THIS WITH NOTIFICATION IN WRITING <br />WITHIN 4 WORKING DAYS OF THE VIOLATION. THE OPERATOR SHALL NOTIFY THE <br />CITY ANNUALLY IN WRITING OF THE TOTAL AREA AND AMOUNT OF MATERIAL <br />MINED AND PROJECTED ESTIMATES OF AREA AND AMOUNT OF MATERIAL TO BE <br />MINED IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. THIS IS TO BE DONE AT TIME OF LICENSE <br />RENEWAL. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. THE LICENSE MUST BE RENEWED ANNUALLY AND SHALL RUN FROM <br />JANUARY 1ST THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST. THE ANNUAL LICENSE FEE IS THAT <br />WHICH IS SPECIFIED BY CITY CODE AT TIME OF RENEWAL. THIS LICENSE FEE IS NOT <br />IN LIEU OF GRAVEL TAX COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY AND A PORTION OF WHICH <br />THE CITY RECEIVES. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.