Laserfiche WebLink
Case #16: <br /> <br />Request for Final Plat Approval of Ferrum Second Addition; Case of <br />City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that the City of Ramsey is in the process of replatting Outlot A <br />in Ferrum Addition into a buildable commercial lot. The lot will receive public access from <br />McKinley Street. It meets the one-acre minimum area and 200 foot lot width requirements. Plans <br />have recently been completed for the alignment of Azufite Street along the west side of this plat. <br />The right-of-way of Azurite Street should be dedicated on the final plat. The Planning <br />Commission reviewed the proposed plat on October 1. There was some discussion about paving <br />Azurite north to 141st with TIF but the City Engineer pointed out that municipal utilities should <br />also be considered a part of the project to avoid costly pavement replacement costs in the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired how the business owners on Azurite felt about that. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder stated that the last time the City approached the business owners <br />about this they were not interested. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin felt that Councilmember Zimmerman had a good point and the City should seek <br />input from the business owners <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to adopt <br />Resolution #96-10-305 granting final plat approval to Ferrum Second Addition. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beahen, Zimmerman, Beyer and <br />Peterson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #17: Request for Site Plan Review; Case of Shorewood R.V. <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik reported that Jon Menke of Shorewood R.V. has applied for site plan <br />review to construct and operate a full service recreational vehicle center on the south side of <br />Highway gl0 at its intersection with Llama Street. The development includes a 27,115 square foot <br />building for some indoor display area, sales offices, and maintenance shop area. it is proposed <br />that the site will be developed in phases and Lots 1 and 2 would make up the first phase. The <br />development permit has been drafted to prohibit any expansion of the recreational vehicle or used <br />car display areas onto Lot 3 without pavement and curbing being in place. The facility will be <br />served by an on-site well and the site plan reflects that the septic system will be designed by a <br />certified designer. The site plan proposes access to be from three locations on Riverdale Drive and <br />one egress onto Llama Street. No direct access onto Highway 10 is proposed. The proposed <br />development is in compliance with the City Code as far as lot coverage, landscaping, waste <br />storage, and setbacks. However, there is a future building expansion proposed on the south side <br />of the structure. This expansion would encroach on the 35-foot setback from the south property <br />line by five feet. The site plan is being revised to relocate the structure five feet north to allow for <br />the expansion within required setbacks. The exterior walls are proposed to be pre-cast concrete <br />panels. There is also a roof-top projection of a recreational vehicle that is proposed to also consist <br />of pre-cast concrete. The Planning Commission has recommended that this roof-line projection be <br />viewed as an integral part of the structure and not as signage. She pointed out that City Code <br />prohibits roof signs. This type of projection is specific to recreational vehicle dealers - anyone else <br />would have to modify it. The drainage plans need modification and that is in process. City staff is <br />recommending approval without the roof-top projection. <br /> <br />Mr. Peter Hilger, representing Shorewood R.V. presented a modification of the drainage plan. He <br />talked about the phases and the fact that this is a quite a large expansion. Some improvements <br />could be held up until they are needed. He noted the transportation fee and felt that the rate is quite <br />high. He stated his client does not have a problem paying for it if he has a direct benefit, however, <br /> <br />City Council/October 8, 1996 <br /> Page 20 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />