01/08/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #3: Request for Site Plan Approval of Office/Warehouse Facility; Case of Sharp and Associates Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that Dennis Sharp has applied for site plan review for the development of a 10,000 square foot office and warehouse facility to be constructed on Lot 1, Block 1, Ferrum Second Addition. The proposed project meets City Code requirements for lot coverage, architectural standards, landscaping, design and number of off-street parking and driveways, and a screened waste storage enclosure. According to City Code, the building should be located 40 feet from the property tine along McKinley Street; the nearest point of the building to McKinley Street is 35 feet. However, only six feet, or 8%, of that south wall encroaches on the 40-foot setback. Because of the unique configuration of the tot and because the encroachment is so minor, City staff is recommending that the development agreement approve the five-foot deviation for a distance of six feet. She explained that an additional modification that has been made to the site plan is the replacement of the driveway on Azurite Street with a horseshoe type drive, which results in a dual access onto Azurite Street. The southerly access should be no closer than 30 feet to the radius of the McKinley/Azurite intersection. The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the dual access on Azurite Street and the five foot encroachment on the 40 foot setback at the southeast comer of the building. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to approve the site plan submitted by Sharp and Associates for Lot 1, Block 1, Ferrum Second Addition with a five- foot variance to the front yard setback and a dual access on Azurite Street. Motion carded. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Beyer, Beahen and Peterson. Voting No: None. Case #4: Introduction of Ordinance to Implement Chapter 8 of the Ramsey City Charter City Administrator Schroeder stated that on October 8, 1996, the City Council adopted an assessment for Improvement Project g95-14 wherein owners of three parcels of property exercised their rights under the Charter to avoid a benefit assessment and utility system connection. At that time, I informed Council that we would be back at this meeting to discuss the resulting revenue shortfall and what to do about that. The projected shortfall is $80,287.89. It seems there are three methods to make this project fund whole. (1) Provide for the transfer of funds to that project fund. In the maximum levy, Council authorized a month or so ago, you provide for enough in the contingency fund to cover the deficit. (2) Assume amortization of the debt and make the debt payment to our selves at a 9% interest rate over a 10-year term. (3) Provide a funding source to pay off the entire deficit in one payment (or a few payments). He noted that Council has the ability to provide for the third option within the 1997 levy. Mr. Schroeder recommended just basically covering the interest expense, $7,225.91. The reason for recommending that method is because it does not provide for an opportunity to bill twice for the same expense. This recommendation provides for recovering the interest. You did provide with the maximum levy to cover the entire expense. If City Council follows staff's recommendation, we do not need a tax increase. He described the rights and responsibilities of the City under State Statute 444. If City Council provides service of some sort to a property for which it does not recover a benefit, it can levy a utility charge for what is provided in a minimum amount. He suggested that Council does have the opportunity to provide for such a charge. The minimum amount we used is $64/quarter. If someone connects to our water utilities and they do not use a drop of water or use the sewer system, they will receive a bill for $64 anyway. It's an access charge. Mr. Schroeder stated that the third item is the ordinance which provides for administration of the Charter which is set forth in Chapter 8. In drafting an ordinance, we were trying to supply some information to you about a functioning system. What process needs to be followed for residents who want to invoke their City Council/October 22, 1996 Page 6 of 13