Agenda - Council - 07/27/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE # 3: P~roposed motio, n for funding: Motion by ¥,m and seconded by to approve of the proposed 1983 park improvement projec a an estimated cost of approximately $73,000. It is there- fore directed that the following funds be part of the 1983 City budget and be made available to the Park Improvement Construction Fund: $20,000 to be transferred from Park Improvement Dedication Fund to Park Improvement Construction Fund 32,000 to be transferred from Revenue Sharing to Park Improvement Construction Fund 21,000 to be transferred from General Fund tax levy to Park Improvement~Construction Fund Motion carried. Voting yes ~ Voting no .~ RAMSEY COMMONS SUBDIVISION, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON FRONTAGE ROAD: Mr. Del Skeim is requesting that he be granted the following variances to his proposed subdivision, Ramsey Commons: a) Variance to obtain access onto County Road #5. b) Variance to obtain two driveways onto County Road #5 less than 300 feet apart. City Code does not provide for this. Please refer to enclosure (D2-f) which contains Mr. Skeim's letter dated July 3, 1982 regarding the above request. Comments - City Engineer Raatikka and th~?'City Administrator reviewed Mr. Skeim's request contained in his letter and make the following comments: a) In review of the two access points, the sight distance to the north would be poor for the access between Lots 1 and 2. b) The best access point appears to be directly across from 148th Lane NW. This access point would be conducive for the develop- ment of the site as a PUD with private interior roads. c) In review of the possibility of placing a service road along County Road #5 extending past the Kerssen residence, it would be difficult since the Kerssen residence is only 87 feet from the center line of County Road #5. However, an easement could be obtained for construction of a service road at a later date if the residence is moved. Also, the County Engineer has in- dicated that a service road could be placed partially on the County Road #5 right-of-way. d) In regards to Mr. Skeim's comments about the easement creating hardship on Lots 2 and 3, it should be noted that this easement would be going through proposed ponding area. The set- back would make these lots unbuildable however, Council could give him a variance for a zero lot line in this case.