Laserfiche WebLink
Consensus of the Public Works Committee was to discuss the issue further at a Council work <br />session so that they could discuss funding options. <br /> <br />Case #3: Update on Potential Projects South of City Hall <br /> <br />Principal City Engineer Olson stated that on January 23, 2001, Dave & Betty Pehlke requested <br />rezoning on their parcel. The City Council directed Staff to determine the easement needs that <br />would be associated with the minor subdivision request. On March 20, 2001, the Public Works <br />Committee discussed the Pehlke estate easements that would be required and were directed to <br />take a comprehensive look and to put together a list identifying all of the issues in the area. See <br />attached Public Works Committee minutes. O n April 24, 2001, the City Council had a case <br />presented that included a letter of understanding that was signed by the Pehlke's. This letter of <br />understanding was meant to not hold up the lot split so that a building permit could be issued. <br />The City Council approved the zoning request, contingent upon an agreement between the <br />Pehlke's and the City of Ramsey. Said agreement to be approved by the City Council at a later <br />date. Staff requested a 60-day extension to work out the details. On June 18, 2001, the Public <br />Works Committee discussed the area south of City Hall and gave Staff permission to approach <br />the neighborhoods to discuss the possibility of an improvement project to address the concerns <br />and problem area that were identified. On September 20, 2001, and October 20, 2001, City Staff <br />held informational meetings with the two neighborhoods identified to discuss the alternatives for <br />the correction of the problems identified at the June Public Works Committee. At the <br />informational meeting, Staff explained that this meeting was to be held to introduce the concept <br />of an improvement project and proposed some alternatives that could comprehensively solve the <br />concerns that have been expressed over the years and identified on the map that presented to the <br />Public Works Committee in June. Staff tried to make it clear that the proposals that were <br />discussed were ultimately a City Council decision and the information provided was for <br />discussion purposes. <br /> <br />General Concerns from both neighborhoods <br /> <br />· No costs were discussed, as we were too early in the conceptual stage to determine an exact <br /> amount. <br />· Staffproposcd that the City install utilities (sewer, water, and storm sewer) <br />· Cost for installation of utilities to come from respective utility funds with no requirement to <br /> hook up. <br />· The intent of this proposal was to recoup the costs associated with the installation of these <br /> lines when the water and sewer was hooked up to the individual houses by the collection of <br /> sewer and water trunk and lateral fees. This would be done at the residents' option. <br />· The due on sale clause ordinance was explained and we promised to provide a status of that <br /> when we sent out a notice of the public hearing. <br />· Staff explained the content of a Feasibility Study that could be written as part of the process <br /> for a successful improvement project. <br />· Staff explained that the City was not forcing this project on anyone and that there was an <br /> opportunity to counter petition the project and stop it by more than 50% of the residents. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/May 20, 2003 <br /> Page 13 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />