Agenda - Council - 09/27/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Planner McCann stated he can answer some questions, however the Ramsey Storage Center was before his time so he does not know all the answers. He shared his understanding is that the berm was part of the approvals for the project itself regarding the excess drainage. Councilmember Heineman asked if the berm was put in place so the storage would not flood the neighboring houses or if this protected the storage unit from flooding from the neighbors. City Planner McCann said he did digging into this and the berm was put in for visual screening separating the commercial use and the residential use. He added the berm is outside the 10-foot drainage and utility easement and it is not there for flood control, they are there for taking water out that flows from both properties. He said from discussions with the engineering department there is not a lot of slope or coverage and it does not get a lot of water and is there more so to protect the power line that is buried somewhere in the 20-foot gap. Councilmember Heineman asked if the drainage easement is not getting a lot of water to the point where a six-foot berm would be approved, which could cause water backup, he thinks the drainage aspect needs to be taken out of the equation so it comes down to the utility aspect. When it comes to the utility line, he sees it as an easy fix to identify where the utility line is and let that guide the discussions going forward. Councilmember Specht thanked the applicants for wanting to do the right thing and coming to the City to find out where the shed could be placed. He agreed with Councilmember Heineman and realistically this just concerns the small corner of a shed and not somewhere that would cause flooding or harm to the neighbors. He thinks that it is not allowing harm by having the small portion of the shed on the easement. He stated he is in favor of allowing it. He added he did want to be sure that the utility line be located and if it is under the shed then a new discussion will need to be had. Councilmember Howell agreed with both Councilmembers Heineman and Specht. Councilmember Musgrove stated that if there is a potential for going ahead with the agreement, point six talks about the amount of time that would be required that if there was a need to move the shed it would be 60 days and she thinks this is a long time and she would rather see 30 days as 60 days could put a lot of work off if someone needed to get in there rather quickly. She asked if the agreement talked about if the City or the utility company needed to get in there and do that if it would just be returned back to the flat level ground and if the applicant would be able to replace the patio back into the easement. Mrs. Jones stated that Blue Fin put the sidewalk 10 feet off. Councilmember Heineman added that he wanted to commend the Staff for working so diligently on this and he thinks sometimes a lot of work is put in and the Council makes a decision against their recommendation. He stated it is the Staffs job to do the discovery by the book; however, it is the Council's job to adjust it. He supported the Staff for taking it this far. City Council / September 13, 2022 Page 11 of 18