Laserfiche WebLink
Case #7: 153/155 Project Update <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that he called the people who did the plans and specs and asked for the <br />time and money it would take to update these plans and specs for the 153/155-project update. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated he is not so sure he would be in favor of this project over <br />others. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that we have to do updated appraisals for four parcels. Number one is not <br />an acquisition, #2 is a small piece not valuable enough for an appraisal, #3, 4, 7 and 8 have had <br />previous appraisals but they need updating. One other issue is parcel #3, which is Volkman's at <br />the corner of 153''~ and Armstrong. While the proposal is not to take their home, the project <br />significantly changes the nature of their parcel. They have been opposed to the road in the past. <br />Staff is suggesting that conversation be initiated with the Volkman's to determine whether they <br />would prefer to have the entire property acquired in return for relinquishing relocation rights. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen suggested having the City Attorney approach the Volkman's. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to moving the road to the east, which would cost in money and time <br />because of the wetland m~d mitigation of same. <br /> <br />Mr. Kapler stated that the direction was to find out if the DNR will allow us to move the road. <br />We can providing certain criteria is met; that being 1) if it is for significant public purpose; 2) the <br />government body has to apply for it; and 3) if it is the only feasible alternative for this project. <br /> <br />Consensus was that the City Attorney should review alternatives for the Volkman acquisition. <br /> <br />Case #8: Consider Planning for Development of Section 28 <br /> <br />Mr. Norman stated that in January, the City Council received a sketch plan for the development <br />of Section 28, which included a transportation plan and also a drainage plan. At the time the <br />plan was presented, it was emphasized that the plan was only a sketch plan and that other <br />alternatives were possible. The purpose of this case is to discuss what type of in-depth review <br />this issue should receive. The needs which should be addressed are as follows: 1) Prepare a <br />minimum of five alternative road systems to serve Section 28 and connections with existing <br />development in Section 21; 2) Review conceptual drainage plan and prepare drainage policies <br />for internal development (i.e., on-site ponding requirements) and storm sewer sizing and regional <br />pond requirements; 3) Identify restrictive covenants for the area; 4) Identify trail and open <br />space for the site; 5) Prepare a protocol for allowing additional accesses onto County Road <br />#116, beyond those identified on the adopted transportation plan; 6) Respond and develop <br />alternatives to request for access from 14650 Ramsey Boulevard in light of unique <br />circumstances; and 7) Review development proposal for consistence with the draft <br />comprehensive plan. Mr. Norman noted that the scope of work should include alternatives to <br />accommodate the request for Mrs. Millis for access to C.R. #116. Mrs. Millis is the daughter of <br />Mr. Peltzer who donated the eastern half of the C.R. #116 right-of-way. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 16, 1999 <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />