Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br />September 12, 2002 <br />Joint Maintenance Facility <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />rnaintenance, sewer, water, storm sewer, and City building budgets based on the prorated share <br />of space. <br /> <br />Considerations <br />Staff would like to point out some items for the Council to consider in their discussions. <br /> <br />A. At this point in time we have conflicting opinions about whether Ramsey County has to go <br />through our Special Use Permit and abide by our zoning regulations. Legal opinion from <br />the City Attorney indicates that if they chose not to abide by our zoning regulations, for <br />public purposes of which a Maintenance Facility may qualify, the Council needs to decide <br />how aggressive you want to be in the Special Use Permit process with regards to design <br />standards, material selections, and building location and orientation. <br /> <br />B. Because this is being proposed as a partnership, Council should be aware that any <br />conditions or stringent expectations might add costs to the project, we would be asked to <br />pay our prorated share of those costs. <br /> <br />C. The plans that will be brought forward do not indicate any public access through Ramsey <br />County Public Works Facility and/or the Minnesota Army National Guard property . <br />immediately to the north. Due to the configuration of the piece of property and its <br />relationship to the remaining portion of TCAAP that will be licensed to the Minnesota <br />Army National Guard this could become an isolated area. It would becorne its own <br />separate portion of TCAAP and one that is not in alignment with the original plan for the <br />designation of the Civic Center Zoning. In addition, it would be isolated from a traffic <br />flow standpoint, particularly if there were semaphore at the intersection of Highway 96 and <br />Snelling Avenue North. <br /> <br />D. The proposed relationship between Ramsey County and the partners is not one of legal <br />ownership of either the building asset or the land. Ramsey County has indicated to us that <br />there would be a perpetual easement and we would have access and use of the facility as <br />long as we desired. <br /> <br />E. In terms of value of the asset, it would be difficult to determine if the City is in compliance <br />with GAS B 34 in protecting and managing its assets if we do not have an ownership right <br />in the facility. <br /> <br />F. If at any time the City wanted to dissolve the relationship with Ramsey County we would <br />be in a difficult situation given the fact that Ramsey County would not have a great need <br />for space and probably would not pay market value for the space. At the same time, we <br />would not be able to market the property for anything other than its intended maintenance <br />use. <br /> <br />. <br />