Agenda - Council - 08/09/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case # '1,0:1. CONSIDER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF RAMSEY AND ANOKA COUNTY IN REGARDS TO RUM RIVER 'IN-HOLDING PARCEL' AT 18055 ROANOKE ST NW AND FINAL ADOPTION OF 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN By: Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner Background: On April 13, 2010, the City Council denied a request by the Metropolitan Council to include the parcel at 18055 Roanoke St NW with a designation as 'Park' on the Future Land Use Map in order to be consistent with Anoka County Park plans. Following that decision, Staff began working with the Metropolitan Council and Anoka County Parks regarding options moving forward in order to complete the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. A suggested alternative included the City entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Anoka County to clarify adopted and future plans for the Subject Property. Findings: Only the County Parks' Comprehensive Plan (2006), which is the guiding document for future park planning, currently includes this in-holding parcel as future acquisition. The City had the opportunity to comment on that plan (including future acquisitions) prior to that plan being adopted. The County Parks was not required to directly notify the Subject Property of the proposed future acquisition at this stage and in order to move forward, would need to be included in the County Parks Master Plan. The County Parks Master Plan has yet to be completed and would require Public Hearings, including direct notification to the Subject Property. The City should be advised that it has the opportunity to comment on that plan during that phase as well and is anticipated to be completed in the near future. County Parks Staff is supportive of the request for the MOU since Master Plan has not been completed. The MOU states that if, and only if, the County Parks acquires the in-holding parcel, the City would consider supporting a change of Future Land Use designation as 'Park'. The MOU would specify that the County would not be utilizing eminent domain and that the owner could sell to any party it chooses, while still stating that the City opposes the change in land use. From a Metropolitan Council perspective, the MOU documents that the City and County are working towards consistent plans that will include proper public processes. From a Property Owner perspective, it documents that the County is only interested in willing sellers and is not seeking to use eminent domain. However, the Property Owner is still concerned of any plans reference the Subject Property as future park, and is opposed to the MOU. The outcome of the master plan process could include the inclusion or removal of the Subject Property as a future park/acquisition. Only the County process will determine that outcome. The MOU would need to be referenced in the text of the Comprehensive Plan, but would not need to be shown on the Future Land Use Map. County Parks Staff has agreed to draft MOU for review by the City. Since the request is specific to future land use and zoning designations (authority granted to the City through Minnesota Statute 462.357), the document is not required to be signed by the existing Property Owner. County Parks staff has reiterated that they are only interested in working with willing sellers and