Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. <br />7.03: Request for Final. Plat Review of River's Bend 5`h Addition; Case of the City of <br />Ramsey <br />Associate Planner Gladhill reviewed the staff report. <br />Motion by Councilmember Ramsey, seconded by Councilmember McGlone, to adopt Resolution <br />#10-07-157 granting Final Plat Approval of River's Bend Sa' Addition, contingent upon <br />compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated July 21, 2010 and subject to review by the <br />City Attorney as to legal form. <br />Further discussion: Council expressed concern that this had taken so long. Councilmember Elvig <br />stated he wanted this to get moving. Planning Manager Miller noted there were outstanding <br />issues that needed to be rectified including the outhouse and the platting of the street. City <br />Attorney Goodrich summarized the steps he had taken regarding the closing. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Ramsey, Councilmembers Elvig, Jeffrey, and McGlone. <br />Voting No: Councilmember Look. Absent: Councilmembers Dehen and Wise. <br />7.04: Consider Memorandum of Understanding between City of Ramsey and Anoka <br />County in Regards to Rum River `In-Holding Parcel' at 18055 Roanoke St NW <br />Associate Planner Gladhill reviewed the staff report. He noted John VonDeLinde, Parks <br />Director of Anoka County and Terry Sutherland, representative of 18055 Roanoke Street NW <br />property owner, were present for any questions. <br />Councilmember Look believed this situation has spun out of control on an issue the City had not <br />requested. <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he did not see this as an adversarial position <br />Mayor Ramsey stated it appeared the property owner was not interested in having their property <br />designated in anything other than residential. He asked why a homeowner should have that kind <br />of cloud on their property. He indicated he did not agree with eminent domain for parks. <br />John VonDeLinde summarized the County's position and planning the County did for parks and <br />trails. He noted in order for this to be changed, a Master Plan amendment would need to be <br />prepazed, which was a long process. He indicated they only dealt with willing sellers and the <br />County did not do eminent domain for parkland and if the property owner did not want to sell, it <br />would not happen. <br />Councilmember Look asked why the County didn't change their plan to match the City's plan <br />City Council /July 27, 2010 <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />