02/06/90 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council approve the prelimimary plat of Tooth Acres Addition and recommend final plat approval of same. Further, to recommend that City Council have the special Planning and Zoning meeting costs absorbed as a City administrative cost since the plat provides for the proposed Mississippi River Bridge crossing. Further Discussion: Commissioner Hendriksen inquired as to why there is no park dedication requirement relating to Tooth Acres. Mr. Banwart replied that the premise for no park dedication is that the plat consists of all outlots and outlots are not considered buildable. Mr. Banwart explained park dedication requirements would be appropriate when Outlots A and C are subdivided in the future. Mr. Banwart stated that the City has required park dedication on other plats that include outlots but those plats were in final subdivision process; Tooth Acres is not in final layout until Outlots A and C are subdivided. Chaim~an Zimmennan noted that if everything would have gone the natural course, the southern portion of the property would have been condemned by the County for the regional park and everything north would have remained as is and no park dedication would have been required; the only difference in this situation is that the northern portion of the property is being labelled as outlots. Commissioner Hendriksen inquired if City Code allows the City to overlook park dedication because one of the objectives of a plat is in the City's best interest. Mr. Martin referred to the plat as it was originally proposed with residential lots and noted that a substantial amount of the land he was obligated to provide for park dedication requirements will now be owned by the County. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that he doesn't feel that the County acquisition of what was supposed to be park dedication eliminates the City's entitlement to any park dedication. Mr. Martin stated that he doesn't know how a person's property can be condemned and then charged park dedication. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that before he votes on this issue he would have to review the City Code as it pertains to park dedication. Mr. Banwart stated that City Council has the prerogative to waive park dedication requirements and historically has done so. Commissioner Shumway stated that a lot of the city's problems are the result of Council waiving decisions of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Shumway stated that there are definite goals for a trail system through this area to tie into the trail system across the river in Hennepin County; Ramsey should receive some assurances of rights for a trail corridor. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that the County has not been notorious for cooperating with Ramsey and Ramsey should take appropriate action at this time to preserve a trail corridor south to the river. Mr. Banwart noted that the trail between Ramsey and Elm Creek Park Reserve is realistic and attainable but not a part of Hennepin County or Anoka County's plans at this time. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that Anoka County should enter into an agreement to dedicate park land to protect Ramsey's interest. Mr. Martin noted that his property is under threat of condemnation and the papers are before the IRS. Mr. Banwart provided those present with a map indicating the proposed Ramsey trail system; the map did not indicate a trail proposal south through Mr. Martin's property to the river. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that the Planning Con'wnission cannot act on Mr. Martin's plat until it has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioners Deemer and Shumway withdrew their motion to recommend preliminary plat approval. Planning & Zoning Commission/January 23, 1990 Page 3 of 5