Laserfiche WebLink
C.', se #6: <br /> <br />Request For Final Plat Approval Of Northfork 4th Addition; <br />Case Of Mr. Dennis Peck: <br /> <br />Mr. Banwart stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval <br />of Northfork 4th Addition with park dedication requirements to be satisfied by a cash <br />payment in accordance with the park dedication requirements in effect at the time of final <br />plat approval. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember DeLuca and seconded by Councilmember Cich to adopt <br />Resolution #89-03-~19 granting final plat approval to Northfork 4th Addition. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DeLuca, Pearson, Cich <br />and Peterson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #7: Update on River's Bend Park South <br /> Improvement Project #89.1: <br /> <br />Development; <br /> <br />Mr. Otto reported that there is a conflict among the government agencies regarding an <br />approved aligment for an access road to River's Bend Park South; City Staff will be <br />meeting with the Corps of Engineers and Anoka County on Monday, March 20 to <br />hopefully come to a resolution. In the interim, the bid date for the project needs to be <br />extended Ramsey should also request an extension for the use of Community Development <br />Block Grant funds beyond April 1, 1989. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember DeLuca and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to extend the <br />bid date for Improvement Project #89-i to April i0, 1989 and submit a written request to <br />Anoka County for an extension beyond April 1, 1989 for the use of Community <br />Development Block Grant funds. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DeLuca, Pearson, Cich <br />and Peterson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #8: Response To Landfill Siting Process: <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that Site P is one of three sites in Anoka County proposed for a future <br />landfill. The Count>, is preparing an Environmental Impact Study GELS) for the three sites. <br />Prior to prepm-ing the EIS, Anoka County prepared a scoping document and Ramsev. <br />commented on that scoping document regarding what should be included in the E?q <br />Rarnsey has received documents that represent parts of the EIS and is being asked To <br />review them. This review requires technical expertise and Wenck and Assoicates has <br />quoted a price of $360.0.00; the number of ElS documents -,,,et to be reviewed that will <br />require technical expe,n/se and associated costs is not 'known. >,ir. Hartiey also requested <br />dh'ection from Ci0' Council regarding a general position City Staff should take regarding <br />Site P. <br /> <br />CouncLl unanimo~:s!7 directed CiD' Staff to continue to take a position of opposing Site P. <br /> <br />5ir. Otto stated that Staffs decision to obtain a cost estimate for rev;,ew se~Sces from <br />Wen:k Associates on. ly was based on the following: <br /> <br />Cis' Council/March 14, 1989 <br /> Page 10 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />