04/12/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RAMSEY ANOKA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA The Ramsey City Council conducted a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 1989 at the Ramsey Municipal Center, 15153 Nowthen Blvd. N.W., Ramsey, Minnesota. Members Present: Mayor Gary Reimann Councilmember Kenneth Peterson Councilmember A1 Pearson Councilmember Stephen F. DeLuca Also Present: City Administrator David Hanley City Attorney William Goodrich (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Community Development Director Mark Banwart Mefland Otto/Hakanson Anderson Associates Members Absent: Councilmember Richard Cich CALL TO ORDER Mayor Reimann called the regular City Council meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. CITIZEN INPUT Jim Martin - 3740 Union Terrace Lane, Plyjmouth, Mn - "Recently I was contacted by Anoka County regarding it's acquisition of part of my farm to be added to the County park. (Attachment A to these minutes is an exhibit which shows what the County intends to condemn). As I have expressed to the Council previously, I am against the acquisition because it is not in either my interest or the City's. Parks are seasonal facilities and do not generate business development. As an llustration, I call your attention to the large Hennepin County park on the north end of Medicine Lake in Plymouth; it has not generated business development. Also, the County park may have limited appeal to Ramsey residents since it is not a recreational/generaI use park. As you are aware, the City Council has approved the concept of a river crossing and arterial road across my land to intersect with U.S. #10 and possibly 1-94 in Maple Grove. Members of the City's Economic Development Commision have expressed the belief that my farm could then become the location of a large and significant commercial development. The County intends to take so much of my land that this will not be pssible. Also, there is a question as to whether the fiver crossing will ever be a reality if the County takes all my fiver frontage, since the City may not be able to acquire a roadway across park land. It is my understanding that the City a~eed to the acquisition of part of my land for a park in exchange for the County a~eeing to relinquish part of itts park land along U.S. #10 for a frontage road and for future commercial development. I suggest to you that you are giving up the potential site of a sizable commercial development for a strip of frontage that will not be at the focal point of the intersection of a river-crossing arterial and U.S. #10. Also, the city does not need to make a deal with the County for frontage road fights on the County park land. If Mn/DOT wants to limit access to U,S. #10, it will have to acquire frontage road fights across the City Council/February 28, 1989 Page 2 of 11