Laserfiche WebLink
River's Bend Park - <br /> <br />Mr. Otto proceeded to discuss River's Bend Park and stated problems are <br />being encountered relating to previous work done at the park and the layout <br />plan selected by Council. It has been determined that a lift pump will be <br />required for the restroom facility; there was an insufficient amount of <br />grading done for the tennis courts and additional soil borings will be <br />required; and protected shorelands would be encroached upon by parking lot, <br />picnic area and a corner of the tennis courts. The LAWCON application will <br />proceed based on the preliminary application with an explanation indicating <br />that issues will be resolved during the design process. Mr. Otto stated <br />that John Stine has indicated that DNR is requesting additional <br />documentation identifying wetlands and specific high water marks for the <br />area. DNR approval is required on how River's Bend Park is developed. DNR <br />is concerned that the city's agreement for low development of the park area <br />in exchange for DNR approval of River's Bend is adhered to; it is <br />recommended that the city show development of the north area only and <br />address the south area at a later date. <br /> <br />Case #7: Status Report On Easements For FrontaEe Road South Of Hwy,~10; <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that based on Council consensus expressed at their <br />September 15, 1987 meeting, he negotiated trading MSA road assessments and <br />storm sewer assessments for the frontage road easements; the MSA and storm <br />sewer assessments amount to approximately $30,000/acre. Mr. Goodrich <br />stated that the Elofson's will not accept the trade but they will accept <br />a cash buy at the city's appraisal price of $25 ,000/acre. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann stated that the Holasek's want double what the Elofson's are <br />requesting for both the temporary and permanent easement. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that in August, pursuant to Council authorization, he <br />served condemnation papers on all property owners and scheduled a hearing <br />for Friday, October 16. At the the hearing, the City presents testimony <br />regarding the purpose of the project and the court determines whether or <br />not the project is public purpose, which should not be a problem in this case. <br />At that time, the court will appoint 3 disinterested Anoka County <br />residents, learned in areas of real estate and land appraisals, to act as <br />commissioners. Those commissioners are paid $150/meeting and meet 3 times <br />to be sworn in, view the property and conduct a hearing to accept testimony <br />from the City and the property owners . <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley noted that 80 feet of right-of-way is required for the frontage <br />road and 30 feet is required for sewer and water construction; Council may <br />choose to acquire only the temporary easement of 30 feet required for sewer <br />and water at this time; the temporary construction easement rate may be <br />less in the view of the three commissioners. Mr. Goodrich noted that the <br />City is not obligated to go ahead or prohibited from scaling back the sewer <br />and water project even though contracts have been awarded. <br /> City Council/October 13, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 14 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />