Agenda - Council - 01/12/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1612 ~oneer Building r~ :,B'B~A.~Y. oD;~"~:RRRFr~: · (612) 224-2848 · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 ! ! ,! December 23, 1981 Lloyd S6ell, City Administrator City of Ramsey H~ghway 5 Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 In re: James G. Marx/James Refrigeration Park Dedication Fee Dear Mr. Snell~ I have received from you the pertinent ordinances concerning the dedication of parks and open spaces. These I have read. There are a couple of problems that I wish to call to your attention with regard to paragraph 4. No agree- ment was made prior to the preliminary plat approval and the preliminary plat was approved, as well as the final plat. It seems that there is a deviation from what the ordinance requires, and I assume that automatically we would say that the council had waived that requirement. In paragraph 3 we do not see any application, in this case, so that leaves us the question of paragraphs 1 and 2. It is our understanding that the gross area that is being subdivided is merely that which is being conveyed and sub- divided for the benefit of James Refrigeration. The idea of filing the preliminary plat and the idea of saying what you're going to do with the rest of the land is for the purpose of some future subdivision, which in this case has not taken place. To'call it an out lot and say that is a subdivision, seems to me to be stretching the point. The only reasonable interpretation is that the Park Dedication should be applied to the area which is indicated as Lot 1 on the subdivision. It is obvious that the rest of this land is to be subdivided in the future and if there is going to be future dedication of funds for this other area, we are getting twice hit for the same dedication on the same land. It is almost the same as holding one in double jeopardy in a criminal case. I should like to have a ruling from the City Attorney as to this matter. It seems highly unfair that if we were to come in with a future subdivision that we would be again charged, regardless of the language in paragraph l, where it says all new subdivisions, because if out lot Y is a subdivision there would be future subdivisions. Of course, we maintain there is no subdivision on out lot Y, and that any dedication of funds for open spaces and parks would come on the future subdivision of that property. As it is now, nothing can be done on the property except perhaps the building of one building, which is out of the question. If we receive an unfavorable ruling fromthe City Attorney, then we should like to be heard by the City Council, because I believe this is