Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/21/1985

Home

I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Councilmember Cox stated that the City could pick up the costs. Council unanimously consented to dispense with the reading of the resolution. Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to adopt Resolution ~85-21 ordering a feasibility report for the street grade problem at the intersection of County Road ~5 and Azurite Street NW. (Please refer to resolution file for Resolution ~85-21). Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hei~an, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. Councilmember COx requested that City Attorney Goodrich research whether or not it would be proper for Council to make one motion at the beginning of meetings to dispense with the reading of all resolutions included in the agenda. f) Request To Redefine ~he R~ River Scenic River Boundary Adjacent To River's Bend - Council unanimously consented to dispense with the reading of the resolution. Motion by Councilmember Sorteberg and seconded by Councilmember Reimann to adopt Resolution ~85-22 redefining the Rum River scenic corridor. (Please refer to resolution file for Resolution #85-22). Further Discussion: Councilmember Schlueter inquired as to how long Staff expects that it will take to hear back from DNR on this request. Mr. Berg replied that he didn't know; that it could take some time. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. g) Request To Support Increased Densities In River's Bend Second Addition - Mr. Raudio was present. Councilmember COx stated as backup to this case that years ago the City could not get the State to buy right-of-way for County Rd. #5 and Hwy. ~47; a child had been killed at this location; and he initiated negotiations with Mr. Raudio. As a result of these negotiations we were able to obtain a new turn lane on Cty. Rd. 95 and Hwy. ~47, right-of-way east of Hwy. 47, future bridge crossing right-of-way, provisions for future economic tax base. Councilmember Cox stated that all of this was done in good faith and now Mr. Raudio and Mr. Foster are ready to develop and the State has put restraints on develol~nent that are far beyond what was agreed to at that time. ~his proposed resolution would be stating the City's support of the developer being allowed to develop that property at the density rate that would have been allowed had the developer not deeded that property to the City. The developers are only asking for what was agreed to in good faith and nothing more. Council unanimously consented to dispense with the reading of the resolution. January 22, 1985 Page 19 of 30