Laserfiche WebLink
septic systems for fast food restaurants are problematic and costly. Consequently, on <br />June 9, the Ramsey City Council received Mr. Dolphin's request for a MUSA boundary <br />modification to include their three-acre site in order that the facility may be serviced with <br />municipal water and sanitary sewer. Ms. Frolik explained that this request constitutes a <br />minor comprehensive plan amendment. Accordingly, on June 9, Council directed staff <br />and the Planning Commission to process the request through proper procedures. The <br />Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 22, and are recommending a MUSA <br />expansion request. This would require a four-fifths vote of the City Council to send it to <br />the Metropolitan Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen thought this would have to be reviewed by the planner to <br />determine if it fits into the comp plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Norman responded that this has not changed and it is not subject to the land use <br />change. It was reviewed during the sensitive land use review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman felt that the action recommended would be a direct conflict <br />of Ramsey's Charter. We would be extending the sewer line to an area that is not <br />approved. He suggested that Burger King can be established without sewer and water <br />facilities - they did it in Ham Lake. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that the meeting held last week was to discuss that. <br />This was not intended to slide anything under the fence. We got the request and that's <br />why we got the legal opinion. The opinion was that they believe that the Charter <br />amendment that does not allow the extension of the MUSA is not constitutional. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that maybe this request of Burger King should be <br />placed on the ballot this fall and let the people vote on it. <br /> <br />Terry Hendriksen, 15631 Ramsey Boulevard NW, Ramsey, stated that Council received <br />an opinion from an attorney but no action was taken by this Council that suggests you <br />have determined that Section 14.1.3 of the City's Charter is invalid. He suggested that <br />Council would have to hold an election on this issue prior to sending it to the Met <br />Council. He stated it would seem that the proper way to handle this is to follow the <br />Charter until someone decides they want to take action and determine if it's legal or <br />illegal. He felt that the attorney's legal opinion is that it is not that clear. He reiterated <br />that Council has taken no action acknowledging the attorney's opinion - agree or <br />disagree. He added that the City has a Charter section approved by its citizens. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Haas Steffen and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to <br />accept and concur with the legal opinion of the law offices of Kennedy and Graven as <br />expressed in writing by Charles LeFevere and to concur with the opinion of Ramsey's <br />Charter Commission which states the following: "We have received the legal opinion on <br />Section 14. I as provided by the law offices of Kennedy and Graven and have reviewed its <br />contents and conclusions. The Ramsey City Charter Commission finds that the legal <br /> <br /> City Council/June 23, 1998 <br /> Page 9 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />