My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 06/20/05 <br />Minutes - Page 19 <br /> <br />TIF District) <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 8:18 p.m. <br /> <br />Harlan Smith, 1706 Ryan Avenue W <br />Mr. Smith expressed his optimism that the Council <br />majority was making the right decision, following the <br />recent debate between Councilmembers Maschka and <br />Ihlan, but cautioned Councilmembers not to sign a blank <br />check and sought assurances from the Council that this was <br />a good thing for the City of Roseville in the long run. <br /> <br />Dick Houck, 1133 RoseIawn Avenue W <br />Mr. Houck read a lengthy position paper, opmmg that <br />while he wasn't opposed to the redevelopment of the <br />property, questioned the City's involvement in <br />development of private property and the process followed <br />to-date as being extraordinary. Mr. Houck further opined <br />his perception of improprieties related to the development <br />(i.e., lack of ownership of property by developer; potential <br />use of Eminent Domain; pending U.S. Supreme Court case <br />law; no tax benefits to citizens or the City of Roseville for <br />25 years); but requiring residents to pay for additional <br />infrastructure and services for private development. Mr. <br />Houck further opined that the B-6 Comprehensive Plan <br />Zoning District for "big box retail" should have required a <br />super-majority vote of the City Council; was not a good <br />business deal; and should have been supported by <br />unanimous vote of the City Council. Mr. Houck concluded <br />by asking the City Council to cease all development in the <br />plan and allow other developers to submit plans for <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Houck submitted results of a recent newspaper poll, <br />consisting of a Y2 page advertisement, and the responses <br />received, along with Mr. Houck's analysis of those <br />responses, a copy of which he provided to each Council <br />member. <br /> <br />Walt VanDeis, Officer, Grubb & Ellis, Minnesota <br />Industrial Venture, Property Owner in Area 8 and in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.