My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0410
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0410
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:16 AM
Creation date
5/15/2006 11:55:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/10/2006
Meeting Type
Town Hall
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 - 04/10/06 <br />Minutes - Page 23 <br /> <br />they would be eventually seeking reimbursement from the <br />City for those costs. <br /> <br />Lee Schreurs, 3058 Wilder Street N <br />Ms. Schreurs questioned how the Council could, in clear <br />conscience, give approval to the developer to proceed <br />without Watershed District approval for location of the <br />roadway. <br /> <br />At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Krass responded to <br />the questions of the public, and clarified the appraisal <br />process and developer responsibilities. Mr. Krass noted that <br />the developer had made offers, as well as further overtures, <br />to the property owners, with no responses from those <br />owners; estimated that approximately 25% of the offers had <br />been determined to remain in escrow until further <br />engineering studies and soil borings could determine the <br />amount of contamination if any on each parcel; that no <br />"shortcut" was being provided to the developer for <br />construction of the roadway, and that the normal permitting <br />process would need to be followed. Mr. Krass noted that <br />two of the three parcels were currently vacant, and that no <br />homes had been on the properties, that all were commercial <br />properties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan again opined that use of the <br />condemned property for a roadway didn't necessarily mean it <br />was a public use that justified use of Eminent Domain; and <br />further opined that the City Council needed to make a policy <br />decision related to Twin Lakes Parkway. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan presented and discussed use of the <br />proposed parkway to serve the "big box" shopping center, <br />which wouldn't be necessary for residential and/or mixed- <br />use development; and would not necessitate moving <br />substantial traffic from 1-35W along the Parkway to connect <br />with Fairview Avenue and greatly impact a residential <br />neighborhood. Councilmember Ihlan demonstrated <br />generated traffic comparisons; opined that the development <br />was not a public benefit, but a public cost with no plan put in <br />place to mitigate increased traffic; and further increased costs <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.