My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02848
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2800
>
pf_02848
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:16:18 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:21:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2848
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Address
2180 HAMLINE AVE N
Applicant
THOMPSON, BRUCE/RAMSEY LIBR
PIN
102923430079
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
166
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 />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> <br />DISTRICT COURT <br /> <br />COUNTY OF RAMSEY <br /> <br />------------------------------ <br /> <br />SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT <br />Condemnation <br /> <br />Commercial Property Investments, <br />Inc. , <br /> <br />Plaintiff, <br /> <br />vs. <br /> <br />SEPARATE ANSWER OF THE <br />CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />The City of Roseville, a municipal <br />corporation and The County of <br />Ramsey, a political subdivision of <br />the State of Minnesota, <br /> <br />Defendants. <br /> <br />------------------------------ <br /> <br />Defendant City of Roseville for its answer to the Complaint <br /> <br />of Plaintiff, states and alleges as follows: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Denies each and every allegation and matter in said <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Complaint except as hereinafter admitted or qualified. <br /> <br />II. <br /> <br />Defendant City of Roseville alleges that it does not have <br /> <br />sufficient information to form a belief of the allegations of <br /> <br />Commercial Property Investments, wherein it IS alleged by <br /> <br />Plaintiff that it owns certain property and its relationship with <br /> <br />other owners, and therefore denies the same and puts plaintiff to <br /> <br />its strict proof thereof. <br /> <br />I II. <br /> <br />Defendant City of Roseville does admit that certain parties <br /> <br />did fiLe applications to rezone certain lands referred to 1n <br /> <br />plaintiff's comlaint, but alleges affirmativeLy that no <br /> <br />determination was ever made by the City on rezoning said <br /> <br />property, no pubLic hearings were heLd and said public hearings <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.