My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0424_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0424_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:17:21 AM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:33:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
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
City Council Regular Meeting— 04/10/Q6 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 22 <br />Ihlan referenced a recent April ��'�� newspaper article <br />regarding a Chaska woman who owned rental property as an <br />investment that was taken by Eminent Domain; and the <br />status of the property, after buildings were raised, 2-1/2 years <br />later still undeveloped. <br />Mayor Klausing opined that he originally thought the <br />lawsuits were an effort to delay the project and were without <br />merit; and to-date the court had agreed and upheld City <br />action, and he was confident the appeals would also be <br />overturned, as well as no evidence of a prima fascia case <br />related to environmental impact. Mayor Klausing �urther <br />opined that, regardless of how one felt about the project, the <br />roadway was necessary to access interior parts of the <br />redevelopment area; and this request moves the roadway <br />forward; and constituted a good policy for reasons of <br />cleaning up contaminated parcels in the redevelopment area. <br />Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the motion. <br />Public Comment <br />Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane <br />Mr. Callaghan questioned whether the developer had made <br />any real effort to obtain the properties, beyond their previous <br />offer of 97% of what the property was thought to be worth. <br />Mr. Callaghan opined that there was a misconception by the <br />public as to the Council's intent in considering the option of <br />Eminent Domain. <br />Terry Moses,1776 Maple Lane <br />Mr. Moses opined that this was not a public purpose, as it <br />wasn't benefiting the public, only the private developer. Mr. <br />Moses further opined that the public has repeatedly said they <br />didn't want the road to bring more traffic into the <br />neighborhood;, and that tonight's request was premature <br />until pending litigation and Watershed District approval were <br />finalized. Mr. Moses also questioned whether clean up costs <br />were being deducted from the market value of the property. <br />Tim Kotecki, 3078 Mount Ridge Road <br />Mr. Kotecl�i questioned whether the developers were paying <br />for the appraisals and condemnation permanently, or whether <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.