My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 12/11/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2007
>
Agenda - Council - 12/11/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 1:57:00 PM
Creation date
12/7/2007 12:44:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
12/11/2007
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.
/
488
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 is to get the three players to the table and work it out. He believes that granting a <br />temporary access is an absolute waste of money when they should be getting the players <br />to the table. It appears as though everyone has the same goal of development, there just <br />has not been communication yet. <br />Mr. Boe stated he talks to all. of the property owners often; they want to develop, it's just <br />when they want to develop. He can offer them some creative plans to develop their <br />property for them and they could go in jointly, but now the .church says they, want to <br />develop and Derwood wants to develop. They have to move on it, and he would think if <br />this starts they would move, .and if it is approved they would eliminate one of the <br />driveways right away. <br />Mayor Gamec noted if this development is approved, access onto County Road #5 with <br />the others could be denied because they: would have access by tying into this and going <br />out to County Road #5. <br />Associate Planner Dalnes indicated the County has said if this access is granted it is <br />temporary; and if there is another way to access the property they do not have to feel <br />obligated to give access off of County Road #5. <br />Mayor Gamec commented that they have talked about getting these property owners <br />together for a year. <br />• Associate Planner Dalnes stated Mr. Boe had a plan put together by Hakanson Anderson <br />and Associates developing all three of these properties. Mr. Sagwold had it in his hand <br />when he came in, but the price is not right for one person to purchase and develop all of <br />them. The timing is not right for the church; they are looking for the highest and best. <br />use. A developer has talked to all three of them about their situation and there is one <br />gentleman she has talked to a lot about these properties who is an investor. He has not <br />been able to acquire all of them to put them together, and he is a fourth party. <br />Mayor Gainec questioned how much the City should participate with these properties. <br />Councihnember Strommen pointed out that they have participated in the past when they <br />needed to work out access. <br />Councilmember Look stated there are six accesses to Highway 5, but the two at the <br />church are not being used; the majority are not being used. These people that will live <br />here may not drive much, but they will have families that do. Compared to the current <br />situation there will be a lot more traffic accessing the driveways. The second point is that <br />the City could use HRA monies to try to broker this deal and bring the three parties <br />together to make this happen. <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised eminent domain is a tool that could be considered to <br />• acquire the access. <br />-343- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.