My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-17-2007 Planning Commission Minutes - Joint Session
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2007
>
05-17-2007 Planning Commission Minutes - Joint Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/7/2016 1:40:18 PM
Creation date
6/7/2016 1:40:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Mr. Marohn stated that MnDOT does not guarantee a level of traffic for business. Mr. <br /> Hukriede agreed. <br /> Mr. Hukriede stated where do you start and stop if you started to compensate for change <br /> in traffic volumes. <br /> Mr. Sjoblad asked how the R/W acquisition process work? Mr. Hukriede stated: <br /> 1. Show property owner impacts and start to understand property. <br /> 2. MnDOT appraises. <br /> 3. MnDOT makes an offer. <br /> 4. Landowner can make their own appraisal at MnDOT's expense. <br /> 5. Agreement or Eminent Domain. <br /> Mr. Sjoblad asked if MnDOT does this if the City pays for construction costs? Mr. Bray <br /> stated that MnDOT tries to do all acquisition,whether state or city,to not hold up project. <br /> City may need to pay for land, not the services. <br /> Mr. Ryan asked in the EAW, it stated goal was to protect and enhance local business. <br /> How do you reconcile R/W acquisition/compensation with this goal? Mr. Hukriede <br /> stated MnDOT's R/W group looks at cost impacts. Mr. Bray will look back at purpose <br /> and need statement. Mr. Ryan doesn't see R/W process addressing this. <br /> Mr. Marohn stated he had worked with SEH on Highway 169 on a more global <br /> perspective of economic impacts. It is a tough balancing act between individual <br /> �.. businesses and a more regional approach. <br /> Mr. Habein asked if people with closed accesses be compensated? Mr. Hukriede stated <br /> yes. <br /> Mr. Nagel asked with the alternate route, old highway will be turned back to the County. <br /> In effect, businesses lost their access to a State Highway. Mr. Bray and Mr. Hukriede <br /> stated that those properties still have access to a public road, so there would be no <br /> damange. <br /> Mr. Marohn stated he is a business with access to the highway. It is closed and replaced <br /> with a backage road. Any compensation? Mr. Hukriede stated possibly, if a loss or <br /> change in property value. <br /> Mr. Marohn asked if a change in property value is the trigger? Mr. Hukriede stated no. <br /> Closing first, then look at property value. <br /> Mr. Woog asked if MnDOT goes with the alternate route,the old highway turns back to <br /> the County, would all accesses remain as they are today? Mr. Hukriede stated the State <br /> needs to turn back a safe roadway. No accesses would be closed unless there was a <br /> safety issue. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.