My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.2. SR 03-20-2006
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2006
>
03/20/2006
>
6.2. SR 03-20-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:49 AM
Creation date
3/16/2006 2:53:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/20/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 />March 1, 2006 <br /> <br />Janet and Ron Cardinal <br />19127 Tyler St. NW <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br />763-441-6048 <br /> <br />Elk River City Council <br /> <br />We are writing with regard to the proposed east/west corridor road, which could <br />potentially impact our property and our family. <br /> <br />First, we've lived in our house since September 1987, and together, we did most of the <br />work to build the house ourselves. You can certainly understand, then, our initial reaction <br />of shock and surprise to hear that ours is possibly one of four on our street, targeted for <br />loss in favor of a new east/west corridor to connect County Rd 13 with Hwy 169. <br /> <br />We thank Terry Mauer for meeting with us in our home, independent of the informational <br />meetings that we were unable to attend. We have had several reactions to this <br />information, starting with surprise and ending with more a state of uncertainty and many <br />concerns. <br /> <br />While we understand the need for a new east/west road, we first have one question: have <br />all other options or alternatives been considered? Are there no other alternatives? Wasn't <br />County Road 33 once considered for this future east/west corridor need, and if so, what <br />happened to that option? <br /> <br />We've considered the potential loss of our home. And we never considered moving. <br />Despite the increased building all around us and the resulting heavy, speed-fraught traffic <br />on Tyler Street (with the connection to 197th), we are satisfied with our location. <br />Moreover, we have a significant emotional as well as monetary investment in this home <br />and property. To replace what we have would be quite expensive to the city, if indeed the <br />city intends to negotiate fairly in the final process. We would require an equivalent of <br />3.34 acres, as we have now, including mature trees, moving expenses, legal and financial <br />costs associated with the purchase of a new property. We have children in this school <br />district, (which includes one in high school) and we would require that we find <br />comparable property within the school district. <br /> <br />We know, too, that the impact of Option 1 on the proposed plan, places our neighbor into <br />significant loss and potential hardship. So in favor of our neighbor's needs under Option <br />1, we do not support it. Following the power lines would seem the most logical; <br />however, the loss it would impose on this family is too significant. We could, instead, <br />see the connection up through the power lines but angled such that it would save the <br />home and property under Option 1. <br /> <br />The most logical option we support is Option 3. The property through which the new <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.