My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/20/2010 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2010
>
09/20/2010 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:30:19 AM
Creation date
7/24/2018 8:09:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
9/20/2010
Year
2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Regular Council Minutes <br />September 20, 2010 <br />Page 13 <br />Council President Buckholtz asked if there was any discussion. <br />Mr. Marquardt stated, my issue with this particular proposal is the same as Mrs. <br />. Eisenberg's. I don't believe in donating Village assets to another tax-supported public <br />entity. At the very least, this property should have been evaluated. Notwithstanding Mr. <br />Diemert's comments, this property was acquired through a complex land swap deal and it <br />does have value. That value should have been established by appraisal so that we know <br />what we are giving up, what we are donating or not donating as the case may be. <br />Mayor Rinker commented for Council and the public's benefit. While I understand the <br />ostensible issue about appraisal, I think it's important to remember that land use and land <br />valuation are often complex and not static by any stretch of the imagination. People should <br />be aware that of the 5 acres involved, 4 of those acres are part of the original Costanzo <br />property.which was acquired through eminent domain for purposes of constructing a very <br />impressive Campus 3 by all accounts as we saw it and for preservation of parkland and for <br />overall public use. As we all know, Campus 3 did not happen. The challenge is to utilize <br />land to the public benefit. We ultimately still have to reconcile the ledger if you will with <br />Progressive as to transfer of remaining lands. We also gave up property in the Costanzo <br />lawsuit as part of that settlement. Progressive paid the cash. We paid the land. We also <br />paid the price, I think, politically by exercising eminent domain, something that we don't <br />take lightly. <br />Subsequent to the eminent domain settlement, we entered into a Development Agreerrient <br />and frankly subsequent to that, we had learned that the stream and wetland impacts on the <br />site were very very significant and what we learned in looking at that is that a large <br />measure of the stream and wetland area lies either in residentially-zoned land or is more <br />eastward on the site which in our estimation benefits the Village very well because it helps <br />` to aggregate that land for purposes of a Greenway Corridor. <br />We ended up obtaining a Licensing Agreement from Progressive along with a few other <br />owners and we installed a pathway through there. If any of you have used it, I think you <br />would agree it's a very rustic, very natural trail. We took care, we used a wetland scientist <br />from URS that we have used in the past, Tracy Engle, along with Tom Cappello and my <br />Labrador retriever. We traced out a trail where we knew we would traverse stream and <br />wetland area with minimal impact. We followed the delineation plan. <br />Fast forward to the present and the Library is basically shoehorned into a site, has been <br />looking for a way to expand, and the feedback that we got and we said this before and I <br />really was struck by this is that members of the Board are very interested in this site <br />because of the way in which we have looked at the natural terrain of that area. We have <br />every reason to expect that this site will be developed in the way that is as compliant with <br />and compatible with the natural setting because I think everyone on all sides views it as an <br />enhancement. <br />We still have to reconcile issues with Progressive but Progressive has indicated that it is <br />contributing to this donation of land. It is also offering up wetland credits that it has and I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.