My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/12/1995 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
1995
>
06/12/1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2017 10:52:23 AM
Creation date
7/7/2017 1:34:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/12/1995
Council Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
214
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
CLOSED CITY COUNCIL SESSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 <br />should have been the first question resolved. The City Planner <br />was trying to get several things done at once, however, the <br />fundamental question was never asked. Mr. Miller explained that <br />he did not know of any reason for a denial and his recommendation <br />was for approval. Also, there was never anything bad written <br />about the project. <br />Mr. Radio described Mr. Miller's deposition noting that he <br />expounded on many things and took every opportunity to "slam" the <br />City. Many of the questions directed to Mr. Miller should have <br />been factually answered, however his answers were embellished. <br />Mr. Radio explained a motion for summary judgement will probably <br />be filed. If Mr. Miller is allowed to testify before a jury, he <br />could be a problem. In essence, the City Planner is on the <br />"other side". <br />Mayor Reinert said he felt that no one should be able to come in <br />and dictate to the City. He said to allow this development would <br />be "leap frog" development. Mayor Reinert also noted that many <br />things have changed through the course of time. The entire <br />process was disjointed. Mr. Radio said that Mr. Birch's argument <br />will be, why didn't the City Council tell me up front. Why <br />didn't you bring up these issues at the regular City Council <br />meeting when the project was denied. He noted that the very <br />first adverse vote was nine (9) months after he brought in his <br />plan. <br />The December 1991 City Council meeting was discussed. Mayor <br />Reinert noted that the "air" was not conducive to harmony. To <br />many things were being "jammed" through. <br />Council Member Bergeson noted that the present proposal is not <br />much different than what was previously proposed. Mr. Radio said <br />that their position will be that 85 units (the original proposal) <br />should been constructed by now and they will want interest on <br />their losses. Mayor Reinert asked if they have to prove there <br />was a market for this type of housing. Mr. Radio said that this <br />will be part of the City's defense. <br />Council Member Bergeson asked if there was a proposal for a <br />number of units between 85 and 240. Mr. Radio explained that Mr. <br />Brixius had estimated approximately 154 units could be developed <br />and still adhere to DNR and CORP guidelines. <br />Mayor Reinert noted that a mix of housing might be saleable. He <br />noted that at one time Mr. Art Hawkins and his daughter had <br />agreed to this proposal. Mr. Schumacher explained that this had <br />been relayed to Mr. Birch's financial advisor, however, no <br />PAGE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.