My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12-13-2021 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
Searchable Packets
>
12-13-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2024 3:10:26 PM
Creation date
12/14/2021 12:40:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
12/13/2021
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.
/
206
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 COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 2 <br /> 45 <br />Councilmember Lyden said he had reservations about the name but when he learned 46 <br />about the focus to the community and the narrower audience, he sees it would work. Mr. 47 <br />Morgan remarked that it’s an opportunity to educate. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Mayor Rafferty said he can see the logo working well, understanding that there will be 50 <br />people who like or dislike it throughout the process. 51 <br /> 52 <br />Director DeGardner remarked that if other definitions aren’t lost in the campaign to 53 <br />educate about this facility, then the City isn’t doing the job. Staff is looking for 54 <br />something unique but if the council wants “Lino Lakes Activity Center” that is fine 55 <br />because staff needs to move ahead with the process. 56 <br /> 57 <br />Councilmember Stoesz asked for clarification of including the word “the” as that could 58 <br />cause confusion when searching or identifying the facility. The consultants said they 59 <br />support the word “the” as it denotes it as a place. 60 <br /> 61 <br />Mayor Rafferty spoke in favor of “The Rookery” name. He can envision the name in 62 <br />lights and that it would be quite nice. 63 <br /> 64 <br />There is an item on the agenda for action related to this subject. Councilmember Lyden 65 <br />remarked that it would be great if everyone on the council supports moving forward. 66 <br /> 67 <br />Based on a council approval, staff would move forward in development of the logo and 68 <br />bring forward more information on logo/branding and other steps moving toward 69 <br />opening. 70 <br />2. Double Garage Interpretation – City Planner Larsen explained that the council 71 <br />requested a discussion of this subject. Ms. Larsen reviewed the history of a building 72 <br />request involving a double garage door. A building permit was denied in that case 73 <br />because it didn’t meet staff’s interpretation of a “double garage”. City code requires a 74 <br />double garage and includes a definition of a garage but no definition of double garage. 75 <br />She explained staff’s developed definition (that would allow for two cars to enter and 76 <br />exit). Staff is interested in understanding the council’s definition. A definition would, of 77 <br />course, apply to all properties in the city and not just the property that brings this question 78 <br />forward. Questions to the council are outlined in the staff report. 79 <br /> 80 <br />Councilmember Cavegn remarked that, if the council wishes, adding language defining a 81 <br />double garage would be appropriate. However the situation that brings this up should be 82 <br />judged on current language, not what the language becomes. 83 <br /> 84 <br />Councilmember Lyden said he understands the discussion about impact on 85 <br />neighborhoods. This location is an older neighborhood. The ten foot door doesn’t 86 <br />bother him in this location. He is open to allowing people to use their garage property the 87 <br />way they see fit. 88
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.