My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11-22-2021 Council Work Session Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2021
>
11-22-2021 Council Work Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/17/2021 7:21:58 PM
Creation date
12/17/2021 10:30:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/22/2021
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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 /> APPROVED <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Councilmember Lyden said he had reservations about the name but when he learned <br /> 47 about the focus to the community and the narrower audience,he sees it would work. Mr. <br /> 48 Morgan remarked that it's an opportunity to educate. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Mayor Rafferty said he can see the logo working well, understanding that there will be <br /> 51 people who like or dislike it throughout the process. <br /> 52 <br /> 53 Director DeGardner remarked that if other definitions aren't lost in the campaign to <br /> 54 educate about this facility,then the City isn't doing the job. Staff is looking for <br /> 55 something unique but if the council wants "Lino Lakes Activity Center"that is fine <br /> 56 because staff needs to move ahead with the process. <br /> 57 <br /> 58 Councilmember Stoesz asked for clarification of including the word"the"as that could <br /> 59 cause confusion when searching or identifying the facility. The consultants said they <br /> 60 support the word"the"as it denotes it as a place. <br /> 61 <br /> 62 Mayor Rafferty spoke in favor of"The Rookery"name. He can envision the name in <br /> 63 lights and that it would be quite nice. <br /> 64 <br /> 65 There is an item on the agenda for action related to this subject. Councilmember Lyden <br /> 66 remarked that it would be great if everyone on the council supports moving forward. <br /> 67 <br /> 68 Based on a council approval, staff would move forward in development of the logo and <br /> 69 bring forward more information on logo/branding and other steps moving toward <br /> 70 opening. <br /> 71 2. Double Garage Interpretation—City Planner Larsen explained that the council <br /> 72 requested a discussion of this subject. Ms. Larsen reviewed the history of a building <br /> 73 request involving a double garage door. A building permit was denied in that case <br /> 74 because it didn't meet staff's interpretation of a"double garage". City code requires a <br /> 75 double garage and includes a definition of a garage but no definition of double garage. <br /> 76 She explained staff s developed definition(that would allow for two cars to enter and <br /> 77 exit). Staff is interested in understanding the council's definition. A definition would, of <br /> 78 course, apply to all properties in the city and not just the property that brings this question <br /> 79 forward. Questions to the council are outlined in the staff report. <br /> 80 <br /> 81 Councilmember Cavegn remarked that, if the council wishes, adding language defining a <br /> 82 double garage would be appropriate. However the situation that brings this up should be <br /> 83 judged on current language, not what the language becomes. <br /> 84 <br /> 85 Councilmember Lyden said he understands the discussion about impact on <br /> 86 neighborhoods. This location is an older neighborhood. The ten foot door doesn't <br /> 87 bother him in this location. He is open to allowing people to use their garage property the <br /> 88 way they see fit. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.