My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12-12-2022 EDA Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
Economic Development Authority (EDA)
>
Packets
>
2022
>
Searchable Packets
>
12-12-2022 EDA Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/12/2022 4:45:22 PM
Creation date
12/12/2022 4:41:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EDA
EDA Document Type
EDA Packet
Meeting Date
12/12/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
EDA MINUTES <br />DRAFT <br /> <br /> <br /> 1 <br />DATE : December 5, 2022 1 <br />TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m. 2 <br />TIME ENDED : 6:00 p.m. 3 <br />MEMBERS PRESENT : EDA Members Lyden, Stoesz, Cavegn, 4 <br />Ruhland 5 <br />MEMBERS ABSENT : EDA Member Rafferty 6 <br />OTHERS PRESENT : Community Development Director 7 <br />Michael Grochala; City Administrator 8 <br />Sarah Cotton; City Clerk Julie Bartell 9 <br /> 10 <br />The work session meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by EDA President Ruhland. 11 <br /> 12 <br />ACTION ITEM 13 <br /> 14 <br />3A) Discuss Amendment to Purchase and Development Agreement with Silver 15 <br />Creek Equity, LLC. , Lots 1-3, Outlot B & C, The Village No. 4- Community 16 <br />Development Director Grochala recalled the council’s last discussion of this topic. As 17 <br />background he noted that the existing agreement requires development of a commercial 18 <br />element prior to or concurrent with multi-family. The developer had asked to move the 19 <br />commercial requirement forward and eventually cap that clause if commercial doesn’t 20 <br />come forward. In consideration of the council’s discussion, staff is presenting three 21 <br />options to move forward – Option one is no change to the purchase agreement (developer 22 <br />at this point not willing to move forward with this option); Option two would amend the 23 <br />purchase agreement to allow the multi-family building to proceed without prior or 24 <br />concurrent construction of retail/restaurant building; Option 3 would amend the purchase 25 <br />agreement to allow for extensions to the due diligence period with additional, partially 26 <br />non-refundable, earnest money deposits. 27 <br /> 28 <br />The developer was present and responded. He remarked that Option 3 would be a good 29 <br />path for everyone. It allows him to move toward development (installing sign); without 30 <br />that type of movement he doesn’t think they will move ahead. He really doesn’t have 31 <br />interest in moving ahead without the retail. 32 <br /> 33 <br />EDA Member Stoesz asked if it’s possible to extend the January 6th date and Mr. 34 <br />Grochala said an extension is actually what is being discussed. 35 <br /> 36 <br />EDA Member Cavegn confirmed that Option 3 means that nothing happens right now. If 37 <br />there isn’t someone for commercial in two years, nothing happens. 38 <br /> 39 <br />EDA Member Lyden noted that other Councilmembers have stated and he is in agreement 40 <br />that the retail needs to be there. If the commercial doesn’t come, and that isn’t anyone’s 41 <br />fault, he’d rather see the space as community open space than simply adding housing 42 <br />units in place. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.