My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
12/11/2000 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2000
>
12/11/2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2014 12:49:50 PM
Creation date
2/18/2014 9:50:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
12/11/2000
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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
COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 <br />Council Member Carlson moved to approve site plan and conditional use permit based on the findings <br />in the report and the following conditions: <br />1. Approval of the site plan is not an implied approval of signage. Any signs require a <br />sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. <br />2. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed. <br />3. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the <br />construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of the project. <br />Council Member Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Resolution No. 00 — 64, Adopt Assessment Roll, Twilight Acres ls` and 2nd Additions (3/5 Vote <br />Required), John Powell — Staff reviewed a summary of recent action ding this matter noting the <br />public hearing has been continued several times to gather addition, info tion <br />Resident Poll #2 was sent out to 32 residents in the neighbor od. io ` n responses have been <br />received (Council Members have received copies of each spy i e). used on the responses, the <br />residents are generally opposed to the amount of the as ess ents, the project. An "acceptable" <br />assessment amount would be limited to the increaser f their property that is consistent with <br />• State Statute. However, based on the appraisal r by t City, these assessments are <br />insufficient to cover the expected costs for the p ject a urrently proposed. <br />City staff has evaluated an alternative d at would provide sanitary sewer service only and <br />would minimize removal and restora . erv�ro dway. The estimated cost for this alternative <br />would be much lower; but the bene p,to `ach operty would also be lower than that provided by <br />installing both sanitary sewer a at- ain. However, the difference between the estimated benefit <br />and costs would be smaller t ,.ssho all with the original project. City staff recommends <br />pursuing the use of Co wunity D e opment Block Grant (CDBG) funds to cover the shortfall. <br />In order to conclude the pro' - ss elated to the original project, staff recommended the City Council <br />not adopt the proposed asses ent roll. However, to demonstrate the City's commitment to respond <br />to the resident's needs, staff is requesting the resolution also include directing City staff to do the <br />following: initiate a new project, focus only on sanitary sewer service, and pursue CDBG funding for <br />the expected assessment shortfall. Resolution No. 00 — 64 includes these items. <br />Council Member Reinert clarified that by adopting Resolution No. 00 — 64, the Council is not <br />adopting the assessment roll. <br />Mayor Bergeson advised a yea vote for the resolution is not adopting the assessment roll. The City <br />will continue to work on revisions of the project. <br />• Council Member Dahl moved to close the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Council Member O'Donnell <br />seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.