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
• <br />• <br />CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 4, 2000 <br />The City Administrator stated the Council needs to see a final signed copy of the letter <br />and vote on it Monday night. <br />Council Member Carlson inquired about the difference between using the funds for <br />infrastructure or acquiring the property. She stated the City has a bargaining tool if it has <br />funds for infrastructure. There are still serious questions that have to be answered. The <br />Council needs more information. <br />Council Member O'Donnell clarified that the City is taking a "but/for" position. He <br />stated the project needs to make economic sense to everyone involved without the $1.5 <br />million. If the funding is received, it should benefit everyone in the City. <br />Council Member Reinert asked if staff has indicated that the plan will not happen without <br />the $1.5 million. Staff advised the plan would not happen today without the funding. <br />The plan would take some time to implement. Timing is an issue„a the City needs to <br />be competitive. <br />Council Member Dahl asked if staff has indicated that th <br />number of units per acre. Staff advised the committee„ co <br />City will receive fewer points for lower density. Tie C <br />design standards regarding density. <br />Mrs. Elise Tagg, property owner, stated the <br />stated she disagrees that the funding sh. d <br />landowners. She stated she is givin <br />ingent on a certain <br />umber of issues. The <br />ds to focus on the <br />ould make economic sense. She <br />Benefit the developers and <br />e City. <br />Council Member O'Donnell cl. - hat ' e plan needs to make economic sense without <br />the $1.5 million in funding. <br />Council Member Rei ert refe ,mod o a past proposal regarding the Livable Communities <br />Program noting the hoY i s were lower. Staff advised negotiations with the <br />developer will take pia ': 'reg ding the number of housing units. <br />Council Member Reinert stated the process started with half as many units as the current <br />plan has. Developers have indicated that 16 -18 units per acre will work. Staff advised <br />the developer has indicated those numbers will work conceptually. <br />Council Member Reinert stated the Council needs good accurate information. Staff <br />advised they are making assumptions and the plan is conceptual. <br />Council clarified that the revisions in the plan should included 16 -18 units per acre. <br />The Finance Director came forward and stated he will answer any questions that the <br />Council has. He stated that so far, he has not heard any financial questions. He stated the <br />City can explore financial implications when the City knows which direction it will take. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.