Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT <br />ADVISORY COMMITTEE <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />DATE: Thursday, August 2, 2007 <br />MEMBERS <br />PRESENT: J.Milbauer, J. Kuschke, M.C. Pap, M. Keller, K. Corson, K. Lodico, B. Combs <br />MEMBERS <br />ABSENT: J. Schwartz, J. Helgemoe <br /> <br /> OTHERS <br />PRESENT: M. Divine <br /> <br />GENERAL/MINUTES <br />Minutes of June 7, 2007 were approved with one change <br /> <br />ANDERSON BUILDERS UPDATE <br />A member asked about the past meeting’s discussion regarding the potential for an abortion <br />clinic in the Anderson development. Ms. Divine said EDAC members at the previous meeting <br />wanted assurance that the proposed clinic would not be for that purpose. The city council also <br />brought it up. The developer agreed to include that in the list of restricted uses on the city site. <br /> <br />Ms. Divine gave an update on council action regarding the Anderson proposal. The proposal <br />went to the council as two separate actions; the first reading of the land sale, which was <br />approved, but the second action to approve an agreement that the city would move ahead with a <br />feasibility study and negotiate a purchase agreement for the ROW for the new 77th Street, was <br />tabled. At the next meeting, two members voted against both actions. Councilmember Reinert <br />did not want two separate agreements; he didn’t want the land sale to move forward until the <br />feasibility study was complete. <br /> <br />The developer had requested that the second phase of the development be handled separately for <br />a number of reasons, including his timeline that required approvals and construction beginning in <br />2007. Waiting for the feasibility study would require renegotiating all of phase 2 to completion <br />before beginning phase 1. He was likely to lose his major tenant if that occurred. His request was <br />that the city and the developer move ahead in good faith, with his guarantee that he had control <br />of the parcels needed for the road realignment, and with a maximum price set for the city’s <br />purchase of the ROW. <br /> <br />Ms. Kuschke questioned the importance of the realigned road. Benefits include a four-way <br />signalized intersection leading into the Target development, making the pads on the west side of <br />Lake Drive more developable for commercial, and providing an opportunity to a backage road to <br />serve future commercial rather than having separate driveways off Lake Drive. <br /> <br /> 1