My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06-27-2016 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2016
>
06-27-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2018 3:50:45 PM
Creation date
6/29/2016 9:57:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/27/2016
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.
/
185
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 June 6, 2016 <br />DRAFT <br /> 3 <br /> 91 <br />Mr. Salehi noted that he has already spent $3,000 in attorney fees. Further he has paid 92 <br />the value for the building in 2010 and now he is losing money. 93 <br /> 94 <br />Council Member Rafferty said he is inclined to waive only the fees. He sees there have 95 <br />been improvements to the property and the $6300 assessment should stand. 96 <br /> 97 <br />The council discussed the schedule of when the assessment actually appeared against the 98 <br />property. Originally, the city wasn’t aware of the sale and was still dealing with the 99 <br />previous owner. 100 <br /> 101 <br />Community Development Director Grochala noted a process that would allow the costs to 102 <br />be reassessed to the property and spread over five years for payment. 103 <br /> 104 <br />Mayor Reinert remarked that the council is attempting to work this out in a fair and 105 <br />reasonable way for Mr. Salehi and for the taxpayers. He suggests that Mr. Salehi let the 106 <br />city know when he has made a decision on the offer to settle the matter. 107 <br /> 108 <br />4. Watermark – Mattamy Homes – City Planner Larsen presented an update on the 109 <br />proposed development (presentation on file). Actions for the council are included on the 110 <br />next council agenda. 111 <br /> 112 <br />The mayor asked the council bring forward any concerns: 113 <br /> 114 <br />- Don’t see anything problematic; the developer has responded to concerns as they 115 <br />come up; 116 <br />- Don’t like townhomes; would like to see larger lots; homes without three-car 117 <br />garages are not desirable; 118 <br />- Pricing information was requested (low to high); current projects run mid-200’s to 119 <br />$500,000 - $600,000; 120 <br />- What will the home owner association (HOA) include (staff explained the 121 <br />elements of the master HOA; the townhomes will have additional HOA and each 122 <br />neighborhood will probably have sub HOAs; much will be market driven); the developer 123 <br />representative explained that an HOA is actually set up after a development occurs; 124 <br />- Traffic is a concern for the mayor – there will be a lot of cars using 20th Avenue 125 <br />and he wonders about moving that to a four-lane; it will be very busy at certain times. 126 <br />Staff explained that traffic counts don’t warrant a four-lane roadway based on study; 127 <br />- The berm and screening was mentioned by the mayor, making sure that is 128 <br />adequate especially adjacent to interstate; 129 <br />- The mayor asked about the concept that the project would be divided between 130 <br />three different school districts and is there a way to deal with that. The developer 131 <br />representative explained that they are already looking at the prospect of adjusting lines 132 <br />but there is little likelihood of achieving one school district for the whole area. A council 133 <br />member noted that open enrollment is an option when considering schools; 134
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.