My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07-10-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
07-10-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 1:00:34 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 12:13:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
07/10/2017
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
324
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 SPECIAL WORK SESSION June 26, 2017 <br />DRAFT <br /> 2 <br /> 45 <br />A Lennar representative said they are trying to stick with much of the original plan. 46 <br /> 47 <br />Mayor Reinert suggested that it seems as if fewer homes will back up to water or open 48 <br />space also. Community Development Director Grochala remarked that he thinks it’s 49 <br />about the same as proposed by Mattamy. 50 <br /> 51 <br />Council Member Rafferty asked if the papers are signed on Lennar’s ownership of the 52 <br />property. They responded that there is a contract in place but there is due diligence in 53 <br />working with the City and the watershed. They are interested in being the master 54 <br />developer for the whole site. 55 <br /> 56 <br />Mayor Reinert remarked on amenities that seem to be missing – the community center, 57 <br />the entryway, etc. 58 <br /> 59 <br />Council Member Rafferty remarked that the city has experienced some issues in the past 60 <br />with associations that aren’t real strong and he asks that the developer watch that. He is 61 <br />also concerned that the club house element should be done well. Mr. Jablonski explained 62 <br />that Lennar has many developments that include amenities like clubhouses and when they 63 <br />come in and say it will be included, they are good for their word. 64 <br /> 65 <br />Mayor Reinert added that, as this development proposal sits right now, he wouldn’t vote 66 <br />for it. Some lot sizes are an issue for him as well as an HOA amenity undefined. The 67 <br />look and feel of the entire development isn’t the same. 68 <br /> 69 <br />Council Member Manthey remarked that a crown jewel of the previous development was 70 <br />inclusion of a park that was to be attached to the club house element and that would be 71 <br />done early. 72 <br /> 73 <br />Council Member Manthey said he likes the multiple product. He is seeing a trail that 74 <br />isn’t complete that was included in the original plans and staff remarked that they will 75 <br />work to have connections included. 76 <br /> 77 <br />Mr. Jablonski remarked that he anticipates a first phase of the project that would be small, 78 <br />to get things rolling quickly. If more people are living in the development when an HOA 79 <br />amenity is developed, there are more people to choose that amenity and actually fund that 80 <br />element and in their experience that works best. 81 <br /> 82 <br />Council Member Rafferty remarked that he is glad to see the loss of the 40 foot lots but 83 <br />concerned about the larger lots being left out. 84 <br /> 85 <br />Mayor Reinert said that council members will look over the information and pose 86 <br />questions to staff as necessary. Staff will update the council at the next work session. 87 <br /> 88 <br />The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 89
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.