Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1995 <br /> ago. The Statute is call a "common interest community" . This is <br /> either a condominium or cooperative development. A piece of <br /> property is not platted into individual lots because there is no <br /> separate ownership of land. The land is owned in common <br /> ownership. The space above the land is divided similar to an <br /> apartment project. <br /> Mr. Hawkins originally thought that this was a subdivision and <br /> therefore the subdivision ordinances should apply. It was <br /> determined that the proposal was not a subdivision or a townhouse <br /> plat. A meeting was held with Mr. Hawkins, the developer, the <br /> developers attorney and staff. A determination was made that <br /> since the developer is willing to comply with all the regulations <br /> of the subdivision ordinance, the City would process the proposal <br /> like a subdivision and get all the things that the City would get <br /> had it in fact been a subdivision. This is the first time a <br /> condominium or "common interest community" site plan has been <br /> presented to the City. This proposal has prompted staff to <br /> review the subdivision ordinance and to make sure that when <br /> another such proposal is presented, the proposal will be governed <br /> by the subdivisions regulations. Mr. Hawkins explained that it <br /> is very unusual for this type of development to be proposed in <br /> areas this far from the inner city. Mr. Brixius explained that <br /> this proposal would not be unique to an R-4 District. It could <br /> also be presented to R-2 and lesser density districts . <br /> Council Member Bergeson expressed concern regarding a public <br /> trail that goes to a private dock. This could create a "public <br /> nuisance" and invite trespassing. This concern was addressed by <br /> the Park Board . There was a proposal to place a gate at the dock <br /> entrance, however the consensus was that gating the dock would <br /> pose more of a problem than placing "no trespassing" signs. <br /> There was discussion about the dock and how it could be reserved <br /> for the condominiums owners only. Staff and the City Council <br /> agreed that signage appeared to be the best method of letting the <br /> general public know that the dock was private property and not <br /> for public use . <br /> Mayor Reinert said if the Lino Lakes City Code does not address <br /> condominium development then the City does not have a condominium <br /> provision. Mr . Brixius said that this is correct . However, if <br /> this proposal were all rental properties , regardless of who owned <br /> the rental units, the Lino Lakes ordinances does allow for the <br /> property to remain as a single parcel and one owner to hold and <br /> put more than one principal unit on the lot. The only thing that <br /> this developer is doing differently with this property is <br /> promoting owner occupancy of the individual units. Under the <br /> Lino Lakes ordinances, the owner of this property could build <br /> these same units and make them all rental . The City would not <br /> PAGE 16 <br />