06/26/1995 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

12? COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1995 ago. The Statute is call a "common interest community ". This is either a condominium or cooperative development. A piece of property is not platted into individual lots because there is no separate ownership of land. The land is owned in common ownership. The space above the land is divided similar to an apartment project. Mr. Hawkins originally thought that this was a subdivision and therefore the subdivision ordinances should apply. It was determined that the proposal was not a subdivision or a townhouse plat. A meeting was held with Mr. Hawkins, the developer, the developers attorney and staff. A determination was made that since the developer is willing to comply with all the regulations of the subdivision ordinance, the City would process the proposal like a subdivision and get all the things that the City would get had it in fact been a subdivision. This is the first time a condominium or "common interest community" site plan has been presented to the City. This proposal has prompted staff to review the subdivision ordinance and to make sure that when another such proposal is presented, the proposal will be governed by the subdivisions regulations. Mr. Hawkins explained that it is very unusual for this type of development to be proposed in areas this far from the inner city. Mr. Brixius explained that this proposal would not be unique to an R -4 District. It could also be presented to R -2 and lesser density districts. Council Member Bergeson expressed concern regarding a public trail that goes to a private dock. This could create a "public nuisance" and invite trespassing. This concern was addressed by the Park Board. There was a proposal to place a gate at the dock entrance, however the consensus was that gating the dock would pose more of a problem than placing "no trespassing" signs. There was discussion about the dock and how it could be reserved for the condominiums owners only. Staff and the City Council agreed that signage appeared to be the best method of letting the general public know that the dock was private property and not for public use. Mayor Reinert said if the Lino Lakes City Code does not address condominium development then the City does not have a condominium provision. Mr. Brixius said that this is correct. However, if this proposal were all rental properties, regardless of who owned the rental units, the Lino Lakes ordinances does allow for the property to remain as a single parcel and one owner to hold and put more than one principal unit on the lot. The only thing that this developer is doing differently with this property is promoting owner occupancy of the individual units. Under the Lino Lakes ordinances, the owner of this property could build these same units and make them all rental. The City would not PAGE 16 1 1 1