My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-03-09 CC Minutes - Approved
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2023
>
2016
>
2016-03-09 CC Minutes - Approved
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2016 1:00:36 PM
Creation date
4/4/2016 1:00:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 9, 2016 <br />st <br />Attorney Glaser stated that the agreements for both West Cedar Street and North 21 Avenue <br />contain the same language, provide for Council’s direction to have preauthorization and an <br />additional agreement prior to work being completed along with providing plans and cost <br />estimates. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding drainage and ponding, the costs associated with West Cedar Street, <br />and whether the City of Lino has agreed to the agreement. Engineer Statz stated that the West <br />Cedar Street agreement issues where due to the transition of Administrators and lack of <br />Council’s knowledge of the verbal agreements that were made, remaining disputes regarding <br />ponding and Staff working diligently to resolve these issues. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Love, seconded by Council Member Paar to Adopt Res. #16- <br />014 – Adopting First Amendment – Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Lino <br />st <br />Lakes and the City of Centerville Regarding 21 Avenue Street and Utility Improvements <br />and Maintenance as presented. All in favor. Motion carried. <br /> <br />2. Mr. Jeff Magdik, Home Detail, Inc. – 7261 Main Street <br /> <br />Administrator Ericson reviewed Council’s request of Mr. Magdik providing construction plans <br />with review of the City, financing and a timeframe for construction, stated that Mr. Magdik was <br />in attendance to discuss the items along with Attorney Glaser reviewing the status of his <br />requirements to date. <br /> <br />Attorney Glaser stated that he and Mr. Magdik have been working closely regarding the expired <br />purchase agreement associated with 7261 Main Street, construction plans and review along with <br />financing as required by Council. Attorney Glaser stated that Mr. Magdik has providing <br />financing for a construction loan and he has confirmed it, he is ready to close on the property <br />immediately and if Council desired to instruct him to amend the purchase agreement to include <br />their requirements along with outstanding money owed to the City he would. <br /> <br />Attorney Glaser also stated that a previously granted variance (setback deviation from <br />requirements) associated with the construction of a home on the property has expired, the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission ordered a public hearing to discuss granting the variance again <br />for its April 5, 2016 meeting. Attorney Glaser noted that Mr. Magdik needed to submit more <br />detailed plans and specifications to the Building Department than he has to date. Attorney <br />Glaser reported that the type of construction loan that Mr. Magdik has secured may guarantee <br />that if he fails to construct a home on the property within six (6) months and sell in three (3) <br />months or defaults on the loan the bank will own the property which gives him incentive to <br />commence construction and complete as soon as possible. Attorney Glaser stated that City may <br />also just desire to outright sell him the property without requirements for construction of a home. <br /> <br />Lengthy discussion ensued regarding Mr. Magdik’s prior agreements and failure to act on them, <br />outstanding in-lieu of property tax payment per the defaulted agreement of $2,800, expired <br />variance and fees, concern for the City to again own the parcel lacking a home’s construction as <br />Council’s original intention was that the lot with a home on it would generate property taxes. <br /> <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.