2007 08-21 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY OF GEM LAKE, MN 4707 Hwy 61 # 253 _ z— White Bear Lake, MN 55110-3227 _ z- Telephone 651-747-2790 IL/_, f Planning Commission Minutes, 8-7-2007 Planning Commission Chair Jim Lindner opened the June meeting at 7:OOPM. Commissioners Lindner, Craig Rafferty, and alternate member Beth Herzog were present. Also present were Councilwoman Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Bob Uzpen, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, Mr. and Mrs. Cammack, Dick Arcand, Todd Kirschammer, Jack Hoeschler, Steve Herzog, and Mayor Paul Emeott. Comprehensive Plan The purpose of tonight's meeting was to test the waters on some of the more volatile issues. We briefly discussed land use and the possibility of Jim McNulty asking the city for rezoning or re -platting a portion of Hillary Far. But no formal discussions or applications have occurred. Then the conversation centered on Parks and Trails. Nearly everyone present is not sold on the need for a city park. If we did agree on a potential location, we learned the land will likely not be available. However, a trail network does appear to have wide popular appeal, especially if it incorporates existing roadways such as Goose Lake Road, Otter Lake Road, Scheuneman Road, and LaBore Road. The big challenge is linking east and west along County Road E, which currently has no bike path along the north side. This section is dominated by the Hansen parcels, and it is likely any development of these parcels would give the City the opportunity to require park dedication land which could be used as the linking trail. This would keep bicycle traffic off of County Road E and possibly include some berming and vegetative buffers. Cyclists could proceed to Big Fox Road and reconnect to LaBore via Little Fox Lane. The other challenging portion of the "Gem Lake Circuit" would be Highway 61 near Tousley Ford. Our Comprehensive Plan should state something that would have the City cooperate with the county for some type of bike path in the right-of- way that would allow cyclists to avoid Highway 61 on their journey to the Hansen parcels and points beyond. Discussions of private trails along easements or property lines amount to agreements between individuals and are not to be considered part of a formal trails network, and will NOT be included in the Comprehensive Plan. We isct` t� M in rie ark Putman's planning presentation from the previous nl ght's City Council workshop. The Tom Hansen parcel currently zoned for R1 may be considered for LDB with corresponding PUD, but for now it is likely best to leave it as is. For the comprehensive plan, the LDB concept may be considered for a future goal. Thg/ -wording of such a goal should give the City maximum flexibility as it negotiate lra prospec -i-v"ev er so we mi-lir offer-inseFa+ves-i goa s s cu h as our circuitous bicycle trail route. Along these lines we may want to build flexibility into our plan for Bryan Hansen's LDB parcel that may provide for medium density housing per the Metropolitan Council's definition of medium density housing. Again, the key word is flexibility with the intent to offer incentives for achieving other goals. Look for us on the World Wide Web at gemlakemn.org