My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1995 05-23 PC MINUTES
GemLake
>
PLANNING
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
PACKETS
>
1990 - 1999
>
1995
>
1995 05-23 PC MINUTES
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2026 8:08:41 AM
Creation date
7/20/2026 8:08:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Code
ADM 00500
Document
PC PACKETS
Destruction
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
May 23, 1995 <br />Paul R. Emeott, Mayor <br />3960 Scheuneman Rd. <br />Gem Lake, Mn 55110 <br />Dear Paul: <br />The Gem Lake Planning Commission met Tuesday, May 9, 1995, <br />7:30 PM, at Tousley Ford. Present were Gardner, Docken, Nielsen, <br />and Emeott. The notice of the meeting was published in the White <br />Bear Press on May 3. <br />Mr. Nielsen reported the status of the LaBore Road <br />extension, having recently attended a meeting in Vadnais Heights <br />on the subject. The road is still in the planning stage, and <br />tentatively calls for a parkway -type road through White Bear <br />Township with 25 mph curves. There will be some minor destruc- <br />tion of wetland. The question of semaphores is unclear. He also <br />indicated that VH intends to complete the extension of Wolters <br />Blvd. to Hwy 61, with the addition of a semaphore at that inter- <br />section. That will, presumably, move Some truck traffic off "Ell. <br />We then turned to the issue of updating the Comprehensive <br />Plan, which was most recently drawn in 1978. Although the <br />primary goals of the City have not changed significantly in 17 <br />years, the consensus was to hire a planner and update the <br />document. Gardner will contact Barton-Aschman (the original <br />consultant) and SEH and report to the Commission on June 12. The <br />primary concern regarding revision is the continued, and accele- <br />rating, encroachment of commercial and dense residential devel- <br />opment by our neighboring communities. we feel that there are <br />several areas of concern or potential to be considered: <br />1. the future development of County Road "Ell: how do we defend <br />our current residential zoning? can we somehow protect the land- <br />scape border on our side from destruction, and improve/intensify <br />the border in VH? do we need to think about providing some form <br />of residential development, other than traditional single-family, <br />with or without a change in allowed density? what is the plan for <br />developing a bike trail? how do these concerns apply to other <br />parts of the community? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.