1995 11-20 CC MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF GEM LAKE November, 1995 The November meeting of the City Council of the City of Gem Lake was called to order on Monday, 20 November 1995, at 7:12 p.m. in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Council Members Kunin, Birkebak and Nielsen, Treasurer Nordstrom, Mr. Gardner, and Clerk Magnuson were pres- ent. Also present was Mr. Bob Cory. Following Mayor Emeott's request for additions, deletions or corrections of minutes distributed to the Council and questions thereto, the minutes of the 16 October 1995 City Council Meeting were, upon motion duly made (Nielsen) and seconded (Kunin), unanimously approved as presented. Following Mayor Emeott's request for additions, deletions or corrections to the Agenda as distributed to the Council, the Agenda for 20 November 1995 was, upon motion duly made (Kunin) and seconded (Nielsen), unanimously approved as presented. The report of the Planning Commission was then accepted as presented. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission and pending the updating Gem Lake's Comprehensive Municipal Plan, no action was taken regarding the matter of participation in the Minnesota Livable Communities Act due to lack of a motion. Mr. Kirkwold's response to Mr. Magnuson's inquiry was then presented and will be retained as part of the County Roadway Turn backs file. The Community Survey was reviewed with no action taken. Mr. Magnuson then reported on the status of the Hansen/Boyer prosecution matter. The report of the Recycling Committee was then presented. Upon motion duly made (Nielsen) and seconded (Kunin), Resolution No. 95-16, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" was unanimously passed empowering the City Clerk to apply for Score Funding. Magnuson then reported that Dan and Mary Janssen on Little fox Lane report no patching was completed in front of their home when other similar work was performed. Mr. Magnuson then reported on the need to install a guard rail on Goose Lake Road as they have had yet another incident involving a car leaving the road and traveling through their property. Mr. Magnuson then presented a request from Vadnais Heights to participate in an SEH study of traffic controls at LaBore Road and County E which included costs in excess of $4,000 and a request for 50% Gem Lake participation. The request was denied in it's current form for the following reasons: 1) The request addresses only a spot problem which is part of a much larger problem; 2) This problem should be addressed as part of the I-35E Corridor Study; 3) Gem Lake owns 1 of 4 corners at the intersection constituting only 25% of the intersection, not 50% as requested; 4) Significant increases in traffic along both roads is primarily the result of aggressive development in surrounding communities and not in Gem Lake; 1