My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006 03-20 CC PACKET
GemLake
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
PACKETS
>
2000 - 2009
>
2006
>
2006 03-20 CC PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2026 8:29:27 AM
Creation date
7/20/2026 8:21:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Code
ADM 00500
Document
CC PACKET
Destruction
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
fear the appearance of a commercial operation. There being nothing to consider, we determined <br />to wait until Mr. Maculus comes in with a specific proposal before we take further action. <br />3. Code Revisions and Hillary Farm. We asked Jim McNulty to present his comments to the <br />code revisions we have been discussing, but he said he had little to add to the three letters that <br />had been sent to us by: <br />• Rick Rosow, his attorney (requesting no further action on the zoning code <br />revisions until discussions between the McNulty team and the city are concluded <br />re fleshing out the procedures and standards for the site review process under the <br />Developer's Agreement) <br />• Bryan Harjes, his landscape architect (objecting to treating lake facades as a front <br />elevation; recommending use of IRC height measurement techniques using <br />"average" (sic) grade plane and roof heights; questioning need for <br />Council/Commission review/approval of site plan review; questions re Site Plan <br />Review Committee; questioning open space requirement; resisting anything but <br />explicit, objective review criteria) <br />Anderson Engineering (approved stormwater plan should control; wetland buffers <br />and setbacks should not be increased; artificial walkouts should be allowed) <br />Mr. Harjes and Mr. McNulty stated that they did not want to be party to any process that <br />involved subjective review. They insisted that the City should adopt objective criteria. <br />The Chairman expressed surprise and disappointment that the McNulty team did not <br />seem to want to cooperate with the effort being led by Mr. Rafferty to develop a cooperative site <br />review process that involves consideration of context, as well as rote numbers in any site/design <br />review. He described the City's historical desire to avoid a listing of detailed design criteria as <br />being too restrictive and possibly arbitrary. He expressed hope that the McNulty team would <br />continue to work with Messrs. Rafferty and Emeott and respond in a substantive and positive <br />way to the ideas that Mr. Rafferty had presented. He was disappointed that they had not used <br />this meeting to present such a response. <br />Due to the hour the meeting was adjourned and everyone was urged to keep working <br />toward a solution. In the meantime Messrs. Hoeschler and Emeott will review the Sun Fish Lake <br />ordinances for direction. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.