My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006 07-26 CC PACKET
GemLake
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
PACKETS
>
2000 - 2009
>
2006
>
2006 07-26 CC PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2026 8:38:03 AM
Creation date
7/20/2026 8:35:41 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.
/
60
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, including churches and <br />synagogues. <br />44. Ordinance No. 40 was amended in March 2006.55 The section of <br />Ordinance 40 relating to the land zoned LDB was replaced with new language 56 <br />Although the Comprehensive Plan for Gem Lake specifically suggests the use of <br />the Subject Property to be for `office park" development or "life <br />cycle/condominium type residential uses"57, Ordinance 40 does not permit the <br />use of the Subject Property for residential development other than that meeting <br />the R-2 (1 unit per acre) zoning.58 <br />45. As part of its process in developing the Comprehensive Plan for <br />Gem Lake, the city undertook a survey of its residents 59 The response to the <br />survey shows that the citizens of the city oppose by over 97 percent, any change <br />to the low -density residential, "rustic" environment. The survey also shows that <br />87 percent of the responders feel that commercial development should be <br />contained and over 91 percent do not favor a change to the low -profile city <br />government providing only essential services. <br />46. The testimony of several developers with experience in working <br />with metro area municipalities established that Gem Lake has a reputation for <br />being difficult to work with regarding development.60 This reputation is <br />corroborated by actions of the mayor and the City Council such as withholding <br />information regarding public meetings from citizens seeking zoning changes ,6 <br />and passing zoning ordinances that allow churches and synagogues to be built <br />but not used on weekends.62 <br />47. The City Administrator of Vadnais Heights believes that the <br />possible permitted land uses for the Subject Property if annexed to Vadnais <br />Heights would not be dissimilar to the uses allowed by the Gem Lake LDB zoning <br />designation.sa <br />Metropolitan Council <br />48. The Metropolitan Council's current role is to review and comment <br />on plans, addressing each plan's compatibility and conformity with regional plans <br />and systems, with an eye toward possible adverse impacts on the regional <br />54 Id. <br />55 Ex. 24, Test. of P. Emeott. <br />56 Ex. 24. <br />57 Ex. 45, sec. 5.3.4, pars C. <br />5a Ex. 24. <br />59 Ex.45, App. A. <br />60 Testimony of R. McNulty, Test. of Jason Thomas, Test. of Bryan Hansen. <br />6' Ex A4, Test. of B. Hansen,Tr. Tape 4 at 805. <br />62 Ex.15. <br />J 63 Test. of G. Urban, Tape 6 at 600, Tape 7 at 3440. <br />L <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.