Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 07-24 CC MINUTESPublic Meeting Minutes Date: Subject: Location: DFA Project No.: Matter' Those Present 7/20/2006 Public Informational Meeting for the Hansen Parcels Gem Lake, MN 06-190 7/20/2006 Public Meeting Minutes Firm/Address Phone E-mail Tom Whitlock (presenter) Chuck Evens (recorder) Mark Sweet (Co -Chairs EDC) Hutch Schilling (Co -Chairs EDC) Jason Thomas (Developer) Hartford Group, Inc. Patty Shade Kelly Barnett Cheryl Kirchhoff Ken Kirchhoff Gerald A. McKinzie Hilary Magnuson Donna & Curt Anderson Kathleen Robins Constance & Dan Kunin r)evendar Singh ,like Garrett Tony Scornavacco David & Leslie Gardner Tom Rasmussen Robert Uzpen Kimberly Anderson-Uzpen Mark Nolan Mike Brass Jim Kohler Chrissie & Huck Cammack Fritz Magnuson Alien Bocicka Bret Gapp Gretchen Swomley Damon Farber Associates Damon Farber Associates (612) 332-7522 (612) 332-7522 (612) 720-9800 (651) 286-1037 (952) 838-2417 7866 Alden Way, Fridley 4228 Bridgewood Terrace, Vadnais Heights 55110 3744 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 3744 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 1284 E. Co. Rd. E, Vadnais Heights 55110 1369 Co. Rd. EE, Gem Lake 55110 1300 E Co. Rd. E, Vadnais Heights 55110 1370 Goose Lake Road, Gem Lake 55110 1270 Goose Lake Road, Gem Lake 55110 1581 East Co. Rd. E, Gem Lake 55110 1385 East Co. Rd. E, Gem Lake 55110 1385 East Co. Rd. E, Gem Lake 55110 1399 Co. Rd. E, Gem Lake 55110 1396 East Co. Rd. E 3646 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 3646 BigFox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 100 N. 6 Street, Minneapolis MN 55403 3673 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 1355 East Co. Rd. E 1369 East Co. Rd. E, Gem Lake 55110 1385 East Co. Rd. E 1357 East Co. Rd. E 1430 Goose Lake Rd. twh itlock@damonfa rber. com cevens@damonfarber.com jthomas@hartfordgrp.com harpngal@earthlink.net sears kelly@hotmail.com ckirchhoff@ hotmai L com kjkirchhoff@hotmail.com anderson CDA©msn.com tomlaura@aol.com mnolan@sehinc.com Damon Farber Associates Page I of 4 Formal Presentation (Tom Whitlock, Damon Farber Associates): Tom Whitlock (DFA) facilitated the meeting and presented three purposes for the meeting; 1. To provide a general background of the study area and an understanding of specific items related to the potential development site: 2.To elicit feedback from the community and stakeholders on issues that should be addressed with any development plan. 3. Creation of a subcommittee to work with City .and potential developer (submit name and contact info if interested). Tom Whitlock also presented the site's contextual surrounding, current zoning, potential parcel access points (English St. & International Dr.), and local parks, trails, trees & water context. Lastly Tom Whitlock displayed a number of other metropolitan area housing developments that have achieved a density of 3 units/acre, which is the targeted density for the Hansen parcels. Mayor Paul Emeott stated. that the right parcel zoning. changed in March of 2005 and is now zoned for Low Density Business or Residential, and the left: parcel. is zoned Residential (R1) Public Comments Received: 1. Buffer the new development from the existing homes in the area. 2. Why here? Others stated that it is inevitable that this parcel will be developed and the city of Gem. Lake is becoming increasingly pressured by the Met Council to increase their residential density. Infrastructure is already in place and public utilities would be available to all parcels within the city at some paint in the future. 3. Gem Lake has previously dodged the Met Councils immediate attention and looked. at Gern Lake as more .of a 'eighborhood not a city, but that has changed and Gem Lake is now being closely looked at by the Met Council for infll .aeveiapment. Examples such as Lake Elmo were brought up identifying other communities that tried to fight the Met Council's request far higher density and ultimately lost after spending a lot of time, energy, and money on the fight. 4. We should not desire or allow Vadnais Heights to annex any of Gem Lake's land because they already have a problem maintaining what they have, 5. Concerns for the abundant wildlife that currently use the site for their habitat, why it is necessary for housing developments to chew up this precious natural resource. 6. No multi -family homes, no structures over 35' tall, and clustering of homes along County Road E (C.R.E) should be considered. Can existing homes on the east side of Big Fax Rd receive new sewer connections from the development parcel side? 7. Desire for a Park/Pond Area for children within the new development site. 8. Three (3) Units/Acre is too dense for this location - that would amount to. around 54 homes which is too many in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. 9. If commercial businesses are allowed - it would be best if they are not open late at night or on weekends. 10. Prefer that any entrance at English Street veer to the right immediately and then run parallel behind the existingtree row if possible.. 11. Cul-de-sacs would be preferable if. is reduces the amountof new roadways thatneed to be built to service the new homes. 12. Traffic concerns about adding this new traffic onto. CRE - will a traffic study be done? Damon Farber Associates Page 2: of 4 1.3. Could.the new development.be serviced by only one new entrylexit from CRE? 14. When is the earliest anticipated date of construction- estimated earliest construction to be Spring of 2007. f 5. When will additional meeting be held? That has not been determined at this time. 16. Is the privatedrive being considered "in play" for the new development? Hartford Group would like to discuss this further and explore all options. 17. Why is the parcel/developer considering commercial when the Met Council is only pushing for Residential? Hartford and the City of Gem Lake are both anticipating developing the parcels under a PUD (Planned Unit Development) which allows more flexibility for the developer, but also more control by the city, A PUD may or may not include commercial development. 18. Preserve all trees along CRE except for what must be removed to allow new access roadways. 19. Senior housing could be desirable in the back portion of the right parcel surrounded by beautiful natural resources. 20. What other developments has Hartford completed? Will they show some of their previous work? Hartford Group looks at each new development individually, and develops what they feel is most appropriate for that site: Other Hartford Group developments can be viewed at www.hartfordgrp,com 21. Develop something the neighbors can be proud of 22. What is the anticipated price range of single family homes and/or lots?. Potentially .$350,000for single family homes,. single family lots near natural resources on the right parcel may sell for $300,000. Twin homes would likely fall in the mid- high $200,000 range. 23. Can the development create a new natural resource (i.e. Park/Pond Area) on the left parcel to raise the sale price of units an that parcel? 24. Gem Lake currently has no two homes alike - encourage this new development to be creative and provide a great variety of styles, .colors and materials. 25. Liberty Development in Stillwater. MN is a great example of a variety of housing styles, with varying colors: 26. Like the idea of a Chemed residential development. 27. How will our property values change? Do:we need to consider selling now? Will taxes go up? Can this development help our property values? 28. What is the process for any re-zoning/PUD approval process/etc.? Planning commission is working on the. PUD ordinance and zoning currently. This will all need council approval, 29. Are any council member up for re-election? Two members are up for re-election and the mayor is es well. 30. Park dedication requirements- 10% of land developed or 10% of development value must be set aside. 31. Next step is to hold a committee meeting and then Hartford Group will start developing concept plans. '2. What are the deal breakers for thepurchase agreement? Hartford Group stated 3 units/acre is needed or it may be a deal breaker. Damon Farber Associates Page. 3 of 4 Hartford Group (Jason Thomas) Comments: 1. Considering primarily residential for the parcels. 2. Thinks this is a fantastic site. 3. The site has great connections to area highway systems making it very marketable. 4. Agrees that the County wants to minimize the amount of traffic added to CRE. 5. Doesn't think the market will support much commercial development on these parcels.. 6. The parcels could be developed entirely residential. 7. 35E construction will add traffic onto CRE next summer. 8. Higher density residential would be more appropriate along CRE as a transition to single family homes in the middle and rear portions of the parcels. 9. Considering single family homes, single family lofts, senior housing, and popular executive twin homes. 10. Would like to furtherdiscuss options for developing the private road area as well - potentially sit down with all vested parties to discuss alternatives. 11. No rental units are being considered for the parcels. 12. Executive Twin Homes have been very popular for seniors in other developments.. 13. Hartford Group does not do the construction of single family homes themselves - they would partner with a custom home builder. Recorded by: Chuck Everts Damon Farber Associates The information recordedabove is our understanding of the points made during this meeting. If you came to a different conclusion, please contact Damon Farber Associates within 48 hours of receipt of this message to relay your concerns. Damon Farber Associates Page 4 of 4 Advirnry Committee VRiunieen Date: 7120/2006 Subject: Public Informational Meeting for the Hansen Parcels Location: Gem Lake, MN DFA Project No.: 06-190 Matter: 7/20/2006 Hansen Parcel Development — Advisory Committee Volunteers Name/Email FirmlAddress Phone Cheryl Kirchhoff 3744 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 cklrch hoff(c�7hotmail. co m Ken Kirchhoff 3744 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 kj kirchhofCc7hotmail. com Curt Anderson 1300 E Co. Rd. E, Vadnais Heights 55110 651-484-0150 anderson CDA@msn.com Tom Rasmussen 1396 East Co. Rd. E 763-786-1518 tomiaura©aol.com Robert Uzpen 3646 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 651-644-7775 ---Kimberly Anderson-Uzpen 3646 Big Fox Rd., Gem Lake 55110 651-426-8310 Chrissie Cammack 1355 East Co. Rd. E 651-429-4121 Alien Bocicka 1385 East Co. Rd. E 651-353-5169 Bret Gapp 1357 East Co. Rd. E 651-398-8128 Gretchen Artig-Swomley 1430 Goose Lake Rd. 651-260-9742 Damon Farber Associates Page 1 of 4 CITY OF GEM LAKE MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING 24 JULY 2006 The July, 2006 regular meeting of the City. Council of the City of Gem Lake was called to order by Mayor Emeott on. Monday, 24 July 2006 at 7;06 PM in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Councilors Rasmussen, Schilling and Watson. Also present were City .Clerk Magnuson, City EngineerHiggins, Jim Lindner and. Craig Rafferty of the Planning: Commission, Mark Sweet of the Business Development Committee. Others in attendance included: Al Sclitiber, George Junguiann, Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Dale .Swomley,Ken .Kirchoff, Cheryl Kirchoff; Jinn Kohler, Mary Janssen, DanJanssen, Patrick Kelly,Dave Ramberg, Bryan Hansen, Connie,Kunin,.Linda Hoeschler, Gord Kordosky, Robert Uzpen; .Kim Anderson-UTzpen, Jay Bazooband, Debra. Larsen, Roger Anderson,: Ric Rosow, Jim McNulty, and Bryan Harjes. Mayer Emeott thanked those inattendance for corning. Following Mayor .Emeott's request for additions, deletions, or corrections,the following actions were taken: 1) unanimous approval of the 19 June 2006 Minutes of the City Council Meetingas amended on Motion by Rasmussen, Second. by Schilling; 2) unanimous approval of the 24 July 2006 Agenda of the City Councilmeeting as amended. on Motion. by Watson, Second by Rasmussen. Mayor Emeott then opened a duly noticed public hearing, noting that the hearing is a supplemental hearing to discuss changes in anticipated costs based upon residents requests for changes discussed at the fist public hearing and additional findings by the engineers for Public Improvement Project No. 2006-0 (road improvements). Dr. Anderson- Uzpen asked about additional areas to be replaced arid: Mr. Higginsresponded additional findings of subsurface problems were uncovered. Mr: Jungmann asked if the outfall at Haven Lane would be rebuilt - no. Mr, Kordosky asked if tree removal has been included - yes: Ms. Larsen asked about sloppy snow plowing and whether we would recapture costs from snow plowing - will attempt. Mr. Uzpen asked if rolled edges would again be used - yes, but not full. curbingas pricing is substantial. Mr. Schriber re asphalt plowed onto his property. Dr. Andersen -liven asked if a guaranteed maximum was in place - Mr. Higgins explained the public bidding process. Discussion of installation of snow plow stakes. Mr. Schriber iindicatedhe had incurred damage to his sprinkler system.. Discussion of cost of curbing at $5.00 per: foot. Discussion of cost increases followed_ Mr_ Schriber wants to see the bids - bid totals were read. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 7:20. RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second by Watson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-16 was unanimously approved. Work will begin to meet the completiondate of 31. August2006. Report an bonds and bond:sale by Mr. Magnuson to request continuation to 31 July 2006. Discussion by Mayor Emeott regarding combining Ordinances No, 43H and 58.0 into a single ordinance to further .facilitate ]and development in the City of Gem Lake. The new ordinance will be known as the. Gem Lake Land Use And Development Ordinance.. Also this will be more convenient for the City. RESOLVED: Motion by Rasmussen, second by Schilling to adopt Resolution No..:2006-24 providing for the subdivision ordinance and thezoning.Ordinance to be combined into a single ordinance to be known as the Gem Lake Land Use And Development Ordinance was unanimously approved_ Mr. Schilling, reported on the activities of the Economic Development Committee (Mark Sweet and Hutch Schilling), reporting on the 18 July 2006 meeting with potential Hoffman. Corner's developers and the 20 July 2006 Neighborhood Advisory Group. Meeting with. Hartford indicating a committee wil I be.formed to represent the residents_ Mayor Emeott introduced Ordinance No. 4311, indicating had.been postponed to provide Mr. McNulty and the Builders Association counsel an opportunity to respond with recommendations for change. Following their. submissions and review by Mayor Emeott and Mr. Lindner, Interim Planning Committee Chairman; Mayor Emeott prepared a.report which was distributed to the parties identified. Mayor Etneott then. noted the. need to complete the amendments to the zoning ordinance: to appropriately plan for future. needs of the coniniunityand provide.a long .term. document requiring only minor changes. Mr. Rosow was recognized, discussing changes proposed and. feels Hillary Farm should be exempted permanently froth changes..as the changes negatively impact: Hillary Farm..Mayor Emeott noted changes would be primarily for the benefit of a single development and not general changes, noting. changes. requested worked primarily for Hillary Farm. Mr..Rosow:again spoke of many meeting and asked .for further extension of exemptions. Mayor Emeott referred to houses that have deferred to the new regulations and their success_ Mr_ Watson . said he .understood .Hillary Farm would .be okay with further extensions and.are changes better for hint or the whole community. Mr. McNulty said that most of the time: the last two years dealt with Hillary Farms. and to ignore.their recommendations does not make sense: Mr: Watson asked .if Mr. McNultyobjected:to the entire ordinance or portions of the ordinance to which Mr McNnIty...ansWered portions. Discussion of how changes .impact. other zoning districts Page 1 of 29 versus. RI. Mr. Rosow commented on impact to zoning districts and that.they weretrying to address their own needs. Mayor Emeott .commented on his concern that many proposed changes related solely to new development and net redevelopment. Mr. Rosow then. spoke to dedication of property and set back/openspace as a problem. Mayor Emeott then addressed the. issue. referencing White .Bear Township models reviewed. Mr. Rosow said we should not simply adopt something because White Bear. Township or others nearby have adopted'that thing and asked if Bryan Harjes and Roger Anderson could present. their arguments relative to negative impact ofchanges. Mr. Magnuson. asked Mr. Rosow if this presentation has to do with set backs in the NPDES section to wit he answered yes. Mr. Magnuson stated he .understood that the City has agreed in principleto exempt permanently those sections related to the storn°twater portion. as the subdivision was previously approved without these sections. Mr..Rosow confirmed Mr. Magnuson's comments: Mr. Magnuson referred Mr. Resew to Mr. Newcome for language developnient.of the exemptions. Mr: Watson proposed the City extend Resolution No. 2006-23 from.one year to three years exemption for Hillary Farm and asked Mr. Rosow if that would be: acceptable. Mr. Rosow responded yes he thinks so. Mr. Watson stated the Citywants to assist Hillary • Farm to. be successful Mr. Schilling stated we are addressing issues not previously addressed... Mr. Rasmussen also supported Mr_ Schilling's statements regarding the changes proposed. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, second by Rasmussen to amend Resolution No..2006-23 so as to further extend the exemption of .Hillary Farm from proposed changes to. the zoning ordinance for a period of three (3) years total in addition to. the two years. provided by state statutes. RESOLVED:: Motion byschilling; second by Rasmussen to adopt Resolution No..2006-20 was, following discussion of height with Mr. Raf ertyandMr.:Lindner, unanimously.approved_ RESOLVED: Motion by Bosak, second. by Rasmussen to approve summary publication of Ordinance No. 43H and to place both printed and electronic copies on file with the Ramsey County Libraryin. Wbite:Bear Lake. Mayor Erneott then introduced for consideration the (proposed) Park Land Dedication amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Magnuson reported that a duly noticed public hearing on 10 July 2006 was convened to receive .publie comment on the. addition of the. (proposed) Park Land Dedication amendment to • the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Magnuson noted the wide spread use.of this vehicle to support parks,: trails and 'open. spaces. Mr. Magnuson explained the. intentat ten percent of the .land or pre -development cost of land and how language was developed. Mayor Emeott reported that a quorum was not present at the public hearing so the report is offered to. the City Council without. the. recommendation of the Planning Commission: Mr. Emeott then reported on changes to state statutes regarding. the three. necessary elements to approve. such an amendment: A park and trail plan in the.. Comprehensive Municipal Plan, estimated cost in the capital plan including parks and trails, a separate account to manage the fimds and confirmed we have all three requirements_ Mayor Emeott explained how charitable gambling funds. were deposited in the fund to establish same. Mr: Uzpen then spoke to. the maximum amount to be ordered to which Mr. Magnuson responded that ten. percent is an unopposed. amount typically while 1argerpercentages usually draw both attention and opposition. Mr_. Kelly confirmed ten.percent isthe generally accepted practice and larger percentages draw attention as unjustillable. Ms. Larsen. asked if we have a committee to develop parks to which Mayor Emeott responded that we will seek to appoint •a Park Commission in the near future. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson,. second by Schilling to adopt Resolution No: 2006-22 was unanimously approved_ Mayor Emeott reported on Mr. Bosak's recommendation of Mr. Ryan Green to redevelop our website at a cost of $ 1,200 and $50.00 per month for maintenance. Mr: Watson. said that the internet website is an excellent addition for forms and information and links for other information including. the Neighborhood Watch Program. Our neighboring communities have excellent interactive.websites and ours needs improvements_ Ms. Larsen asked about maintenance .and Mr_ Schilling indicated it was part of the proposal and his monthly fee is very inexpensive.. Mayor Etneottreported that the current budget supports this development. RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second byRasmussento approve. Ryan Green as website designer and approve an expenditure of $1.,200 for development and $50 per .month for maintenance Was unanitnouslyapproved. Mayor Emeott then explained the. need .for additional meeting tittle to deal with many ofthe issues facing the City. Rather than call special meetings, it was suggestedthat a workshop be established. for discussion of issues Facing the City. Mr. Watson supported the idea as did Mr. Rasamsson. Mr. Magnuson supported establishing a regular meeting time convenient to the Council rather than publishing. each meeting. Mr. Schilling then spoke supporting the need for more meetings. Mr. Watson indicated we have at leastsix months of needs. currently and supports.the monthly workshop. The location will be set based upon discussion with others. Discussion ofpublic open meeting followed with Mayor Emeott stating that meetings by email were .also. not allowed. Ms. Larsen spoke regarding the workshops. Mr.. Magnuson indicated the website could be used to accept suggestions. Mr. Sweet spoke regarding committee.participation atthe. • workshops. RESOLVED: Motion by Watson, second Schilling to approve the addition of monthlywOrksImpStothe City Council meeting schedule commencing.on 14 August 2006 and then in September on the first Monday of each. month and on the day immediately .following. if the day falls an a designated holiday was unanimously approved. Mayor Emeott than discussed the use of Consent Agenda. Mr. Magnuson reported that Consent Agendas contain routine and non -controversial issues and typically historicreports of events that have already happened. They are used extensively to streamline meetings and aresupported by the League of MN Cities. Ifthere its an objection, one items can Page 2 of 29 be removed. Mr. Rasmussen spoke in support of the idea. RESOLVED: Motion by.Rasmussen, second. by Schilling to adopt. Resolution No. 2006-25 was unanimously approved. Mr. Watson then spoke regarding timing of submission of materials for City Council consideration, suggesting the information be submitted. in.a. structured.. form not later than the Tuesdayprior to a City Council. meeting. Mr. Rasmussen suggestedthe motion be amended to four business days prior to the meeting. RESOLVED:. Motion. by Watson, second by Schilling to require submissions for City Council approval be.submitted by the close ofbusiness four (4) days. prior to the meeting date was unanimously approved. . Mr.. Kelly was then introduced and he, in turn, further presented .Mr. Dave. Ramberg. Mr. Kelly then made a presentation on his credentials as City Attorney for White Bear Township, Taylors Falis and others and discussed several issues including dealing with (re)development.and the issues attendant to (re)development. He supported the workshop concept.:He spoke of land values impact on (re)development and of how. the City can be taken advantage. He spoke to opening the lines of comrizunication and working cooperatively to offsetannexatien. issues. He reported he. has submitted a proposal to the City to serve as City Attorney. He also encouraged development :of a meth ordinance in advance of problems. He also suggested an ordinance dealing with abandoned cars,. condemnation of.property and other criminal issues. Following discussion oftraffic issues, Mr. Ramberg was introduced. Discussion of Mr: Kelly's relationship With the. Met Councilfollowed, encouraging application for. all grants possible.: Finally, discussion of Mr. Kelly's associates followed With Mr. Kelly introducing his associates. Mr. Ramberg spoke in support of the Kelly associates.. Finally, Mr. Kelly spoke of his ability to work with "developers and bring good results to all. RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second by Watson to appoint Mr. Kelly City Attorney and to transition from Mr. Newcoitte to Mr. Kelly between now and 0l September 2006 was unanimously approved. Mr. Schilling then spoke to further streamlining the process due to work increase_ Staff reporting was then discussed and Mr. Magnuson was directed to report to Mr. Watson, who will assist in prioritizing same. Mr. Magnuson reported that the job today is dramatically different than when he started seventeen (17) years ago and that analysis has been begun relative to demands on time. Motion by Schilling, second by Emeott that the City Clerk report directly to Mr_ Watson wasunanimously approved. Mayor Emeott and Mr. Rafferty then discussed Mr. Bazooband's proposed new home plans at 1140 Goose Lake Road. Mr. Rafferty discussed his opinion indicating this is a good use of the intent of Ordinance No. 43H. Mr. Magnuson indicated Mr. Bazoobandhas agreed to be governed by the new ordinance and that the dwelling includes a 44' height with architectural elements uniformly placed in the 44'span. The highest side of the home will face effectively northwest and will not effect any adjacent properties except that owned by .Mr. Bazooband. While some additional grading will be required to achieve the walkout design, itisnot substantial.. It is the recommendation of the Plan Review Committee that. a Conditional Use Permit be issued far construction of a 44' high walk out design as presented and reviewed be issued. RESOLVED: Motion by Emeott, second by Watson to approve issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a walkout design with a facade of greater than 35' and not more than 44' per plans, details and specifications was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second by Watson. to not waive municipal tort liability and to so advise the LMCIT of the decision. RESOLVED: Motion by Rasmussen, second by Schilling to approve execution of the LMCIT form by the City Clerk to indicate non -waiver of tort liability limits was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second by Watson toapprove the Consent Agenda was unanimously approved. It was noted that this item will, in the fixture, appear at the beginning of the: agenda. MayorEmeott then announced that thismeeting will be continued to 31 July 2006 at 7:00 PM at this location to consider the sate of bonds for Public Improvement Project No. 2006-01 and accounts payable. Mayor Emeott at 9:24 PM then declared the meeting continued to Monday, 31 July 2006, at 7:00 PM. The meeting was continued to 7:00 PM to Monday, 31 July 2006 in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford at 8:40PM.. The July meeting of the Gem Lake City Council was reconvened at 7:00 PM on Monday, 31 July 2006, by Mayor Emeott. Councilors Bosak, Watson, Schilling and Rasmussen were present. Also present were Clerk Magnuson, Craig Rafferty, Special Bond Counsel Martha Ingram (Kennedy & Graven) and Financial Consultant Todd Hagen (Ehlers & Associates). RESOLVED: Motion by Mr. Schilling Second by Mr. Bosak to amend theagenda to include appointment of developer and landscape architectsfor the retail business redevelopment project and appointment of the Zevan Corporation as the City's public relations consultant was unanimously approved. Page 3 of 29 Mr. Hagen then summarized the sale of Gem Lake Public Improvement Bonds for Public Improvement Project No. 2006-01 (PIP2006-01) today and noting Wells Fargo as the successful bidder at a very competitive rate as represented on the report attached. RESOLVED: Following discussion, motion by Mr. Schilling and second by Mr. Bosak to designate the City Clerk as registrar of the bonds was unanimously approved. RESOLVED: Following discussion including comments by Special Bond Counsel Martha Ingram, motion by Mr. Bosak and second by Mr. Rasmussen to adopt Resolution No. 2006-26 was unanimously approved. Mr. Schilling then reported on the recommendation of the Economic Development Committee that The Solomon Group be appointed as the developer the City would like to work with on the Retail Business District Redevelopment Project and that Damon Farber be appointed as landscape architect for the project. RESOLVED: Motion by Mr. Schilling, second by Mr. Watson to appoint The Solomon Group as Developer and Damon Farber as Landscape Architect for the Retail Business District Redevelopment Project was approved unanimously on an individual voice vote. RESOLVED: Motion by Mr. Schilling, second by Mr. Bosak to appoint the Zevan Corporation fas the public relations firm of record for the City of Gem Lake fora period of two (2) months at the rate of $5,000 per month was unanimously approved. It was further understood that based upon a review of Zevan's results, additional extensions may be requested for approval by the City Council. It was further agreed that Mayor Emeott, Mr. Schilling and Mr. Sweet would meet subsequent to this evening to position and prioritize Zevan's work. Mayor Emeott then reported he is working with Mr. Kelly to prioritize the work list. Mayor Emeott indicated he would fax his list to all for review. ADJOURN: Motion by Mr. Bosak, second by Mr. Schilling to adjourn at 7:58 PM was unanimously approved. AUTHORED: 07 August 2006 APPROVED: 21 August 2006 ATTEST: Frederic C. Magnuson City Clerk ATTEST: Paul R. Emeott Mayor r it efile: Minutes\20061197juim.wpd Page 4 of 29