My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-08-21 CC PACKET
GemLake
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
PACKETS
>
2000 - 2009
>
2006
>
2006-08-21 CC PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2026 8:51:01 AM
Creation date
7/20/2026 8:47:16 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.
/
116
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CITY OF GEM LAKE <br />MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />24 JULY 2006 <br />The July, 2006 regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gem Lake was called to order by Mayor Emeott <br />on Monday, 24 July 2006 at 7:06 PM in the first floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Councilors <br />Rasmussen, Schilling and Watson. Also present were City Clerk Magnuson, City Engineer Higgins, Jim Lindner and <br />Craig Rafferty of die Planning Commission, Mark Sweet of the Business Development Committee. Others in attendance <br />included: Al Schriber, George Jungmann, Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Dale Swomley, Ken Kirchoff, Cheryl Kirchoff, Jim <br />Kohler, MaryJanssen, Dan Janssen, Patrick Kelly, Dave Ramberg, Bryan Hansen, Connie Kunin, Linda Hoeschler, Gord <br />Kordosky, Robert Uzpen, Kim Anderson-Uzpen, Jay Bazooband, Debra Larsen, Roger Anderson, Ric Rosow, Jim <br />McNulty, and Bryan Harjes. Mayor Emeott thanked those in attendance for coming. <br />Following Mayor Emeott's request for additions, deletions, or corrections, the following actions were taken: 1) <br />unanimous approval of the 19 June 2006 Minutes of the City Council meeting as amended on Motion by Rasmussen, <br />Second by Schilling:2) unanimous approval of the 24 July 2006 Agenda of the City Council meeting as amended on <br />Motion by Watson, Second by Rasmussen. <br />Mayor Emeott then opened a duly noticed public hearing, noting that the hearing is a supplemental hearing to <br />discuss changes in anticipated costs based upon residents requests for changes discussed at the first public hearing and <br />additional findings by the engineers for Public Improvement Project No. 2006-01 (road improvements). Dr. Anderson- <br />Uzpen asked about additional areas to be replaced and Mr. Higgins responded additional findings of subsurface problems <br />were uncovered. Mr. Jungmann asked if the outfall at Haven Lane would be rebuilt - no. Mr. Kordosky asked if tree <br />removal has been included - yes. Ms. Larsen asked about sloppy snow plowing and whether we would recapture costs <br />from snow plowing - will attempt. Mr. Uzpen asked if rolled edges would again be used - yes, but not full curbing as <br />pricing is substantial. Mr. Schriber re asphalt plowed onto his property. Dr. Andersen-11Zpen asked if a guaranteed <br />maximum was in place - Mr. Higgins explained the public bidding process. Discussion of installation of snow plow <br />stakes. Mr. Schriber indicated he had incurred damage to his sprinkler system. Discussion of cost of curbing at $5.00 <br />per foot. Discussion of cost increases followed. Mr. Schriber wants to see the bids - bid totals were read. The public <br />hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 7:20. <br />RESOLVED: Motion by Schilling, second by Watson to adopt Resolution No. 2006-16 was unanimously <br />approved. Work will begin to meet the completion date of 31 August 2006. <br />Report on bonds and bond sale by Mr. Magnuson to request continuation to 31 July 2006. <br />Discussion by Mayor Emeott regarding combining Ordinances No. 43H and 58C into a single ord inance to further <br />facilitate land development in the City of Gem Lake. The new ordinance will be known as the Gem Lake Land Use And <br />Development Ordinance. Also this will be more convenient for the City. RESOLVED: Motion by Rasmussen, second <br />by Schilling to adopt Resolution No. 2006-24 providing for the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance to be <br />combined into a single ordinance to be known as the Gem Lake Land Use And Development Ordinance was <br />unanimously approved. <br />Mr. Schilling reported on the activities of the Economic Development Committee (Mark Sweet and Hutch <br />Schilling), reporting on the 18 July 2006 meeting with potential Hoffman Corner's developers and the 20 July 2006 <br />Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting with Hartford indicating a committee will be formed to represent the residents. <br />Mayor Emeott then introduced Ordinance No. 43H, ind icat ing action had been postponed to provide Mr. McNulty <br />and the Builders Association counsel an opportunity to respond with recommendations for change. Following their <br />submissions and review by Mayor Emeott and Mr. Lindner, Interim Planning Committee Chairman, Mayor Emeott <br />prepared a report which was distributed to the parties identified. Mayor Emeott then noted the need to complete the <br />amendments to the zoning ordinance to appropriately plan for future needs of the community and provide a long term <br />document requiring only minor changes. Mr. Rosow was recognized, discussing changes proposed and feels Hillary <br />Farm should be exempted permanently from changes as the changes negatively impact Hillary Farm. Mayor Emeott <br />noted changes would be primarily for the benefit of a single development and not general changes, noting changes <br />requested worked primarily for Hillary Farm. Mr. Rosow again spoke of many meetings and asked for further extension <br />of exemptions. Mayor Emeottreferred to houses that have deferred to the new regulations and their success. Mr. Watson <br />said he understood Hillary Farm would be okay with further extensions and are changes better for him or the whole <br />community. Mr. McNulty said that most of the time the last two years dealt with Hillary Farms and to ignore their <br />recommendations does not make sense. Mr. Watson asked if Mr. McNulty objected to the entire ordinance or portions <br />of the ordinance to which Mr. McNulty answered portions. Discussion of how changes impact other zoning districts <br />Page 1 of 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.