07-16-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 PAGE 2 B. Rezoning from RR to RE: Stonegate The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the rezoning and preliminary plat on July 8, 1991.. On a vote of 9-0, the Commission recommended that the City Council grant this rezoning. MIS/ Williams/Hunt - to adopt Ordinance 8054 rezoning the property so described as Stonegate in said, ordinance based on the following findings of fact as determined, by the Planning Commission: 1.) Subject property is designated as RED on the Future Land Use Map; 2.) Residential development is compatible with surrounding properties; 3.) This development will not have a negative impact on the area; 4.) The configuration is suitable; 5.) There are more than 20 acres. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Hunt - to amend the motion by deleting Item No. 4 because this finding does not deal with the rezoning. (Motion carried 5-0). During the discussion, Mayor Johnson read a prepared statement giving his philosophy about this development and stating he would vote against it. Mottaz also stated he was opposed to the rezoning and agreed with the Mayor. In response to questions directed to him, the City Attorney indicated that a Court would look at the existing Comprehensive Plan and find that "the Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates that this kind of density is permitted in this area." Councilmen Hunt, Johnson and Williams called on Mayor Johnson and Councilman Hottaz to support the rezoning as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and warned that failure of the motion would put the City at legal risk. M/S/F Williams/Hunt - to adopt Ordinance 8054 rezoning the property so described as Stonegate in said ordinance based on the following findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission: (fiction Failed 3-2: Dave Johnson: See Appendix A for reasons; Mottaz: I concur with the statement of the Mayor about rezoning Stonegate. This change would not be compatible with surrounding property. It could have a negative impact on the area. There should be a buffer or transition area between commercial and residential areas.. I feel that changing the zoning would riot be in the best interest of the City at the present time). 1.) Subject property is designated as RFD on the Future Land Use Map; 2.) Residential development is compatible with surrounding properties, 3.) This development will not have a negative impact on the area; 4.) There are more than 20 acres.