10-01-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1991 6 Councilman Hunt gave the following reasons for voting for the motion: Although we are opening some risk in that area of the City, I could not in good conscience put myself in a position to harm the city because we have not protected our residential areas, but also feel if he had voted "no" now the development would have been lost and likely ended up with a Council so divided that it would have been unable to function ever again. Mayor Johnson asked Item #3 (bring the zoning of all parts of the City into conformance with the Future Land Use Map of the existing Comp Plan) be placed as a priority item under Old Business at a special meeting. D. Stonegate Rezoning Councilman Williams explained that at the last council meeting pursuant to the court order, the Council considered a motion to rezone the Stonegate property and the motion failed 3-2 because of the required 4/5th vote for passage. Some of the comments made by the Mayor and Councilman Mottaz for voting against the motion were that the Mayor's Motion to Vacate the court order was in process and they wanted to see the outcome. The Motion was not allowed by the Court so now the Court has an unchallenged order to the City to rezone Stonegate property. Therefore, Williams made the following motion: M/S/F Williams/Hunt - the property known as Stonegate development be rezoned to Residential Estates based on the Findings of Fact of July 16, 1991 City Council meeting and pursuant to the court order. (Motion failed 3-2: Mayor Johnson: At this point he would have to vote against the motion, but he possibly may be able to take some stance on this at the next Council meeting, Mottaz: I am voting against the motion for the same reasons that I stated the last time.) Councilman Williams indicated the Council was handed a Notice of Motion filed by Trailhead Dev. against the City of Lake Elmo in regard to this matter. The part that troubles him is this is filed against the City and one of the pleadings is awarding plaintiff its reasonable cost and attorneys fees incurred in bringing this Motion. Williams urged the Mayor and Councilman Mottaz to please reconsider as this is putting the City at severe financial risk. Councilman Mottaz: The issue here is not a matter of rezoning, but the issue here is three Council people put the City in a position where they might be in violation of a state law by instructing the City Attorney not to defend, thereby, circumventing a very clearly worded state statute that requires 2/3rd vote to pass this. This is what is costing the city money.