Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"First of all,we,the neighbors,have great admiration for th kind of work that is being done at Emily's Program, and in no way do these comments reflect anythin other than this fact. However,we believe that the decision to grant CUP to Emily's Program should be unani ously denied for the following reasons: First,not all neighbors have received timely due notice of Emily's Program's desires to operate this medical facility in the Hill School property. Second, due diligence has not been completed by the neigh ors or the City.. There has not been enough time to thoroughly examine and understand the risks and benefits o this mental health facility being located in our neighborhood. Additionally,we need more time to understand the factersus fiction since there are so many contradictions and accusations that have surfaced. ;;. Three,Emily's Program and Dr. Dirk Miller should of a ess the neighbors and ity's concerns in writing and for the record. Fourth,the City should allow the Art Center and its neighbors more time to explore other alternative uses for the Hill School property. And fifth,and this is the most important reason to d ns the I onditional use Program for Emily's Program. First of all, let me repeat,this is not about Emily s Program .The question isliAalether to open this lot up to hospital,nursing care,restroom, sanitarium,medical clings . medical outpatient usage; in other words, general medical uses. Granting the requestAtte requested an40/ and the conditional use permit,will create rights that run with the land. Let me repeat. With the land, St E 's Program, and allow the medical uses mentioned previously and other similar medical uses. This of is to o s hall for medical uses. The setback requirements in the zoning code for medical uses protects nearby homes by providing a buffer between the residential uses and the medical uso; ranting the variances willgnificantly reduce the buffer to the detriment of the neighborhood. , Before any vote on this application,all'<the draft conditions to be placed in the conditional use permit should be in writing and circulated to all interested ies. No vote s ould be taken while conditions are `still being reviewed rea r inclusion in thestall report.' Ci culation of the draft conditions should occur well before thee'i ncil' g where the Ni. tes will be tak n so all interested parties have sufficient time to review the conditio ,and to lop additionatVonditions i needed. (4. -3442 THE EMIL-�,` ROGRAM, 2180 NORT SHORE DRIVE, Continued) st importantly, draft condition`number ten in the reqnest for council action may not be enforceable. This ition appears to limit the property's future use to the Emily Program by requiring the applicant to `withdraw the nditional use pe tithe property is ever fold or transferred to another owner.' However, this condition mad not be enfo able under State of Minnesota law. Where others have tried,everyone has lost. So in'ether wor - these permanent rights granted to the property,not the tenant,with no future approval pp re ui q r o ,,, ieil uses. For these reasons,we strongly believe that Emily's Program has no place at the Hill Se mil location n and that their request for a •onditional use permit should be unequivocally denied." Mattick stated generally what is being discussed as it relates o the CUPs is that you are not allowed to put in a sunset provision. Mattick stated he believes that it is a true - .tement that a sunset provision is unenforceable. Minnesota Statutes allow a City to limit the time frame on a onditional use permit through the use of an interim use permit,which would be the best option. Orono .oes not currently have that in their City Code, so it is not an option at this time. Mattick noted The Emily Program has stated as part of the C P process that they would sign off on the sunset provision. The applicant could agree to withdraw the CUP, i'ut Mattick indicated that has not been tested to