Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 8, 2010 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. • <br />( #10 -3442 THE EMILYPROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) <br />White asked whether the CUP can be surrendered based on certain conditions and restrictions that the City <br />may impose on it once the applicant vacates the property. <br />Mattick indicated it is clear from Minnesota law that CUPS are not meant to be sunset. One of the options <br />discussed early on was whether the City could do something via agreement with the CUP, whereby the City <br />says if it stops being the Emily Program, and the Emily Program signs the CUP and agrees to terminate the <br />CUP, whether that would work. Mattick stated his response to that is that there is not case law that says you <br />cannot do it, but that he has a concern with that option because the law states that you are not supposed to <br />sunset it. Mattick stated in his opinion a conditional use permit should not and cannot be terminated, which <br />brought about the discussion on the possibility of an IUP. <br />White stated it appears that all the council members and staff are in agreement that a CUP does not provide the <br />land protection element that has been discussed. White asked whether all the variances being requested with <br />this application are distance variances. <br />Curtis noted there is a structural coverage variance also. <br />White stated under the use proposed here, there should be a 100 -foot setback. <br />Mattick stated that hospital uses requires a 100 -foot setback. • <br />McMillan stated the applicant would like to come in under the hospital use language and the setbacks that go <br />with it. McMillan asked if the City of Orono has anything in their code concerning residential treatment <br />facilities. <br />Mattick indicated they do not. <br />Bremer noted if the number of beds at this facility was six beds or fewer, the City would not have the ability to <br />control much about that. <br />Mattick stated that is correct. Mattick pointed out that the statute does not specifically say six beds but reads <br />serving 0 to 6. If the facility serves more than six patients on an outpatient basis, that would be treated <br />differently and could be regulated by the City. If you are serving six or fewer, it is a permitted use in this type <br />of zoning district. <br />White asked if the setbacks would still need a variance. <br />Mattick stated there may be some setback variances associated with that type of use but it would be considered <br />a permitted use. <br />White noted this is an existing structure. <br />McMillan noted this would be a new use for the CUP and not an existing use. <br />Mattick indicated that is correct. • <br />--� Page 18 of 23 <br />