03-08-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. • ( #I0 -3442 THE EMILYPROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Byrant stated this facility involves move than simple boarding of eight'to ten persons and can be described as a business. This facility will bring traffic as well as some increase in emergency vehicle traffic. He is not sure why the city is applying residential standards to a business in the first place. Byrant stated the dialogue has gotten off track with application opponents being called prejudiced, irrational, and not in my back yarders. The residents have every right to be concerned and skeptical as it relates to parking and increased traffic and emergency vehicles. The residents have a right to say no thank you without someone calling into question their community mindedness, the validity of their reasons or their prejudices. The proposed use seems to be incompatible with Orono residential living. Byrant noted the applicant has become involved with the local media. Media conducted debate is absolutely legal and within the rules. The media, however, is not much more than a distraction from the main game. Byrant stated he wished the media's time would be spent addressing some of the contradictions from the public's point of view, such as, is this is a hospital or a clinic or a boarding clinic; is eight parking stalls representative of the real number or is the number above 20; and is the Emily Program a nonprofit or a business enterprise. Consistency and attention to detail is really important. Putting forward accurate facts goes towards authentic relations, establishing credibility, and being a genuine good neighbor. Heidi Clear, 1360 French Creek Drive, stated hospital type clinics are not appropriate for residential type neighbors and that the Hill School property is too small for this use. Other Emily Program facilities are located in more appropriate neighborhoods. The minimum size lot in this district is two acres for hospital use. Clear illustrated on the overhead a two -acre lot and the Hill School parcel. Clear pointed out how the building would fit on the Hill School lot and the amount of room left with the setbacks. To the left there is currently 21 feet, the back has 92 feet, the front has 44 feet, and the right has 41 feet. With the parking garage added, you are two feet off of Briar Street. Clear stated the graphic clearly shows that this property is not sufficient space for a hospital type clinic and leaves no buffer for the surrounding residents. Clear stated her second point is that a hospital type clinic is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Other Emily Program facilities are located in mixed use neighborhoods. Clear displayed photographs of other Emily Program facilities. Clear stated the first few photographs depict the new location in St. Anthony Park, St. Paul, which is located at Cleveland and Buford Street. This is a very urban setting with a large parking lot and appears to have approximately 30 parking stalls. It is also next to the University of Minnesota campus, has significant on street parking, and is adjacent to other commercial property. It is also located on a street with fraternity housing and student rentals. Clear displayed pictures of the surrounding area. Clear noted she had to park four blocks away to take these pictures. Since this is an extremely busy area, the Emily Program would not have any significant impact as it relates to activity level. Clear displayed two other locations where she took photographs. Clear stated the photographs clearly demonstrate that these are not residential neighborhoods but that they are instead busy urban settings surrounded by commercial property with significant on street parking. One of the facilities is located next to the Mobile Gas Station. Clear noted she had a difficult time finding parking on the street. The Stillwater location is also a busy location with significant on street parking. Clear questioned why the applicant is attempting to force this Emily Program facility onto a property that is • too small. Clear stated she would have the same concerns relating to any industrial use and that her concerns are not directed just at the Emily Program. k Page 8 of 23 1