Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-2010 Council Packet Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, March 22, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Consent Agenda 1. Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes * 2. Regular Council Meeting of March 8, 2010 Planning Commission Comments – Linda Feuss, Representative Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report Mayor/Council Report City Engineer’s Report City Administrator's Report 3. Planning Commission Appointments 4. Hire Golf Course Employees City Attorney's Report * 5. Licenses & Permits * 6. Bills Upcoming Issues and Events 2010 03/23 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 03/29 – Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing, Monday, 7:00 p.m.; Open House 5:30 p.m., Freshwater Center Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, March 22, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Upcoming Issues and Events - Continued 2010 04/02 – Holiday, Observance of Easter 04/07 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 04/12 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 04/13 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 04/19 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Lili McMillan) 04/21 – Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. 04/24 – Spring Cleanup Day, Saturday, 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. 04/26 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 04/27 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 05/01 – Spring Cleanup Day, Construction Debris Only, Saturday, 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. 05/05 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 05/10 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 05/11 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 05/14 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 05/15 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 05/17 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Cynthia Bremer) 05/21 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 05/22 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 05/24 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 05/25 – Council Work Session, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. 05/28 – Spring Photo Contest Deadline 05/28 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 05/29 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 05/31 – HOLIDAY-Observance of Memorial Day MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 23 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White, Council Members Jim Murphy, Lili McMillan, and Cynthia Bremer. Representing Staff were Finance Director Ron Olson, City Clerk Lin Vee, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Assistant City Administrator of Long- Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Zoning and Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Planner Evelyn Turner, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor James White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 3, 10, 11, and 12 were added to the Consent Agenda. Michael LaQuey requested the minutes be tabled to allow him time to review them. Mayor White indicated the minutes would not be tabled and that Mr. LaQuey could direct his parliamentarian questions to the City Attorney. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of February 22, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. LMCD REPORT – ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - KIM KANG, REPRESENTATIVE Kang stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Michael LaQuey, P.O. Box 94, Crystal, stated he would like to talk about the health care industry paradigms that address cost. Mayor White stated that relates to Item No. 9, and that if he continued with his comments, he would be removed. White noted Mr. LaQuey also did this at the last Council meeting. Mr. LaQuey indicated he did not. Murphy stated he did do it at the last meeting. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 1 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 23 (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Mr. LaQuey stated he would like to talk about evidence based practice and outcomes. Mayor White pointed out that the City of Orono does not deal with public health care issues and that those comments would not be allowed. White requested Mr. LaQuey make comments that are germane to the business of the City. Mr. LaQuey indicated they are public comments and that in his view they are germane. Mr. LaQuey asked if he is being denied the opportunity to speak on this topic. Mayor White indicated he is denying that request. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT *3. #10-3445 CLIFFORD AND BARBARA SWENSON, 2695 CASCO POINT ROAD – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5918 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5918, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and (6) 78-1288 and 78-1405(6), for the Property Located at 2695 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *4. #10-3448 CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF LANI S. PENNINGTON, 130 BIG ISLAND – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5919 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5919, a Resolution Approving a Lot Area Variance for Record Lot No. 10 Pursuant to Orono Code Section 78-563. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #10-3449 CITY OF ORONO ON BEHEALF OF CHRISTINE DEGGENDORF, 750 BIG ISLAND – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5920 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5920, a Resolution Approving a Lot Area Variance for Record Lot No. 62 Pursuant to Orono Code Section 78-563. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *6. #10-3450 CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF VC MCCLELLAN AND CAH CLANCY, 350 BIG ISLAND – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5921 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5921, a Resolution Approving a Lot Area Variance for Record Lot No. 61 Pursuant to Orono Code Section 78-563. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *7. #10-3451 CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON BOLLIS, 470 BIG ISLAND – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5922 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5922, a Resolution Approving a Lot Area Variance for Record Lot No. 22 Pursuant to Orono Code Section 78-563. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 2 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 23 *8. #10-3452 CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF FRED A. BRUNTJEN, 240/250 BIG ISLAND – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5923 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5923, a Resolution Approving a Lot Area Variance for Record Lot Nos. 63 and 67 Pursuant to Orono Code Section 78-563. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 9. #10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Dirk Miller, Applicant, was present. White noted a large number of residents are in attendance at tonight’s meeting specifically for the Emily Program application and that he would like to give a brief overview of the history of the application. In December of 2009, the Emily Program filed an application for a conditional use permit and three variances to operate an eating disability facility at the former Hill School. Staff prepared a report with their findings. On January 19th the Planning Commission heard the report of Staff and recommended approval of the application and for it to be sent to the City Council for their consideration. In addition, the Emily Program submitted an application for a garage on the same property requesting a setback variance. On February 8, 2010, the City Council met and discussed the variances and conditional use permit. After taking testimony, action was taken to table the application to allow staff and the city attorney to review the issues. On February 16, 2010, the Emily Program obtained an approval recommendation from the Planning Commission of the garage variance based on a reorientation of the garage. On February 17th, representatives of the Emily Program met with the neighbors at city hall and explained their facility and answered questions. On the 22nd of February, the City Council reconvened and discussed the application. Again public comments were received at that meeting. Mayor White noted he was not present at that meeting. The City Council tabled the application for the City Attorney to provide additional information and to review their options. At tonight’s meeting the City Council is again considering the Emily Program application. Murphy noted at the February 8th Council meeting it was suggested that a public information session be held, which was held the Wednesday after. A significant number of people were in attendance. White noted a large number of written comments were submitted. White requested if someone has submitted a written comment, to not comment orally. The meeting will be open for public comments, but White encouraged the residents to avoid making the same comments over and over again. White stated the issues with this application relate to the use, parking, setbacks, and the 24-hour operation of the facility. The City Council has looked at all of those issues and that it comes down to a zoning issue and land use issue. White stated this application will likely come down to a legal discussion about the land use. A number of individuals have expressed concerns about the possible future use of the property should the Emily Program vacate the site. The question is whether the use can specifically be limited to this use and whether that could be bullet-proofed, so to speak, should the Emily Program vacate the property. A discussion was also had regarding an Interim Use Permit. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 3 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Bill Cooper, 627 Park Street, Wayzata, commented that no good deed goes unpunished. Cooper indicates he represents a nonprofit entity called Friends of Education, which became involved with the Hill School situation by buying the bonds to support the private school that ultimately failed. The intention was to convert it to a charter school, which became undoable due to a lack of state funds. Cooper stated if this application is not approved, that does not mean that the building will sit there empty. Cooper pointed out that the zoning as it presently exists would permit as many as 100 students in the school, with associated traffic, busing, and parking. The organization investigated a facility that they felt would be good for the community. This is a small facility consisting of ten beds. Cooper commented that some of the comments he has heard about the program are totally false. He has a daughter with an eating disorder and his daughter is not mentally ill. Cooper stated this is a very serious illness and that there is a need for this facility in this area. Cooper stated the Friends for Education felt this use will not be disruptive and good for the community. Dr. Miller has expressed a willingness to do what is necessary to ensure that undesirable zoning will not happen on that property. Cooper stated in his opinion a sex offender facility at this location is a moot issue and is a smoke cloud in terms of the issues. He felt this facility will have a positive impact on the community and he has personally checked out the Emily Program. The Emily Program is going to invest a significant amount of money into the building and improve the appearance of the property. Cooper noted that all of the money from the sale of the property will go to fund a number of charter schools and that he would encourage the City to find a way to allow this. Cooper reiterated this property will not sit there empty and that the structure will either be a school or put to a different use. Bremer asked if there are any other interested buyers. Cooper indicated they did have some interested buyers but that those did not proceed to the point where they had any discussions regarding price. A different entity was interested in it as an industrial art school for inner city children. The initial plan was to convert it to a charter school, but due to a lack of state funds, that idea was not pursued. Shari Danielson, 1250 French Creek Drive, stated she is in opposition to the application to alter the use of the Hill School property. She would like to emphasize that she supports the work of the Emily Program. Danielson noted she does have a younger sister who suffered from an eating disorder when she was younger. The City Council faces two important questions tonight. First, does the Emily Program, which is a clinic, fit the definition of a hospital or other conditional use allowed in this RR-1B zoning district. Second, should the City Council make a fundamental and permanent change in the future use of the Hill School property by changing from educational use to hospital use. Regarding the first question, the Emily Program does not resemble a hospital, nursing home, sanitarium, or rest home. The medical uses listed as conditional uses in the RR-1B zoning district require special state licenses and other approvals. The Emily Program does not have such licenses, nor would it be eligible for a license for any of those described program. The Emily Program is not at all similar to the common definition of a hospital. On February 8th Dr. Miller himself has said that this facility is not a hospital. The minutes reflect that Mayor White asked whether the patients would be force fed. Miller indicated, if that is necessary, it would be done in a hospital setting and not at the facility. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 4 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Danielson stated she is opposed to the application because it represents an intensification of use that does not fit on the Hill School property and would be detrimental to nearby homes and families. With the Hill School, most of the activities occurred Monday through Friday during school hours and also had a number of breaks, including summer break. In addition, most of the traffic occurred twice a day on weekdays. Danielson indicated she is personally familiar with the traffic pattern because two of her children attended the Hill School. The activities of a hospital or a similar medical facility would take place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Traffic would occur at all different hours of the day seven days of the week. Similar comparisons could be made for parking, emergency vehicle use, lighting, noise, and other impacts. The additional traffic on County Road 51 would pose a heightened safety risk at the Dakota Trail crossing. The Emily Program is not representative of the common definition of a hospital and illustrates the dramatic differences between educational and hospital or other similar uses. Because the zoning changes being requested are permanent, the City Council must consider the impact of other hospital and similar medical uses beyond the Emily Program. Its Chaska clinic serves as an example. It first opened up in 2002 under the name of the Anna Westin House. In 2006, another company took over its management. In 2007, the Emily Program moved in, and three years later the Emily Program is closing the Chaska facility and moving to a business location in St. Paul. There have been four changes over a period of just eight years. Danielson stated that demonstrates the importance of thinking long-term when considering significant zoning variances like the ones before us tonight. The intensified impacts previously mentioned are magnified due to the small lot size, limited setbacks, and proximity to residential neighbors. The City’s own Zoning Code recognizes the impact of hospital and similar medical uses on residents. It protects the residential uses in the zoning district by requiring a minimum two acre lot size and a 100-foot setback for buildings and parking areas for hospitals and similar medical uses. This property consists of 0.58 acres, which is only 29 percent of the required size, and does not allow a 50-foot setback from North Shore Drive or Briar Street to the school building. The existing parking and access driveways are set back less than two feet from the property line. Danielson stated it is clear that the lot size and setback regulations are intended to protect residents from hospitals and similar medical uses. When the intensified use of a small lot is considered in light of the standards, the variances, and conditional use permits in the City’s Zoning Code, the City must vote to reject the zoning applications. Danielson stated she would also like to highlight some important points relating to standards and conditions that the current proposal fails to meet: Number one, the property can be and has been put to reasonable educational uses under conditions allowed by official controls. Number two, allowing hospital and similar medical uses on this undersized property will alter the fundamental charm and rural character of this area. Number three, the special conditions applying to the property are not peculiar to this or immediately adjoining property. In fact, there are numerous lots in this zoning district that do not meet the minimum two acre requirement and would not allow the minimum required setbacks, including many across Briar Street from the Hill School property. Could this become a precedent setting decision for tearing down a home and rebuilding a medical clinic? It certainly appears that way. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 5 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Number four, the granting of variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of this or any other applicant. This applicant has available uses for this property. Number five, both the St. Paul and St. Anthony program buildings are located in business and mixed use districts. Number six, the granting of the variances has the potential, both in the short and long-term, to negatively affect the surrounding residences. Number seven, regarding conditional use standards that are not met, the proposed use will be detrimental to properties in the vicinity due to the inadequate buffers around hospital and similar medical uses, and the proposed use will not comply with the City’s Zoning Code but will require variances to be permitted. Finally, there are other important issues that have simply not been adequately resolved, such as parking, where there is clearly a deficit, and the lack of transparency surrounding the specifics of the conditions of use. Danielson stated, in summary, a permanent change to the zoning standards to allow a hospital and similar medical uses on the Hill School property will permit substantially intensified uses on a site that is just 29 percent of the required size for a facility of this nature. Clearly, this permanent change will pose a significant risk to the surrounding community, my neighbors, their families, and my family. For all of those reasons, I ask that you reject the application. Michael LaQuey, P.O. Box 94, stated the health care industry is moving towards measuring outcomes to judge a program. We do not have any publically available scientifically based measurements of this program. The following are some examples: Hospital aides did not administer beta blockers 50 percent of the time for emergency room heart attack patients; 30 percent of the hospital admissions for heart attacks died. They did not follow evidence based best practices, so therefore they had poor outcomes. LaQuey stated before the City Council can make an educated, rational, scientifically based decision on how this will benefit our community, there should be some industry standard rated outcomes, such as remission rates, death rates, cure rates, morbidity, efficacy of the treatment, if it is based on therapy alone, etc. Steven Byrnes, 1025 Heritage Lane, indicated he does support the Emily Program and that he has been personally affected by eating disorders that his sister suffered from as well. His family is thankful for the care she received from Dr. Miller. Byrnes distributed a set of letters from other neighbors and residents who do support the Emily Program moving into the neighborhood. Byrnes stated he has concerns regarding comments made at the past hearings and scenarios that are simply not plausible and are based on fear and conjecture. Byrnes stated in his view the issues relating to police and emergency calls, property values, traffic, noise, location, and even the conditional use permit have been adequately addressed because the opposition has not provided credible empirical facts. The chief of police of Chaska has submitted a letter indicating that the Emily Program has had no impact on Chaska based on the number of emergency calls to the facility. The police chief of Orono indicated that based on the number of emergency calls he saw in Chaska, he did not feel that would impact Orono. Credible empirical evidence was requested that would refute that. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 6 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Byrnes stated he is not a real estate agent, but he did attempt to find research on line stating that an eating disorder facility has a negative value in a neighborhood. According to some of the people he has spoken to in the real estate business, an empty, abandoned building has more of a negative impact on values than a well maintained, well landscaped facility like the Emily Program. Byrnes noted traffic is already heavy on County Road 51 and that he feels the issue is moot based on the low traffic counts that will result from the Emily Program. Byrnes indicates he does run on the Dakota Trail and that a bigger safety concern is the bikers attempting to cross the highway with incoming traffic. Byrnes stated the main issue that has bothered him and speaks to the knowledge and lack of knowledge is location of the facility. We have continually heard that the Emily Program would be better served on a larger lot and in a different facility, with the residents secluded. The people who have knowledge and/or experience with eating disorders know that they do not need to be secluded. This is not a contagious disease situation. This is a residential home. The Emily Program has been treating eating disorders for 20 years and they understand the kind of home and the kind of facility they want to use. The Emily Program is prepared to spend millions of dollars to upgrade the property, which demonstrates that a residential facility is exactly the kind of facility that these people need. Byrnes reiterated he has been surprised by some of the responses and some of the things that he has seen relating to this application. Dr. Miller is a local resident who lives in Wayzata and is trying to do something to help the people affected in our community. Based on the attendance by the media, this is now being addressed and viewed upon by the entire community and not just Orono. The City Council and the residents have an opportunity to be a caring and compassionate community. We can show the world that Orono does care and recognize that these eating disorders are happening in our own community. Byrnes asked the City Council to move forward with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and allow Dr. Miller and his team to treat these young women. Mayor White requested that the attendees refrain from clapping after each speaker. Thomas Quast, 1251 Briar Street, stated he moved here in 1952 and is still a resident. He attended Hill School. Quast stated he is against the Emily Program facility completely based on the fact that on Tuesday night, at any given time there are five to ten kids on that corner. Quast indicated he is opposed to the traffic that would be generated due to the children in the neighborhood that play in the area until 9:00 at night unsupervised. John Byrant, 1345 French Creek Drive, stated he has attended all of the meetings. His initial feelings toward the Emily Program were neutral to fairly positive. Since that time he has changed that position to one in opposition of the Emily Program application. First, the Hill School property is too small for the proposed use. He checked the Emily Program website and found 13 different types of treatment that were offered excluding assessments and transitional living. Inadequate parking is an obvious concern. Byrant asked if the reports that the Art Center was approached regarding parking were valid. Dr. Miller denied having any such conversation. If there are ten residents, with a total staff of 30, with maybe six to eight per shift, outpatients, program participants, family, friends, vendors, and volunteers, he does not understand how eight parking spots is remotely possible. Since that time we have heard from Chaska neighbors that parking surges have regularly exceeded 20 spots. The City Council has an obligation to understand what the requirement is and how it will be managed. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 7 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 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. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 8 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Tina Paulson, 240-5th Street East, St. Paul, stated she is entering the Emily Program in two days at their St. Paul location and has been going to the Emily Program for the past four months. Paulson indicated she has been dealing with an eating disorder since she was 13 years old and that she is now 42 years old. The Emily Program has been very beneficial. Paulson stated she has read articles on the Star Tribune website but does not feel that the comments left truly represent the Emily Program. Paulson stated she is not trying to say the school should or should not be used but that she would like to break some stereotypes of what will be coming to the Orono community. Paulson stated she personally feels that anything can work at this site if the community truly cares. As it relates to the pictures that were just shown, she has the impression that the residents would have said that is too busy of a location, you can’t find parking, and that they really do not care. Jeanne Fayfield, 2220 French Creek, stated the key issue before the Council is the appropriate land use of the former Hill School site. Fayfield stated we are a city and a state and a nation that is guided by a constitution, with laws derived from that constitution that protect, preserve, and govern our society. The City of Orono has created and adopted a guiding philosophy that is available on the home page of its official website. There are four points of City of Orono’s philosophy, which include the following: Protect and preserve Lake Minnetonka, its water quality and its recreational assets; protect and preserve our many natural resources and open spaces; and most importantly, to preserve our distinct urban and rural land use patterns and lifestyles, and to preserve our local character and identity. In addition, Municipal Code Section 78-05 states: Use of land for residential purposes is considered primary with other uses considered supporting this use. It is not the intention to expand or allow all such commercial and industrial activity to a degree where it conflicts with the primary residential use and other guiding principles. Fayfield asked the mayor and the council members, as well as the greater Orono community, to revisit the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This plan has established policies and principles to guide orderly and economic private development and public improvement in the years ahead. The document is dated going forward to the year 2030. Fayfield requested the Council’s attention be focused on the facts of the Hill School property proposed zoning change. The Emily Program is requesting a conditional use permit and associated variances to locate a 24/7 inpatient, for profit, eating disorder facility in a zoning district zoned primarily for residential. Many neighbors surrounding the Hill School are opposed for the reasons of excessive traffic, safety issues, parking inadequacies, lighting, noise, the higher volume of business activity, increased emergency responses, and decreased property values. Most importantly is the concern for the permanency of the conditional use permit that stays with the property and is not granted to the owner. The conditional use permit cannot be surrendered even if the applicant requests it. Fayfield stated they are neighbors in close proximity to the former Hill School, and they recognize that allowing a facility like this will significantly alter the land use, the character of the neighborhood, and their lifestyles by volume of use. What is not on the agenda tonight is what would be the best use of the former Hill School property going forward. Many ideas have been discussed by the neighbors. The neighbors do not feel this is the only option. A number of residents have pledged financial support to the Art Center and are willing to do whatever else is necessary to find an appropriate use for the property. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 9 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) David Dess, 1260 French Creek, noted he has practiced clinical psychology for a number of years, has worked in the business world, and has worked with people who need help. Dess indicated over the past several weeks he has heard arguments both for and against the Emily Program and its worthiness, good works, and the appropriateness of a for profit entity. The worthiness of the Emily Program is not at issue and it never has been. The neighbors being opposed to locating the program at the Hill School property has been an issue. Regardless of how many times this has been said by numerous neighbors, it seems to be ignored by Dr. Miller. Clearly it is to the advantage of those who favor locating the Emily Program at Hill School to intermingle the two issues and cast those who are opposed as being, in the words of Dr. Miller, irrational, prejudiced, heartless, and narrow minded rubes who do not like people with eating disorders. Dess noted the heartless and narrow minded rubes are his words. The representatives of the Emily Program express shock that anyone would oppose such a worthy mission. Dess stated they have also attempted to turn the opposition of the proposal into a selfish case of not in my back yard. This approach has been disingenuous, condescending, and insulting. Dess stated the residents would like to focus on the appropriateness and the implications of a for profit hospital commercial business located at Hill School. The Council has heard tonight that there are ample reasons for the neighbors to question this proposal. Dess stated he is concerned about the contradictions and remarks made by Dr. Miller and others from the Emily Program since they create distrust and do not address the issues. They also do not seem to support the good neighbor persona that Dr. Miller tells us exists here. During the process we have heard concerns about traffic, parking, congestion, and safety all played down and portrayed as irrational and that there is no evidence of such a thing. In addition, there have been concerns about biohazards that have been equally dismissed. Dess noted there were 13 conditions proposed by Staff for this proposal and that four of them were removed at the request of the Emily Program. The four that were removed are as follows: One, the proposed use will not cause traffic congestion or have peak traffic times which were associated with the former school; two, there shall be no biohazard or medical waste generated at this facility; three, all staff parking shall be within the property’s existing parking lot; and four, multi-family Saturday group sessions shall not be held at this location. Dess commented that it has been stated that the Hill School is a typical location for the Emily Program, but no such location that has been discussed tonight is located in a tight residential neighborhood such as Crystal Bay. Finally, there is a double standard that has been going on in this debate. While we hear in public meetings that the Emily Program is a great neighbor, Dr. Miller’s statement to the press tells a different story. On the one hand, we see Dr. Miller as a champion of a noble cause; and on the other hand, he seems to be doing everything in his power to demean and belittle his to-be neighbors by personally attacking the neighbors with innuendo and conjecture and creating more disharmony and disruption of the community than anyone can remember. Dess stated he has brought along articles that have appeared in the newspapers this past week. Dess told Dr. Miller that he does not know us, has not listened to us, and has discounted our very real concerns with snide remarks, ridicule and personal attacks. At no time in this process has the worthiness of the Emily Program been in dispute or the fine quality work that the staff performs every day. Dess stated Dr. Miller casts dispersions of our community to the press and has tried to make this a debate of good versus evil, David versus Goliah, when in actuality the Emily Program is a for profit corporation that wants to change the zoning requirements and move into a quiet residential neighbor. Dess indicates he fears what Dr. Miller’s response will be if the City Council approves the CUP and a neighbor wants to talk about a parking issue, congestion, the traffic, or safety concerns, and that he would ask the City Council to take that into account. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 10 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Ryan Borne, 1725 Fagerness Point Road, stated he routinely drives through this area and is familiar with the traffic. Borne commented he is hearing a lot of people say that this is not a health care issue, this is not us wanting this in our community. Borne indicated he feels that if this was a 30 child to 100 child school, that there would not be any opposition here even though it would certainly add more traffic than a 10-bed inpatient facility. Borne noted the patients would not be driving to and from the facility since it is an inpatient facility. Deb Vollmar, 4879 Main Street East, Maple Plain, stated she is a mother of a child with an eating disorder. Her daughter was a1996 graduate of Orono High School and an honor student every semester. In fact, she has been an honor student since first grade. In 1993, she developed anorexia. She was also a member of the National Honor Society and recognized for her poetry and short stories at Anoka. She has been on the Dean’s list every semester in college and graduated with honors. She is now employed as an occupational therapist in Milwaukee. Vollmar indicated she is sharing this story with everyone because her daughter almost died. Vollmar indicated she did not know anything about eating disorders and did not expect to be in this situation. Eating disorders are in our school district here and everywhere. There are students with eating disorders at Blake School, at Breck Schools, and in every high school and every college in every state. This disease seems to strike the best and the brightest. Vollmar stated she has spoken with her daughter and asked her to write a short statement. At the time this happened, they had to find treatment, which resulted in them going to several different places for nutrition and therapy. Neither place was trained to deal with eating disorders. In August, her weight was at 110 pounds, and she ended up in the hospital in October. The day she was admitted she weighed 74 pounds. Vollmar read a statement from her daughter which indicated that this was a very difficult part of her life. Looking back now at all the struggles they went through to find help or a program that would actually fit was very frustrating. She ended up being with other people who were suffering from a mental illness that had nothing to do with an eating disorder. She did not have deviant behavior, did not have difficulty getting along with people, and did not need to be watched 24 hours a day. People with eating disorders have issues with control and self-esteem and suffer from an internal struggle to be okay with themselves. In a hospital setting, she once again felt alone and at a loss. People with eating disorders are very high functioning. Most of the time people with eating disorders are very private and suffer from internal struggles. There is not a lot of outward behavior that is sometimes associated with other mental illnesses. Recovering from this disease involves support but also space to work on a person’s own private issues. A residential atmosphere would allow for that supportive environment. It would also provide an opportunity to work on the skills necessary to fight the illness, allow for activities like meal planning, learning how to grocery shop and prepare meals, how to eat and function at the dinner table, how to manage anxiety and social situations involving food, and how to deal with all of the emotions that tend to trigger avoidance of these situations. These are more of the issues relating to eating disorders. It is a different type of illness and requires a different type of treatment. Vollmar stated as part of her daughter’s treatment at the University of Minnesota, at the time she was admitted their eating disorder unit was not open. Her daughter was forced to be in the mental health lockdown unit at the hospital with men and women with other issues. That type of situation does not work. At the present time her daughter is doing well, married, and is an occupational therapist. Vollmar stated at that time she did not think she would live and that these girls deserve a chance. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 11 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Marcus Blue, 2160 Crystal Avenue, stated that he has been hearing a lot of emotional stories tonight and that it was his understanding the residents are here to talk about the conditional use permit. Blue stated he sobered up in 1974, but that does not mean he wants a treatment center in his back yard. Without the treatment center, he would have been dead or in jail and he is thankful he was able to go to treatment. Blue indicated he has helped a lot of people in his life and that he feels for people with this disorder. Every person has a chance to live a good life. Blue stated he has nothing against Dr. Miller except that he is the type of person that if you tell him no, he will sue the city. Dr. Miller is a man that is not willing to give up and is willing to fight. In addition, Dr. Miller has been playing on the Council’s emotions. Since sobering up, Blue indicated he has gone through a lot of things and had a hard life, but that he made it. He is currently a business man and a pastor. Dr. Miller can play on people’s emotions all he wants, but the facts are that the building size does not meet code. When a resident applies for a permit, they ask you what kind of property you have and what is the land use going to be. The residents need to meet hardcover restrictions. Blue indicated he was told that he could not have excessive hardcover when he came in to apply for a permit. This building does not meet anything that is required but yet the City is willing to give them a 50-foot setback. This facility does not fit this neighborhood. There are a number of buildings in Orono that are bigger and better. The photos displayed tonight show that they can adapt to a commercial zone. Blue stated it could be the finest program in the world, but if the property is too small, the property is too small. Debbie Lewis, 2355 Abingdon Way, stated she has resided in Orono for 23 years. All of the objections that she has read and heard do not pass the logic test and some are blatantly deceptive. The residents do not appear to have a land use problem with the Art Center or the school, which is strange. Lewis commented that in her view the Art Center is a big and rather ugly building and is not a house. It has a large, busy parking lot with lots of cars and lights. People are coming and going at all times. They hold classes six days a week year- round, which includes the summers and during school breaks. Lewis noted also at the Art Center there are people going there and working there that the neighbors don’t know. In addition, there are fire hazards all over the Art Center building. They have oil paint, paint thinner, rags, and firing kilns, which does not seem to be an objection. Lewis asked how it could not be objectionable to the neighbors to have a school that could have 100 kids. It would certainly generate lots of traffic, teachers, janitors, lots of people, lots of cars, lots of commotion. Lewis stated the slippery slope argument also applies to the CUP that the school was granted. There could be a school of any particular kind at this location and that she is sure there are some types of schools with some types of students that someone will disagree with. Lewis questioned how the current property values are not impacted by the Art Center or the school. There are lots of people who do not like to buy next to a school. Lewis stated that what is different in this situation is that the people the Art Center and the school serves are different from the people who might go to this treatment center. If there is enough land for a school to have kids out for recess, then there is enough land for 10 people to be in that treatment facility. Lewis commented she is also embarrassed by the code words that keep getting used, such as, it’s only a land use problem. I know lots of people with this type of disorder. Lewis commented it is that kind of attitude that she hears going on here and that she is rather embarrassed by that. Lewis indicated she is also at this point really annoyed by the subtle intimidation that is going on here with Mr. Printup wearing his official uniform. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 12 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Geri Scherer, 15 Orono Orchard Road, stated she has exchanged e-mails with Shari Danielson and spoke with Aaron Printup. Scherer indicated she does not live close to the Hill School, but that she would like the Council to know that Mr. Printup put something in her mailbox covered with labels, such as runaways, attempted suicide victims, etc. In addition, Mr. LeQuay has talked about biohazard removal and frequent ambulance runs to the site. Scherer noted she is a licensed psychologist and also suffered from an eating disorder in her early 20s. Scherer stated she finds those types of labels appalling. Scherer stated she supports the Hill School site for the Emily Program, and pointed out that, as Mr. Cooper said earlier tonight, something is going to go in that site. Being that it is zoned for a school, it could be an alternative school or an English Secondary Language program, and that the residents should be careful for what they wish for. Judy Blue, 2160 Crystal Avenue, stated she has lived in this neighborhood since 1979. Blue stated that this neighborhood is not your typical residential neighborhood. It consists of houses that are small and located close to the road and the streets are very narrow. Blue commented she likes her neighborhood that way because it is very homey and cabin like. Almost any day of the week you can go there and see little kids in the streets playing with dogs and on their tricycles and bicycles. Blue reiterated that this is not your average residential neighborhood. Blue noted she has two daughters in their 20s, and if she were to pick a location for this facility, she would not pick this neighborhood but would rather pick one with a coffee shop, a café, and college students their own age. Amy Blecker, 1380 Arbor Lane, stated she would like to focus on the so-called survey and the data that was presented at the last meeting. Blecker encouraged the City Council to rethink how much weight they give to the survey. Blecker stated she apparently was included as part of the survey but that she had no idea that she was surveyed. Blecker stated there should be more of a random sampling, and that her guess is that the people who did the survey was a group of people who were opposed to the facility, found other people opposed to the facility, and that they assigned names as being for or against it without actually surveying them. Blecker suggested the City Council question the validity of the survey because in her opinion it does not represent a true sampling of the neighborhood. Blecker asked that people stop saying they are in support of the program but not in their neighborhood because in her view you cannot be both. On the one hand it appears that the residents are saying that they know better than the program because they know where it should be located and that they know more than the Planning Commission that voted in favor of the Emily Program. Blecker indicated she lives in the Crystal Bay area and that she does not understand where all these neighbors came from since there are very few houses in that neighborhood. The media attention being drawn to this paints a very negative picture of Orono and the people who live in it. The City Council is responsible for the community’s presence and future well being, and that how this looks to the rest of the state should also be considered. People are emotional about this issue, people do want these girls to get help, and that the setbacks are not as important as some of the other issues being discussed. Blecker questioned whether or not there would be this much opposition to a rest home or a hospice center for cancer patients. Blecker stated there is something about this particular program that people don’t want in their neighborhood, and that her only guess is that it is perhaps the stigma associated with mental illness, which she finds very sad. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 13 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Julie Ann Peterson, 1355 Arbor Street, noted she is one of the closest neighbors to the school and that she has lived there for 20 years. The Hill School has gone through a number of iterations over the years and they have always been good neighbors. Peterson stated she has enjoyed the kids and would watch them walk over to the Crystal Bay Park for recess. Peterson stated her concern is the 24/7 operation as opposed to the Hill School’s five day a week weekday operation. Peterson stated she sees the building from her property and that it is a large two-story building adjoining her back yard. Peterson encouraged the City Council to think about the impact this would have on her patio and deck. Peterson indicated she works in the health care industry, which is a busy, stressful job, and that she loves sitting outside in her yard in the evenings. The Art Center is quiet and has its parking over by County Road 51. Peterson stated this facility will have lights on in the evening and the residents will want their windows open on a nice day, which will mean that she will be able to hear their conversations and other noise generated from the building. Peterson stated this will change the residential character of the neighborhood. Aaron Printup, 2195 Prospect Avenue, stated he resides in a 110 year-old, one bathroom, one bedroom home with his 15-month old daughter, and has been a life-long resident of Orono. Printup indicated he is a correctional officer with the Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation. Printup stated he is opposed to the CUP and that the issue is about preserving the character and integrity of the laws in Orono’s Community Management Plan, specifically relating to land use. The Hill School is zoned for rural residential. Preservation being the guide, that should lead the City Council to vote no on the CUP. Hill School sits on a site that consists of .58 acre, which is too small for a hospital facility. Printup stated according to county property information, Hill School was purchased eight years ago for $210,000 and is reportedly selling for around $875,000. With the proposed renovations, it would be approaching the $3 million mark, which does not make sense for a lot that is .58 acres. Crystal Bay is a residential zone and not a commercial zone. If the current applicant were to vacate the property, the next entity to move in would be another health care facility. The CUP goes with the land. If that is the case, there is no stopping my neighbor from selling to a health care facility because a precedent has been set by the CUP being granted to the Hill School. Printup stated from the beginning of this application process, mistakes may have been made and that perhaps land use wasn’t look at originally. Printup commented he is thankful so many friends and neighbors did so much legwork. The Hill School is a historic landmark and variances of the past were associated with a school, not a new hospital. No new variances should be issued. Hospitals are not allowed in rural residential. Commercialization belongs in Navarre and not in Crystal Bay. Printup encouraged the City Council to protect Crystal Bay from the encroachment of incompatible land uses and to maintain the historic identity and characteristics of Crystal Bay by voting no on this application. Printup pointed out that Hill School is guided by rural education land use and it is stated in that section that the Hill School be relatively small and low key. Making this a 24/7 hospital is not low key. The health care plan being suggested should be located in the Navarre area. If the Hill School becomes a hospital, it will always be a hospital. The City cannot guarantee that it will not evolve into something else. The applicant has suggested that the City could cancel the CUP, which is not legal. The applicant has offered to withdraw the CUP if they ever leave, which is also not legal. The CUP goes with the land. The fact is, with the CUP, any type of drug or rehab facility could operate at this site due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Printup indicated that attempts to develop an IUP will not work either because of the same problems. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 14 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Printup encouraged the City Council not to reinvent the wheel. If the code is not broken, don’t try to fix it. The neighbors are trying to make absolutely certain that a decision made today does not have any negative consequences in the future. During this process, Dr. Miller has resorted to allegations of ignorance, prejudice and name calling. We have facts to support everything we have said and reasons for asking. Dr. Miller has decided to not be clear and straight forward with the City. Printup reiterated that the CUP stays with the land forever. The lot is entirely too small for this facility, it doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t fit. Dr. Miller has made this into a circus of emotions and now a media circus. Dealing with emotions is appropriate in a clinical setting but not appropriate at a council meeting. Dr. Miller is trying to divide and conquer the City of Orono and is evading questions by trying to shame us into submission out of fear of appearing cold-hearted. Mike Maddie, 2115 Prospect Avenue, noted he had gone through a number of issues at the previous meeting that the residents wanted answers to. Maddie indicated he would stand behind the data presented and that the intention of the data was not meant to draw a conclusion or an opinion but to ask questions. Maddie stated he had hoped the Council at some point would address those questions. Maddie encouraged the City Council to take additional time on the application if they deem it necessary. Maddie noted that Steve Byrnes found some data that the emergency calls would not be high emergency siren calls, which was a concern of some of the residents. Maddie indicated he had a concern that emergency calls to the neighborhood would cause anxiety for his children. Maddie reiterated that the spirit of the investigation has been to understand the facts and to take the emotions out of it. Dr. Miller, Executive Director of the Emily Program, stated over the last couple of months many words have been spoken about the Emily Program’s proposed project. These words have been spoken before the Orono Planning Commission, City Council, at a neighborhood meeting, in individual conversations and in the media. Most of those words have been spoken with passion and commitment and some have been very heated. The Emily Program has worked hard to respond to questions by the Planning Commission, City Staff, City Council, and city residents. Miller stated people with eating disorders are good people and they are not a danger to others. Miller stated that sometimes people are afraid of what they don’t know. During conversations with residents from the City of Orono, representatives of the Emily Program have tried to dispel myths and fears about eating disorders. Eating disorders do not happen in a vacuum. Some people with eating disorders do have other mental and physical problems, including chemical dependency, depression, coronary disease, osteoporosis, anxiety disorders, and other illnesses. The Emily Program treats the whole person and all of his or her problems so that he or she can live a more peaceful life. The Emily Program has been doing that for 17 years. Miller pointed out that people with eating disorders live in every community of our region, state, and nation, including Orono. About 11 million Americans and approximately 176,000 Minnesotans suffer from an eating disorder. Nearly half of Americans know someone with an eating disorder. The Emily Program knows that treatment works and people can recover. Miller stated residential treatment as proposed at the Hill School is especially important. Chaska and St. Paul have embraced their residential treatment facilities. The people of Orono have heard from those communities that our clients, staff, and programs have a positive impact in their neighborhoods. People with eating disorders are not dangerous. As a group they are very conscientious and continually are productive members of society while fighting their illness. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 15 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Miller noted their proposal for the Hill School has been vigorously reviewed by the Planning Commission, City Council, City Staff, Police Chief, City Staff, and City Attorney. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, Orono’s City Staff recommended approval, and many Orono residents are in support of it. Miller encouraged the City Council to approve their application. Jay Lindgren, Attorney-at-Law, Dorsey & Whitney, stated he is here on behalf of the Emily Program and that he also serves as a city attorney and as redevelopment attorney for the City of Wayzata. Lindgren stated he understands both the City’s regulatory role as well as the property rights of the subject applicant. In many of these situations, often the solution at hand is one of compromise, which is what he would like to discuss tonight. Lindgren stated what is before the City Council is an application from the Emily Program for variances and a conditional use permit. That application has been left on the table because this operation needs certainty and needs to determine whether this is something that the Emily Program wants to continue to devote time, money and energy pursuing. Lindgren stated the record is clear from the staff report to the unanimous action of the Planning Commission that the proposed use is compatible with Orono’s ordinances and that there is a sound basis for approval. Lindgren pointed out that this is an allowed use subject to conditions, which is really the term of art being discussed. The variances are reasonable. The health and safety issues have been addressed and the record stands in support of that. Lindgren stated having said all that, what he would like to focus on is a good alternative that can also serve as a healing mechanism for this community. Lindgren requested the City Council focus clearly on the issues that have been raised as well as the fears that there is some unintended consequence that can happen by the granting of conditional use permits; specifically that there is some other less desirable use that can come upon the City. The Emily Program is agreeable to a permit that does not run with the land. A clear win/win solution to this situation is an interim use permit ordinance and a subsequent granting of an interim use permit to the Emily Program. Lindgren noted he has had conversations with Orono’s City Attorney about what the law allows in the State of Minnesota and how we can craft something to allow this occur. Lindgren stated he would propose, one, that the City Council directs their staff and city attorney to draft an ordinance that is an interim use permit ordinance. Two, clearly tie the IUP to the licensure status that exists through the Department of Human Services, which is “an eating disorder structured living permit.” In other words, if the Hill School is not used by this program, under that state licensure status, the IUP expires, and thus it will not be a permanent change. Lindgren stated it is his understanding that Orono’s City Attorney interprets the law the same way, and that that is an appropriate standard that can be done under the state statute to allow Orono to adopt an interim use permit. This would allow a way of terminating the IUP to be tied to the program and specifically to the licensure that goes to that program, which will give the City a very strict standard. Lindgren stated point number three is that the Emily Program agrees to an extension of the 60-day rule. There currently is a deadline of April 16th. The Emily Program agrees to an extension that is reasonably necessary to do the interim use permit ordinance and the corresponding IUP application. Fourth, the Emily Program feels a reasonable time frame would be to extend the application to May 10th, which would be a reasonable amount of time for the ordinance to be processed and still meet all of the public hearing requirements. Fifth, the Emily Program would encourage the City Council to table the CUP and the variances until May 10th if you are willing to support this proposal and direct City Staff and City Attorney to go forward with the ordinance. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 16 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Lindgren pointed out that additional delays would cost the Emily Program money but that they are willing to continue to work with the City. The Emily Program feels this is a good use, not just for the City, but also for the community. The proposed solution addresses all of the valid concerns that have been raised. The Emily Program’s intention is to operate a residential eating disorder facility, which is something that clearly belongs in a residential neighborhood, is reasonable subject to some conditions, and an interim use permit is a way to address the concerns raised. Lindgren stated by offering up this suggestion, the Emily Program is willing to compromise. Lindgren pointed out that the Emily Program has property rights as a party to a real estate transaction just as the residents have rights, and that it is the role and responsibility of the City Council to balance those. Lindgren stated he is hopeful that this compromise would help create the bullet proof use that was discussed earlier tonight. Kitty Westin stated she is the immediate past president of the National Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy and Action, and in that capacity she has traveled around the country and the world speaking about eating disorders and advocating at both the state and the national level for better access to care and treatment. Westin stated she is a licensed psychologist, works part-time at the Emily Program, and is also a mother of a 21 year-old daughter who died ten years ago from an eating disorder after being denied the level of treatment needed. Westin stated there are thousands of men and women who die each year because they do not get appropriate care to treat their eating disorder. Ten years ago, Minnesota had no residential beds for eating disorders. Since that time, Minnesota has developed licensure for eating disorder facilities, which is a huge accomplishment. Today the Emily Program opened the new Anna Westin House in St. Paul, which brings the number of treatment beds in Minnesota to 16, which are not nearly enough beds to treat the 176,000 Minnesotans who struggle with eating disorders. Residential treatment facilities are saving lives every day. Westin stated there is no doubt that Orono would be proud to help save additional lives with the 10 additional beds in the Hill School, which would also be called the Anna Westin House. The right thing was done when the first Anna Westin House was opened in Chaska. That facility was an eight bed residential facility every day of those seven years. The facility expanded and moved to St. Anthony Park. Westin stated she would not allow it to be called the Anna Westin House if she did not feel good about how the Emily Program worked with clients and how both the Emily Program and its clients fit into a community. Westin commented that the Anna Westin House at Hill School is a wonderful prospect for parents and families in Orono and that she knows first-hand how needed those beds are. Westin stated she truly believes that had there been residential care available ten years ago, her daughter would be alive today. Westin stated she is proud and grateful to know that with the houses built in her name, Anna did not die in vain. The City of Orono and its residents have the opportunity tonight to prevent other families from going through the horror of losing one of their own. Westin asked the City Council and the residents to embrace this new Anna Westin House in Orono and vote in favor of the conditional use permit. White stated the issue before the City Council tonight is a land use issue and not whether they like or dislike the program. As it relates to the conditional use permit, the applicant’s attorney has suggested an IUP. White asked whether a conditional use permit does indeed go with the land. Mattick indicated that is correct. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 17 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) White asked whether the CUP can be surrendered based on certain conditions and restrictions that the City may impose on it once the applicant vacates the property. Mattick indicated it is clear from Minnesota law that CUPs are not meant to be sunset. One of the options discussed early on was whether the City could do something via agreement with the CUP, whereby the City says if it stops being the Emily Program, and the Emily Program signs the CUP and agrees to terminate the CUP, whether that would work. Mattick stated his response to that is that there is not case law that says you cannot do it, but that he has a concern with that option because the law states that you are not supposed to sunset it. Mattick stated in his opinion a conditional use permit should not and cannot be terminated, which brought about the discussion on the possibility of an IUP. White stated it appears that all the council members and staff are in agreement that a CUP does not provide the land protection element that has been discussed. White asked whether all the variances being requested with this application are distance variances. Curtis noted there is a structural coverage variance also. White stated under the use proposed here, there should be a 100-foot setback. Mattick stated that hospital uses requires a 100-foot setback. McMillan stated the applicant would like to come in under the hospital use language and the setbacks that go with it. McMillan asked if the City of Orono has anything in their code concerning residential treatment facilities. Mattick indicated they do not. Bremer noted if the number of beds at this facility was six beds or fewer, the City would not have the ability to control much about that. Mattick stated that is correct. Mattick pointed out that the statute does not specifically say six beds but reads serving 0 to 6. If the facility serves more than six patients on an outpatient basis, that would be treated differently and could be regulated by the City. If you are serving six or fewer, it is a permitted use in this type of zoning district. White asked if the setbacks would still need a variance. Mattick stated there may be some setback variances associated with that type of use but it would be considered a permitted use. White noted this is an existing structure. McMillan noted this would be a new use for the CUP and not an existing use. Mattick indicated that is correct. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 18 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Bremer stated this has been a very helpful process and that it is emotional both ways. The City Council needs to base its decision on a document that was drafted a long time ago that did not envision these things when the City was going through its Comprehensive Plan review. Bremer stated she will need to rely on her training and expertise that she gained serving on the Planning Commission, which taught her that as part of this process, each property should be treated as unique and that you have to take the property as is and accept that the applicant has the best of intentions. Bremer stated she would welcome going through the CUP process first before discussing the IUP. If the vote were held tonight for a CUP, Bremer indicated she would likely vote no because the conditional use permit does run with the property. Bremer stated she would like to know specifics on exactly what the parking requirements are. Bremer noted tonight the City does not have enough parking at the Orono City Hall building, but that 99.9 percent of the time there is ample parking. Bremer commented that the City needs to be realistic and realize that a person cannot accommodate every situation. Bremer stated another uncertainty is the impact this facility will have on the traffic, but that she personally does not feel this facility will add much to the traffic in the area. Bremer noted the City has required applicants in the past to undergo traffic studies, which may become necessary if this application proceeds to the next step. Bremer stated in her view a conditional use permit is too permanent and too much of a shift from the Hill School and that an IUP should be discussed. Murphy stated for those who were in attendance at the first meeting, he would like to assure everybody that the issue before the City Council is about the use of the land more than anything else. Murphy commented he personally feels the program is fantastic and that they are trying to help people who have one of the most difficult disorders there is. Murphy stated as the process has proceeded along, and also taking into account the larger community, the conditional use permit has several fatal flaws in it. The City Council has not had the opportunity to take an indepth look at a landscaping plan, the parking situation, or the traffic situation, and that the application has gotten somewhat hung up on the emotional side of things. Murphy stated he is intrigued with how something other than a CUP might or might not work for this site. Since the application is about a facility that helps save lives, he would not be troubled extending the time period so those questions can be answered more clearly for everyone. McMillan noted she has received a number of letters regarding the land use issues. McMillan stated in her view this is an issue about land use and that a conditional use permit for a new use should meet minimum setbacks to assure that the commercial use is not a detriment to the neighborhood. McMillan stated it is also an intensification of use from a day school to a 24/7 inpatient client as well as outpatient. McMillan noted the City has not gotten any definitive answers on how big the outpatient portion would be. McMillan stated in addition to the intensification of use, there would be a substantial amount of renovation required to convert the existing building into a residential health care facility. The applicant would invest a substantial amount of money and the building would take on a new life as a health care facility. McMillan commented that businesses and uses come and go but the buildings and their permitted uses remain. Residents come and go but the houses remain. Future councils are then left to deal with any issues that arise. McMillan stated it is very important that the City Council look at the conditional use and what will be there in the years to come and not get hung up on the business that is there currently. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 19 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) McMillan commented she understands that the Crystal Bay neighborhood is very residential and has not been on the edges of commercial areas. Orono is a residential city with limited commercial use and the City Council has an obligation to protect that residential portion. The Art Center has been a long-time existing use in the neighborhood and at the time their new building was constructed, they conformed to lot area, lot width, and all the setbacks. It is located on five plus acres. The Art Center also agreed not to advertise their restaurant part. McMillan stated she is very cognizant of the fact that the Art Center has had these restrictions placed upon their commercial activity. McMillan stated she is fearful that if the Emily Program is approved, the City may experience commercial creep and other blocks in this area may feel pressure to sell to a commercial enterprise if they are unable to sell their house. McMillan stated maintaining the integrity of a residential neighborhood is very important. McMillan indicated she also has reservations with an IUP and the impact it could have on the rest of Orono. Due to the economy, there are a number of vacant buildings in the area, which may result in pressure being placed on future councils if a substantial amount of money is invested into a building and an interim use permit is approved. McMillan reiterated that she has a number of reservations on what it would mean for the entire City of Orono and not just related to this application. Murphy stated at the previous meeting he encouraged people to become educated on the program, which the residents have done. There is no question that an IUP is not a silver bullet either and that the City Council needs to understand the ramifications of an IUP far more clearly than what we do today. White asked if, under an IUP, the proposed use has to conform with the approved underlying uses of the district. Mattick stated that is one of the requirements. The IUP statutory requirements are that it must conform to the underlying zoning but that the City Council does have the ability to place conditions on the permit if it is an allowed use. White asked how hospital zoning got put into a district like this originally. White commented that schools and churches historically were placed in residential areas. Gaffron stated hospital uses have been in the code since approximately 1968, and that the code has not changed significantly since that time. Murphy stated that is one of the issues that will have to be dealt with more specifically. Some of the words used in the code are outdated, such as sanitariums and rest homes. Murphy commented that the Emily Program is really not a hospital in the true sense of the word and that the City Council and Staff will need to look at the definitions in the code, which may mean that the City Council will need some additional time to address those issues. White asked if a hospital can come in here under an existing conditional use permit with the current zoning if the Emily Program vacates the building. Mattick stated the City’s code reads hospitals for human care. Bremer noted the applicant has indicated there is a state moratorium on hospitals. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 20 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) White stated if this is a hospital who wants to treat people with serious disturbances, if that would be allowed if the Emily Program would vacate the property and a conditional use permit was granted. Mattick stated that is part of the issue. The present language in the code reads a hospital for human care. When you review the Emily Program, it talks about a treatment facility for human care. There has been testimony that the Emily Program is not licensed as a hospital through the state like a sanitarium or a nursing home would be. Dr. Miller has indicated that they are not a hospital and that if there is a medical issue, they would call an ambulance. On the same token, the City is not prohibited by their code from taking a broader view of what a hospital is than what the state has taken from their licensing standpoint. Mattick stated the City’s code is undefined as to what a hospital is so it would be natural to look at other definitions of what a hospital might be, and that one of those places to look might be the state’s definition of what a hospital is. Bremer asked if, under an IUP, there would still be the same zoning overlay or how that would change with an IUP. Mattick stated switching it to an IUP does not change the zoning and that the IUP would still need to fit the underlying zoning. The applicant has been clear that they are a state licensed residential facility. Mattick stated the City may need to take a look at the underlying uses to ensure that this falls under that. White stated in his view that is the first thing that should be looked at and that the City also needs to determine the definition of a hospital. McMillan asked if the hospital for human care definition is the only possible use a residential treatment facility can come under. Mattick stated as the code exists, based on his review, there really is nothing else that would fit this zoning. Murphy stated based on what he knows now, he would vote no on the CUP. Murphy commented he has attempted to listen to the concerns of the neighbors and that there is a fair amount of concern over what this property could become. Murphy stated he is troubled by what could happen at this property should the Emily Program leave, which cannot be overlooked. White noted the applicant also recognizes that concern and has suggested an IUP. Murphy stated the applicant has made a good faith effort to go forward with the application and that the City Council should take a hard look at it in that context. White stated the City owes it to the applicant and to the residents to take a hard look at all the issues. McMillan stated the City Council has always taken a hard stand on land use issues and hardcover issues, even to its own citizens, because the City is very protective of its land use ordinances for both residential and commercial properties. Those protective steps have added a lot of value to our City and have helped create a nice buffer between the houses and the lakeshore. White pointed out the fact that an attorney has appeared tonight on behalf of the Emily Program is not a unique situation and that a number of applicants appear with an attorney before the City Council. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 21 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 23 (#10-3442 THE EMILY PROGRAM, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) White requested the City Attorney look at the IUP process. Mattick noted the City Council is not going to make the decision based on opposition or support of the application but that the threshold analysis will be what the definition of a hospital is. Mattick stated one of the concerns raised is the permanency of a conditional use permit and that the City Council would like to explore the notion of an IUP along with some of the other issues discussed, such as traffic, parking, and noise. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #10-3442, The Emily Program, 2180 North Shore Drive. McMillan stated she would not vote in favor of an IUP and Council should vote on the application that is before them tonight. She expressed concern about the time element of an IUP. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, McMillan Opposed. (Recess taken from 9:28 p.m. to 9:39 p.m.) MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT None CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT None CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *10. APPROVE SAFETY COMMITTEE AND SAFETY POLICY – RESOLUTION NO. 5924 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5924, a Resolution Establishing the City of Orono Employee Safety Committee and Adoption of the Safety Program Policy Statement. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *11. BID AWARD – STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIALS BID 2010 Murphy moved, McMillan seconded to award the 2010 Materials Bids as outlined in Staff’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 22 of 23] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 23 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None *12. LICENSES & PERMITS BIG ISLAND PARK PERMIT 1. Applicant: Orono Community Education/Melanie DeLuca Event: Big Island Institute (Environmental Day Camp) Location: Big Island Park Date: June 14 – August 19, 2010 Time: 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., Mondays –Thursdays Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the above listed permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. BILLS Murphy moved, McMillan seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:40 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James White, Mayor Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Approval of Council Minutes 03/08/2010 [Page 23 of 23] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Re-Appointment of Planning Commissioners [Page 1 of 1] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Appointment of 2010 Golf Course Employees [Page 1 of 2] Item #04 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Appointment of 2010 Golf Course Employees [Page 2 of 2] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 1] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 1 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 2 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 3 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 4 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 5 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 6 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 7 of 8] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 03/22/2010 Bills [Page 8 of 8]