Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Monday, June II, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. <br />Page Three <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst said she'd have no problem with that if the clinic <br />was only to serve members of the Club, but feels opening it to <br />the public is different. Christiansen asked if this would <br />significantly increase the clinic's business. Rauenhorst said <br />it was her understanding that Hendrickson anticipates a 20t - <br />30% increase. <br /> <br />Hendrickson said there are a lot of runners among the employees <br />of CDC and CPI etc. in that area who have come to him for help <br />in the past; feels it is a unique type situation; that's why the <br />clinic is in the club, and why he enjoys working there, with the <br />people at the club and the people in the area. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst said she can't support the motion as stated; would <br />support a motion that would refer a proposed ordinance change to <br />the Planning Commission for ordinance modification recommendation <br />to allow medical clinic in the I-I District; said she sees the <br />sports clinic as a medical clinic if he's going to bring in people <br />from a number of areas, not just Club members. <br /> <br />Miller briefly explained that parking demands are historically <br />greater for medical clinics than other types of offices; said <br />in this instance, it makes a lot of sense for the type of facility <br />. to be where sports equipment, pools and other activities are going <br />on, and also in an area of high industrial population. Miller <br />noted that, in his mind, the ordinance is clear that the clinic <br />is not a permitted use in the I-I District; feels that calling it <br />an accessory use sets a precedent. unless Council can identify some <br />very special reasons why it is considered an accessory use; <br />reasons should then be included in any motions, so that the next <br />time it comes up, the reasons are very clearly stated. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst moved to refer the problem of medical clinics in I-I <br />zoning Districts to the Planning' Commission for review of the <br />ordinance, and for recommendations as to whether there should be <br />a Special Use Permit requirement. Motion was seconded by Hicks <br />and carried (Rauenhorst, Hicks, Woodburn voting in favor of the <br />motion; Christiansen voting in opposition). (3-1) <br /> <br />Rauenhorst moved that Council deny the appeal of the Administrative <br />decision brought by Dr. Hendrickson of the sport clinic. Motion <br />was seconded by Hicks and carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />Need for Copies of Comprehensive Plan <br />Miller explained that printing of copies of the Comprehensive <br />Plan was deferred, pending modification of the sewer plan; <br />quoted cost estimate for printing 50 copies @ $435; 100 copies <br />@ $600-$650. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council <br />printing of 50 copies of the Comprehensive Plan @ <br />exceed $500. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />Lametti Park Dedication <br />Council was referred to Mulcahy's memo (6-7-84). <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council accept a <br />Lametti Addition park dedication of $25,000. in concert with the <br />recommendation of Councilman Mulcahy, based on the appraisal of <br />the property; park dedication fee to be pro-rated by lots and <br />payable upon sale of each lot; total dedication to be payable <br />within 2 years after execution of the Final Plat by the City. <br />Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />authorize the <br />a cost not to <br />