09-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Jump to thumbnail

Council Exhibit E 17-3932 From: Kelly.Lowe2@sanofi.com To: ibthiesse(ftotmail.com; Bruce Lemke (bruce(@aplantscapeinc.com); Kevin Landgraver (klandgraverC'0omail. com); Denise Leskinen (deniseleskinen(obgmail.com1; olsonc116Ca)gmail.com; Loren Schoenzeit (lorens(ob3dlake.com); ]on Schwinaler (ionschwina(a)aol.com); Mike Gaffron; Denny Walsh; Jeremy Barnhart; Richard Crosbv; Wendv Dankev; Victoria Seals; Aaron H. Printuo Cc: irlowethird(algmail.com Subject: 135 Orono Orchard Rd North- Sketch Plan and Revised documents. Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:44:29 PM Attachments: Revised narrative 7-5-17.odf Dear Council Members and Zoning Committee Members, Regarding YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Rd North- Sketch Plan- Revised document. I cannot express in language strong enough my complete disappointment at the revised document dated July 5th 2017. The builder's plan is still moving forward with a zoning change request and 15 homes. Many of the neighbors and I have spoken and we are in complete agreement this DOES NOT fit into the current rural theme and beauty of Orono. This builder and the YMCA is completely disrespecting all zoning and existing desires of the current residents. AGAIN I would like the record to reflect my strongest objection to the current sketch plan regarding the land at 135 Orono Orchard Rd. First and foremost they are looking to change the current zoning from one family rural residential. They can rename it low density and residential planned combined changes, but it is essentially a medium density rating as they state further into the revision " this medium density with city sewer provides the best development solution". My question best for who? Certainly not the current neighborhood who are vehemently opposed. Rural zoning was set about to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the historic character of the rural area with land and parcels. Certain restrictions were set in place many years ago to protect the wetlands and natural characteristics of beautiful Orono while allowing for single family development that does NOT overload or adversely affect the natural wetlands and storm water filtration. This development will also strong change traffic patterns for this neighborhood. The plan states "The city of City of Orono has worked with its neighbors in the past to accommodate urban style growth". We are not Urban, this is a rural residential zoning area, and current Orono residences directly across from Long Lake Sewer are on septic and have followed the rules. We each have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in our property and residences with the understanding we chose to live here in this RURAL setting. The Gordon James Builder states that this would benefit the city in tax revenue for public improvements. What they really mean is they will line their pockets with cash as they leave the neighborhood completely changed of its current vision and lower the value of existing homes and increase traffic. The city, last I was informed, was not interested in becoming the next Plymouth development for increased tax revenue. Additionally they state they will set aside 24 acers including natural wetland area. This is a farce of the largest order. Of the 39 acres and after following rules and Met council they are down to around 14 buildable acres therefore leaving 25 acers including wetlands. They are setting aside nothing. Under current zoning no more than 6 homes could possible fit into this space and based on mound, septic and well requirements, it would most likely fit 5 homes on this land due to the beautiful natural topography and all while leaving the wetlands alone.. or "set aside"! They are wrong when they state individual septic would not be a reasonable approach... it is for RURAL development! however it is not for medium density!