Laserfiche WebLink
-' ‘i- . ■' <br />■ .I’w »a^- ■«»ki .'J <br />■:.,'.f'-A- <br />fc--f <br />T ’•' •-’* . <br />1^ ' <br />'>^w!-:i'.';' ; <br />vvjftev ■ <br />^-r;- <br />5. <br />. -'m <br />^V. <br />V. .f <br />liM <br />*0:Jeanne A. M&auStn. Chairman KeMey, ano Planning Commission <br />Heaoers <br />rfon: John H. Lein <br />2700 6tn Avenue North <br />*»ong Lai< e. MN 55356 <br />RE: The proposeo site tor the Orono Arena Sports Facility <br />1 am not opposed to an ice arena going into the general area. <br />However. I am vehemently opposed to it being erected across tne <br />.highway from me. with ingress ana egress near mine. This w:>! <br />nave a detrlmenral ettec: on the value of my property. <br />My argument is as follows: <br />areThis project ooes not meet with tne current zoning, ihere <br />certain specified recreational uses permitted by special use <br />permits in residential areas. If you consioer the uses allowed, <br />tne majority of these uses are substantially less intensive and <br />Obtrusive. The proposal before you asks for approval of a 240' <br />oy 140'. 32' high structure which requires variance by ordinance. <br />If you consider all the detrimental effects of this expansive <br />building. 2S0>» parking spaces* together with the obtrusive <br />lighting and high amounts of traffic generated, you will quickly <br />get a feel for how devastating this use would be to us, the <br />residents who have been enjoying living in the Orcno countryside. <br />V- <br />-.4 <br />•rSrS:Jf#s-'L <br />. . ’i <br />Staff, in their reporet. mentioned that the reason this site was <br />chosen, was because it was the most economical and suitable for <br />tne purpose of the Corporation. Ve do not feel, as existing <br />residents, that simply because this plan provides them wirh an <br />economicai site tnat it should be allowed to oe eonstr :.ced <br />consioering the fact t.nat it destroys the nature cf our living <br />environment. Kay we p'.eao with you the horror this proposal <br />brings to us wnen we have always oelieved we wouic oe in a <br />country setting with only single family residential neighbors. <br />As we have anticipates development around us, we have pictured <br />attractive homes, not parking lots, lights, traffic, and noise. <br />V <br />ii- ''i <br />\ 4 <br />•*. ' <br />■ . • -‘ir <br />‘•v,t . V / .Aj. <br />»/ * M .•: S' ?,• : <br />• .4.:. <br />■>i ■ ' <br />■: <br />.•••';>■ <br />V ■ <br />Staff reports states that compatibility is a xey issue. Ve <br />couldn't agree more. Considering the adverse effects this <br />proposal w>i!d have on us. there is no possible way to look at <br />tn.s proposal anc consioer that 't is compatible. <br />Staff also states oerming and planting should oe provided to <br />buffer the use from the neighbors. Although it looks good on <br />paper in eradicating the use. there Is absolutely no practical <br />way you can even begin to buffer ail of the adversities. PleaM <br />consider that we have to live across from this. !f the buffering <br />ooes not work and the lighting is still bright and the traffic <br />intensive, our lives will be effected beyond our csmprehension.