Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

are the final remnants of what was once the hu• of Orono. Slowly commercialism has 5 5 vanished and its absence leaves the impression that t was always quiet, and should always be quiet. In recent years even the Hill School generate it several traffic complaints. Caution signs now line Briar Street that had encouraged school p. ents to slow down. With a capacity of 100 students, traffic patterns were noticeable, but tolerat;d. The Emily Program's proposed use has given no indication that traffic levels will have a gr-ater impact that those of the Hill School. In fact it appears estimates, despite the occasional ;mergency vehicle (which although might provoke an emotional response, still only has the ai tual impact of a solitary vehicle), project less traffic than those expected to be experienced if t e Hill School had reached capacity. Many neighbors have expressed concern that allowi g a conditional use opens the door to less neighborhood-friendly programs using the prope y in the future. As has been stated in previous council meetings, programs with six or fewer residents may utilize any residential property without city approval. The proposed use seeks a conditional use to allow a ten resident capacity. A search of the Minnesota Dep. ment of Human Service's licensing lists shows that of the 10,150 residential programs fir which capacity was listed (including waivered services programs for which residential capacity is capped at four), 81, or less than 1% have a licensed capacity of seven to ten r•sidents. Dr. Dirk Miller of the Emily Program claims that economics would prevent • her organizations from purchasing the property should his program leave, but the quantity •f potential suitors alone suggest that it is extremely unlikely. Additionally, few of these pro_rams would likely have any more of an adverse impact on the community than the Emily Program. By and large these residential homes provide foster care to children and residential services to people with disabilities — our most vulnerable citizens. The likelihood that one •f these programs would have an adverse affect on the community is extremely rare. On t e other hand, 9,780 of these residential programs, or over 96%, serve six or fewer reside 0 is and could presumably move into any neighborhood without city approval. Clearly, grant ng a conditional use permit to the Emily Program does not significantly increase the risk i f less neighborhood friendly residential programs from entering our city. Ultimately, if the conditional use permit for the Em4y Program is denied we, as a community, will be left wondering what other uses the historic property might serve. More than likely we will find ourselves in this same position, wondering whether the proposed use will likely have a significantly adverse impact on the neighborhood. ery likely they will not propose the same significant investment that the Emily Program has t preserve and enhance the property. Let's not pass up this opportunity. At the most recent city council meeting the phrase "perception is reality" was cited as evidence of the potential imp ct of community fears. Undeniably those fears are real. However emotions can be temporal The longer view which sees the Emily Program's unique opportunity to preserve an istoric landmark, while simultaneously becoming a venerable asset of our community is t reality that will stand the test of time. I encourage you to approve their proposal. 5