HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-3944 ExG online petitionThis petition has collected
188 signatures
using the online tools at iPetitions.com
Printed on 2017-06-14
Page 1 of 18
Council Exhibit G
17-3944
Stop 40-Unit Apartment/Condo Building on Freshwater Institute Property
About this petition
A developer proposes building a multi-tenant condominium/apartment building adjacent to the
Freshwater Institute in Navarre (2520 Shadywood Road) (the “Project”). The Project involves 40
units, is 4 stories high (5 stories—58’ 8”—on the wetland side), with includes 84 to 100 parking spots.
The Project would require rezoning the property and other variances from the City of Orono and other
governmental agencies.
Citizens of Orono and cities neighboring Navarre oppose this Project due to, among other things, the
high density, height, increased traffic and congestion, increased noise, increased light, negative
impact on animal habitats and wetlands, negative impact on adjoining neighborhoods and the
precedent this Project would set for Navarre and the City of Orono.
We, the undersigned concerned citizens of the Navarre area, urge Orono, MN leaders to deny the
rezoning and boundary line adjustment of, and variances and any other special accommodations for,
the Project due to the adverse impact the Project will have on the purpose and value of Orono’s
zoning regulations and the health and welfare of the citizens of Orono and its neighbors.
Page 2 of 18
Signatures
1. Name: Kirk Sherman on 2017-06-02 02:34:52
Comments:
2. Name: Tim Olson on 2017-06-02 15:40:33
Comments: Not the right type of development for the site. Massive building blanketing
the sky and big traffic problem for Navarre, Mound, Spring Park residents
3. Name: Beth Schmitt on 2017-06-02 15:41:47
Comments:
4. Name: Scott Ellingboe on 2017-06-02 15:47:28
Comments:
5. Name: Lisa Bergquist on 2017-06-02 15:48:08
Comments:
6. Name: Catherine Stepanek on 2017-06-02 15:48:14
Comments: I'm not opposed to multi- unit dwellings, but the scale of this project is double
what is appropriate for the site, the neighborhood, the wetlands etc.
7. Name: Lynsey Aul on 2017-06-02 15:52:39
Comments:
8. Name: Jon Eiss on 2017-06-02 15:53:01
Comments:
9. Name: Ellie Langlas on 2017-06-02 15:58:53
Comments:
10. Name: Dave Eiss on 2017-06-02 15:59:49
Comments:
11. Name: jim zimmerman on 2017-06-02 16:11:10
Comments: jimz@thezimmermangroup.com
12. Name: Thomas P Lowe on 2017-06-02 16:12:58
Comments: traffic problems created with this project will be tremendous. Traffic is terrible
during rush hours and this will just make it worse. If this is not already zoned for this much
density it should be denied.
13. Name: Patty Morris on 2017-06-02 16:16:29
Page 3 of 18
Comments:
14. Name: Tracy Baumer on 2017-06-02 16:30:14
Comments:
15. Name: Vail Baumer on 2017-06-02 16:35:55
Comments:
16. Name: John Withrow on 2017-06-02 16:36:43
Comments:
17. Name: David Stepanek on 2017-06-02 16:44:23
Comments: no
18. Name: Shawn McIntee on 2017-06-02 16:52:47
Comments:
19. Name: jill bauer on 2017-06-02 16:56:42
Comments:
20. Name: Christine Hardten on 2017-06-02 16:57:57
Comments:
21. Name: Alicia Codute on 2017-06-02 17:00:16
Comments:
22. Name: Amy Abouelenein on 2017-06-02 17:16:54
Comments:
23. Name: Dena on 2017-06-02 17:19:17
Comments:
24. Name: Steve Englund on 2017-06-02 17:24:26
Comments: TRAFFIC!!
25. Name: Scott Wine on 2017-06-02 17:26:17
Comments:
26. Name: Heidi Witte on 2017-06-02 17:35:16
Comments: Traffic in this area is so incredibly congested even now- this area cannot
support this type of development
Page 4 of 18
27. Name: Jessica Withrow on 2017-06-02 17:39:41
Comments:
28. Name: Sheila on 2017-06-02 18:26:12
Comments:
29. Name: Robin Dodson on 2017-06-02 18:26:48
Comments: Developer needs to work within the zoning and ordinances already in place.
They are there for a reason. Deny the variance request.
30. Name: Greg Hayhurst on 2017-06-02 19:01:51
Comments: While I would usually support a project like this, this one makes no sense
based on the location, size and impact to the community. Traffic on 19 heading north
during rush hour is already a joke. Accidents trying to turn left onto 19 for cross streets is
increasing and this will only add to the problem. I could maybe support it if access could
be off of county 15 via the road on the other side of the marsh -- but I am sure those
neighbors would be pissed. I know I would. All in all, bad idea.
31. Name: Brent Reid on 2017-06-02 19:05:40
Comments:
32. Name: Gayle Hayhurst on 2017-06-02 19:07:22
Comments: This is a terrible idea and will permanently and negatively damage the
neighborhoods. Traffic on 19 is already a huge problem during morning and evening
rush hour. I don't know how it can accommodate 100 more cars. I worry about the
wildlife in the marsh and we should seek to preserve our shrinking wild areas!
33. Name: Jacqueline Sherman on 2017-06-02 19:14:45
Comments: This project is too big for this location.
34. Name: Sandra Keegan on 2017-06-02 19:19:33
Comments: This area is not suitable for this type of development with all the wetlands
right there.
35. Name: Kyle Klossner on 2017-06-02 19:27:55
Comments:
36. Name: Bridgette Olson on 2017-06-02 19:30:05
Comments:
37. Name: Linda L Eckland on 2017-06-02 19:35:41
Comments: Traffic is already congested at the intersection of 15 & 19, especially
mornings and evenings. The impact on the wetlands and habitat would be devastating!
Page 5 of 18
38. Name: Gigi Jabbour on 2017-06-02 19:37:52
Comments:
39. Name: James krey on 2017-06-02 19:38:09
Comments: Approving this re-zoning project will only further exhasperbate the traffic
congestion in Navarre. Traffic on Cnty RD 19 and 15 is already at a crawl in the AM and
PM. This is the WRONG location for this proposed project.
40. Name: Kelley Diekman on 2017-06-02 19:39:47
Comments:
41. Name: Michelle on 2017-06-02 19:40:16
Comments:
42. Name: Hannah Stone on 2017-06-02 19:42:37
Comments:
43. Name: Doug Eckland on 2017-06-02 19:45:08
Comments:
44. Name: Kyla Hudson on 2017-06-02 19:45:45
Comments:
45. Name: Amy Palmer on 2017-06-02 19:48:44
Comments: The traffic is already too busy there, and this complex would not help our
community at all.No more building!!
46. Name: Cil Cullen on 2017-06-02 19:59:11
Comments: The traffic would be horrendous, there would be huge negative impact on
the surrounding neighborhoods. We can't let this happen...
47. Name: Penny Saiki on 2017-06-02 20:11:11
Comments:
48. Name: Kelly Eichmeyer on 2017-06-02 20:11:38
Comments:
49. Name: Heather Musman on 2017-06-02 20:29:38
Comments: Too big--keep within zoning limits.
50. Name: Michaela Diercks on 2017-06-02 20:37:12
Comments:
Page 6 of 18
51. Name: Paul Chermak on 2017-06-02 20:40:34
Comments: This complex would severely increase traffic, damage wildlife and not fit into
a small community. It must be stopped.
52. Name: Rebecca Moore on 2017-06-02 20:43:07
Comments:
53. Name: Jeff Garberg on 2017-06-02 20:44:11
Comments:
54. Name: Sheila McSherry on 2017-06-02 20:46:05
Comments:
55. Name: Susan Chermak on 2017-06-02 21:18:49
Comments: This will have a major impact on traffic, wildlife and not fit the small footprint
of Navarre. We already have major traffic problems on 19. This must not happen !
56. Name: Don Schrader on 2017-06-02 21:44:30
Comments: To much traffic now. it will kill the charm of Navarre!
57. Name: Sonja Lockman on 2017-06-02 21:50:51
Comments: All the development all over the Orono area is destroying the charm of the
city and making traffic unbearable. 15 and 19/McCulley both are already getting nearly
impossible to cross (or sometimes even enter going the same direction) at certain times.
58. Name: JoAnn Barbetta on 2017-06-02 21:54:14
Comments: Traffic will be adversely affected by this development. We strongly oppose
this development.
59. Name: Lawrence Barbetta on 2017-06-02 21:55:46
Comments: I strongly oppose this development.
60. Name: Lucas Detor on 2017-06-02 22:22:08
Comments:
61. Name: Sunhi Ryan on 2017-06-02 22:55:47
Comments:
62. Name: Paul Taylor on 2017-06-02 23:17:15
Comments: Stay strict and strong on the current zoning laws. This type of development
is not suited to be on a swamp, nor the dredging and channel proposed to let residents
get to Lake Minnetonka. There is a reason this has remained a swamp for so many
decades and should remain so without any disturbance from a developer who cares
nothing for the wetlands or nature that uses it.
Page 7 of 18
63. Name: Scott Hutton on 2017-06-02 23:21:21
Comments:
64. Name: Barbara Miller on 2017-06-03 00:14:17
Comments:
65. Name: Marlys Ogle on 2017-06-03 00:25:46
Comments:
66. Name: Jan Berg on 2017-06-03 00:27:15
Comments:
67. Name: Joe Sanguinetti on 2017-06-03 00:54:37
Comments: I am strongly opposed to this development
68. Name: Roxanne Heaton on 2017-06-03 01:14:58
Comments:
69. Name: Pamela Janisch on 2017-06-03 01:34:28
Comments: Lake (water) quality is an important issue for Lake Minnetonka. Disturbing
the wetland will only be another negative impact.
70. Name: Diane York on 2017-06-03 02:04:44
Comments:
71. Name: Libby Detor on 2017-06-03 02:36:14
Comments:
72. Name: Kathy Kladek on 2017-06-03 03:13:51
Comments: There is a place for everything and this is not the place to be putting in a 4-5
story, 40 unit condo/apartment unit. Looks like greed to me and it is to small of an area to
do this. It's a wetland for nature to use!
73. Name: George Jones on 2017-06-03 03:22:09
Comments: I live about a 2 wood away from the site of this proposed debacle. It does not
belong in that location. It does nothing enhance the character of downtown Orono
(Navarre). Traffic has already ballooned to an unsafe level in that area. Please do not
change any zoning or approve variances to allow this project's approval.
74. Name: Anita Ridge on 2017-06-03 04:17:05
Comments:
Page 8 of 18
75. Name: Ashley England on 2017-06-03 04:32:40
Comments:
76. Name: Kevin Duck on 2017-06-03 04:54:28
Comments: No way, any cars too many people too many more boats. We don't need to
cram people in here it's already full. Look at how close the houses are to their neighbors.
Find something somewhere that already exists! How much irony in having a freshwater
area donated, dedicated to always be undeveloped that way and then you put in a bunch
of apartments, boat slips and hundreds more cars on our little go cart track of 30 miles
an hour in and out of town, depending on who the front vehicle is and if they decide to go
the speed limit otherwise there's always a train of cars going 25-30 in a45 mph. It's just all
gotten crazy.
77. Name: Connie Clair on 2017-06-03 08:44:56
Comments:
78. Name: Janice Jamieson on 2017-06-03 11:29:38
Comments: How can this benefit the environment or the quality of life here in Navarre? It
will not.
79. Name: David Jamieson on 2017-06-03 12:11:58
Comments:
80. Name: Nikki Jabs on 2017-06-03 13:28:09
Comments:
81. Name: Kelly Eiss on 2017-06-03 13:28:44
Comments:
82. Name: David hardten on 2017-06-03 13:46:45
Comments:
83. Name: Lynn Adams on 2017-06-03 14:33:07
Comments:
84. Name: v Maddock on 2017-06-03 15:13:03
Comments:
85. Name: Sue Heurung on 2017-06-03 15:52:21
Comments:
86. Name: Betsy Myers on 2017-06-03 17:18:38
Comments: Navarre cannot handle a development of this size!!
Page 9 of 18
87. Name: Lori schlottman on 2017-06-03 17:20:08
Comments:
88. Name: Debbie White on 2017-06-03 18:38:24
Comments: I used to live in Navarre for many years and I agree that the area cannot
support this type of development for a variety of reasons, Traffic flow being one but as
already stated, the irony of building high density housing on a protected habitat and fresh
water area. Making money should not be the primary concern.
89. Name: Michelle Brassington on 2017-06-03 19:13:42
Comments:
90. Name: Barbara Bedell on 2017-06-03 19:18:10
Comments:
91. Name: Brooks chandler on 2017-06-03 19:29:45
Comments:
92. Name: Heather Parris on 2017-06-03 19:43:39
Comments:
93. Name: Pamela Bozonie on 2017-06-03 19:51:17
Comments: Doesn't fit our community and would destroy our wetlands! Absolutely not!
94. Name: Stacy Joslin on 2017-06-03 20:19:42
Comments:
95. Name: June Tearle on 2017-06-03 20:37:29
Comments: We live in Navarre.
96. Name: Lori Spear on 2017-06-04 03:05:13
Comments: Too large for the street.
97. Name: Owen Liu on 2017-06-04 06:38:30
Comments:
98. Name: Dave Fredrickson on 2017-06-04 13:55:54
Comments:
99. Name: Mary Benson on 2017-06-04 14:19:40
Comments:
Page 10 of 18
100. Name: Andrew Schmidt on 2017-06-04 17:32:55
Comments:
101. Name: Jamie Lohr on 2017-06-04 17:33:50
Comments:
102. Name: Betty hayes on 2017-06-04 17:35:02
Comments: the proposed site is inappropriate for a multi-tenant complex. In addition, the
Increased traffic would be a negative impact on the area.
103. Name: Scott Brown on 2017-06-04 19:50:12
Comments: Destroys wetlands, traffic would be excessive Just not what we want for our
community
104. Name: Pamela Scott on 2017-06-04 20:39:19
Comments: Traffic congestion; noise levels; the impact on the fragile lake area; the
addition of this building will be so very harmful in so many ways.
105. Name: Dave Schneider on 2017-06-04 22:43:20
Comments:
106. Name: David Wheaton on 2017-06-05 02:05:36
Comments: Please do not do this. High density housing will make an increasingly
congested area even more so. In my opinion, the over development of Wayzata has
ruined the city. Don't do the same to Navarre.
107. Name: Brodie Wheaton on 2017-06-05 03:14:27
Comments: There is such a push in every local community to bring in these big
condo/apartment buildings. Lets keep Navarre quaint and small! The traffic is already a
problem during the week and this will make it much worse.
108. Name: Marry Bliskowski on 2017-06-05 06:58:45
Comments: NO... to this development
109. Name: Chris Joslin on 2017-06-05 12:28:13
Comments: Please stop the development!
110. Name: Camille Sherman on 2017-06-05 13:09:25
Comments:
111. Name: Dennis Richards on 2017-06-05 13:31:43
Comments: Remove the bridge at the Narrows if this is built to keep the line of traffic
Page 11 of 18
backed up in Orono.
112. Name: regina engebritson on 2017-06-05 14:00:06
Comments:
113. Name: Jim Gagne on 2017-06-05 14:08:24
Comments:
114. Name: Sheila Bakke on 2017-06-05 14:42:09
Comments: As I recall, when the Fresh Water Institute first acquired that land it promised
that that land would never be built on, primarily because it was a wetland. Of course that
promise was broken when some of the land was donated to the U of M which chose to
sell it for single family houses on Old Beach Road. Orono should not let that happen
again.
115. Name: Rebecca on 2017-06-05 14:57:30
Comments:
116. Name: Lee Louise Sundet on 2017-06-05 14:59:06
Comments:
117. Name: Heidi Haberman on 2017-06-05 15:07:41
Comments:
118. Name: Suzanne Walcher on 2017-06-05 17:28:15
Comments: It's quite challenging and often dangerous to take a left hand turn onto
Shoreline Drive when driving south on CR-19 at rush hours, as it is (no left arrow going
this direction). I can't imagine how it would be with additional traffic that would be added
by this development. In addition, this structure would tower over existing homes and be
detrimental to the preserved wetlands. I'm very much against this.
119. Name: Aaron Gross on 2017-06-05 18:21:41
Comments: Stop development.
120. Name: Julie Hadden on 2017-06-05 21:10:43
Comments:
121. Name: Janet Dunn on 2017-06-05 21:53:52
Comments:
122. Name: Linda Ruiz on 2017-06-05 22:39:36
Comments:
Page 12 of 18
123. Name: Evalina korba on 2017-06-05 23:20:17
Comments: Did the Lofts and The Mist condos not tank due to over-building? These too
shall burst when this current bubble bursts. and what happened to the park island deal?
124. Name: Carol Grones on 2017-06-06 00:45:32
Comments:
125. Name: Joni Lohre on 2017-06-06 02:02:52
Comments:
126. Name: Debbie Getlin on 2017-06-06 02:14:39
Comments:
127. Name: Catherine Dremel on 2017-06-06 02:27:11
Comments: Too busy in area for this type of development!
128. Name: Erin tully on 2017-06-06 04:17:20
Comments: This building is insane. Navarre needs to save its charm
129. Name: Carolyn Squires on 2017-06-06 13:55:06
Comments:
130. Name: Mary Sherman on 2017-06-06 14:07:39
Comments:
131. Name: Emily goetz on 2017-06-06 15:10:56
Comments:
132. Name: Margaret Jagodzinski Wood on 2017-06-06 15:39:37
Comments: I oppose this project because 40 units would cause traffic congestion and
have negative impacts on both wetlands and wildlife.
133. Name: Kirk Johnson on 2017-06-06 17:30:21
Comments: I strongly oppose this project!
134. Name: Susan Paulson on 2017-06-06 17:42:57
Comments: Just say no
135. Name: Alyssa Baumer on 2017-06-06 17:43:58
Comments:
136. Name: Linda Kelley Freivalds on 2017-06-06 17:58:08
Page 13 of 18
Comments: I strongly oppose this project. The impact on the already congested traffic
would be extremely negative. The projected size and density would have a negative
impact on the animals and wetlands.
137. Name: John Freivalds on 2017-06-06 18:00:25
Comments: Strongly oppose due to negative impact on character of neighborhood and
dangerously increased traffic on currently congested roads.
138. Name: Linda Sallee on 2017-06-06 20:15:15
Comments:
139. Name: Sonja on 2017-06-06 22:44:05
Comments:
140. Name: Shirley Bull on 2017-06-06 23:10:24
Comments:
141. Name: Cathy Hart on 2017-06-07 03:20:44
Comments:
142. Name: Noah Hoffman on 2017-06-07 03:39:54
Comments:
143. Name: Janice Hurd on 2017-06-07 05:06:25
Comments:
144. Name: Kendall McIntee on 2017-06-08 00:42:04
Comments:
145. Name: M A Dahlquist on 2017-06-09 00:15:40
Comments: NO!!!! This is a crazy proposal for this site for Many reasons!
146. Name: Larry Lundquist on 2017-06-09 13:29:38
Comments: This is primarily a too tall building.
147. Name: Donna Lundquist on 2017-06-09 13:31:33
Comments:
148. Name: Thomas Codute on 2017-06-10 16:07:09
Comments: Way to big and too many units for such a small area. Congested area, brings
more congestion. I strongly oppose this project.
Page 14 of 18
149. Name: Patrick Motherway on 2017-06-12 16:37:36
Comments:
150. Name: Andrew Pratt on 2017-06-12 17:51:14
Comments:
151. Name: Addie Hardten on 2017-06-12 17:57:18
Comments:
152. Name: Melanie Flessner on 2017-06-12 18:08:22
Comments:
153. Name: Shannon Burger on 2017-06-12 18:16:54
Comments:
154. Name: Pete Hanson on 2017-06-12 18:34:53
Comments:
155. Name: Davida Suiter on 2017-06-12 18:35:15
Comments:
156. Name: Anne Nelson on 2017-06-12 18:40:50
Comments: This is out of bounds. Traffic is a nightmare as is. It is not in keeping with
the character of the area. Not to say how it will impact local habitat/animals.
157. Name: elli on 2017-06-12 18:55:26
Comments: The impact of this type of project would overwhelm the area in so many
negative ways.
158. Name: Linda Meffert on 2017-06-12 18:57:00
Comments: I object having any more traffic on city rd 19. The proposed condo would
make it extremely difficult to get in and out of driveways.
The line up on 19& 15 he's ridiculous at this point. He's ridiculous at this point
159. Name: Candice Nadler on 2017-06-12 19:07:57
Comments: This is already a dangerous traffic situation. Traffic on County Road 19
backs up for miles - even beyond the Narrows bridge during rush hours. Navarre has no
history of such density and is not in keeping with the neighborhood or wildlife areas.
County Rd 19 is a major recreational county asset with a huge number of cyclists touring
Lake Minnetonka along this route. Single family would be in keeping with the history of
this neighborhood.
160. Name: Kris Brown on 2017-06-12 19:19:30
Comments:
Page 15 of 18
161. Name: Stephanie Olson on 2017-06-12 19:23:49
Comments: Please rethink this project from a community stand point. This will forever
ruin any potential for Navarre to develop into a charming small-town atmosphere, destroy
the beautiful habitat and the pleasant skyline, not to mention the traffic!. There are so
many possibilities for this location,,,, put a little thought into it.
162. Name: Roban Smith on 2017-06-12 19:30:21
Comments: I don't care for a number of things about this project but the traffic situation at
this intersection is already dangerous and I believe this would make it much worse.
163. Name: Sarah Affolter on 2017-06-12 19:40:30
Comments:
164. Name: Rosie iversen on 2017-06-12 19:43:33
Comments:
165. Name: Tracy Turner on 2017-06-12 19:45:54
Comments:
166. Name: Daniel C Buerman on 2017-06-12 19:48:19
Comments: I travel Cty Rd 19 often, sometimes several times daily and the traffic is
already terrible without any additional traffic. A building that large would also be an
eyesore to what is supposed to be maintained as a Wildlife area.
167. Name: Karlton Gempler on 2017-06-12 20:17:45
Comments: There must be space available that doesn't involve limiting the view to just a
few apt. dwellers.
168. Name: Bonnie Lervik on 2017-06-12 22:15:00
Comments:
169. Name: Michelle Heins on 2017-06-12 22:34:56
Comments: Please reconsider the location of this project. Traffic is already terrible at the
intersection of 15 &19, this will only make it worse. It backs up to West Point Road during
rush hour. I oppose this project.
170. Name: Jim White on 2017-06-12 23:22:59
Comments: A good traffic analysis paid for by the developer and reviewed by the city
engineer and Hennepin County would likely show that at peak travel times traffic is
already too congested in Navarre.
171. Name: Steve Bakke on 2017-06-12 23:32:24
Comments:
Page 16 of 18
172. Name: Evie engler on 2017-06-13 00:04:33
Comments:
173. Name: John Shedon on 2017-06-13 01:35:43
Comments:
174. Name: Deborah Butler on 2017-06-13 01:38:06
Comments:
175. Name: John Motzko on 2017-06-13 02:53:55
Comments:
176. Name: Jamie on 2017-06-13 03:11:50
Comments:
177. Name: Jeff Baumer on 2017-06-13 03:51:51
Comments: I'd like to see a building that would have less impact on the already heavy
traffic.
178. Name: Mary Mueller on 2017-06-13 13:45:14
Comments: It is not only traffic, it is the impact upon the wetland area, which is precious
to our region. This is one of the last wooded areas adjacent to the freshwater wetlands
lets hold on to it.
179. Name: Martha Mayer on 2017-06-13 14:08:21
Comments:
180. Name: Dick Adams on 2017-06-13 15:59:58
Comments: I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. We do not have the
road capacity for the project, it would impact the charm of the area, and it is not in
keeping with the comprehensive plan of the City of Orono.
181. Name: Curt Holt on 2017-06-13 17:05:31
Comments: I oppose this development as described. In addition to increasing traffic on
already congested local roads, this project is simply too large and not in scale with the
neighborhood. It would also adversely affect the adjacent wetland and the natural flow of
water into Lake Minnetonka.
182. Name: James Brisley on 2017-06-13 19:12:20
Comments:
183. Name: Bill Boudewyns on 2017-06-13 19:33:02
Page 17 of 18
Comments:
184. Name: Blaine P Bailey on 2017-06-13 19:41:04
Comments:
185. Name: charles nadler on 2017-06-14 01:11:40
Comments: As so many other citizens, I am very concerned about the increased traffic,
the outsized development for the neighborhood , impact to the wetlands and what liberal
interpretation of variances could allow this project even to get to this stage. One final
point, the traffic was so bad on 19 over a decade ago that commuters were using Old
Beach Road as a shortcut to CR 15 that the city closed the Old Beach Road entrance
onto CR 19. The traffic now back up to the Narrow bridge during rush hours. When will
the city of Orono learn?
186. Name: Ann Purcell on 2017-06-14 03:23:15
Comments:
187. Name: Julie Ellingboe on 2017-06-14 14:59:20
Comments:
188. Name: Brenna Mueller on 2017-06-14 18:28:51
Comments:
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 18 of 18