Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />o <br />o <br />MEWTES OF A FLAMMING OOM4ISSICN MEETING HELD JUNE 21, 1976 - PAGE 2 <br />Ks^sion developed concerning the problans that could arise <br />from a project such as this. The Conmission's main concern <br />is that the majority of this campus is in Medina, hit Orono <br />would be handling the traffic. The feeling now is that <br />traffic is quite heavy because of the schools already in <br />this area. The Caimission expressed that the public services <br />necessary for a project of this type are not available. It <br />was agre^ that the educational quality of the Vo-Tech <br />schools is very good, but the foeling is that another plan <br />site woi^d be more suitable. Lee Grosser assured the <br />Gomnission that the increase in public services at ^e <br />other two canixises was very minimal and no problems arose <br />because of the traffic flow. <br />After continued discussion Pesek moved, McDonald seconded, <br />to disapprove of this project until the following problenm <br />that migjit result from the project be resolved: <br />(1) focre^ed traffic <br />(2) Conflict of wetlands with proposed location of new <br />roadway approach from County Road 6 <br />(3) Increased pii>lic services <br />Motion - Ayes (4), Nays (1) - Hosfield, Abstain (1) - <br />Van Nest. <br />John Hake suggested that the villages of Orono and Medina <br />meet to discuss this proposal. <br />McDonald moved, Pes^ seconded, to approve this variance <br />(2 acres of the 5 acres required) because of many years of <br />planing and because the area is large enough for an on-site <br />septic system. The parcel was platted and under single, <br />separate ownership prior to January 1, 1975. Letters wer^j <br />presented f^ two neighbors which stated that they did not <br />want to divide up or sell their land which surrounds this <br />area. I4otion - Ayes (6) - Nays (0). <br />Coninission studied revised plans in idiich some of the hard <br />surfaced parking lot would drain into the stoim drain <br />located on County Road #19. Discussion folloived. The <br />Zoning Administrator suggested that the roof drains be <br />brought down to utilize same drain on #19. Also mentioned <br />was the fact that a proposed pond, if built, would destroy <br />na^ral growth screening to the south of the structure. <br />This would require cleaning out area such as removing trees <br />etc., and could establish a future growth problem. <br />Motion was made by Hake, seconded by Hosfield, to recomnend <br />site and drainage vdiich incorporates the following features <br />of the two proposed plans: <br />(1) The NE comer of the site be graded so drainage comes <br />to/ard County Road 15 and 19 as proposed in latest <br />plans. <br />Roof of building be drained into the same drainage <br />system by underground pipe. <br />Retention pond ^ eliminated and mininum grading <br />and distnijance of that 100’ south and west be <br />done as shown on their earlier drawing. <br />(2) <br />(3) <br />HEMIEPE4 VO-TECH <br />(continued) <br />i <br />lESlER RASKTB <br />4220 OUPFENA LANE <br />VARIANCE <br />LOT AREA AND fVIDIH <br />SUPER VALU <br />RYAN OGNSTRUCriQN <br />3333 SHORELINE imVE <br />SITE AND DRAINAlGE <br />PLAN APPROVAL