Laserfiche WebLink
,iME>IUTES OF A PLAI'li^^ING(^fevMISSIa'I lEETING MELD JUNE 21,^p76 - PAGE 2 <br />Discussion developed concerning tlie problons that could arise <br />from a project such as tliis. The Commission's main concern <br />is that the majority of this can^us is in Medina, but 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. Hie Commission expressed tliat the public services <br />necessary for a project of this type are not available. It <br />was agreed tliat tlie educational quality of the Vo-Tech <br />schools is very good, but the feeling is tliat another plan <br />site would be more suitable. Lee Gresser assured the <br />Coiranission that the increase in public services at the <br />other two canpises was very minimal and no problems arose <br />because of the traffic floiv. <br />After continued discussion Pesek moved, McDonald seconded, <br />to disapprove of this project until the folloiving problems <br />that mi^t result from the project be resolved: <br />(1) Increased traffic <br />(2) Conflict of ivetlands with proposed location of new <br />roadway approach from County Road 6 <br />(3) Increased public 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 />HENNEPE4 VO-TEOi <br />(continued) <br />McDonald moved, Pesek seconded, to approve this variance <br />(2 acres of tlie 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 were <br />presented from two nei^ibors wliich stated that they did not <br />want to divide up or sell their land which surrojnds this <br />area. Motion - Ayes (6) - Nays (0). <br />I£STRR RASKQB <br />4220 ailPPEim LANE <br />VARIAI>lf!F <br />LOT AREA AND 1VIDIH <br />Comnission studied revised plans in idiich some of the hard <br />surfaced parking lot xMould drain into the stoim drain <br />located on County Road #19. Discussion follw^ed. 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 gro;rth 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 growtli problem. <br />Motion was made by Make, seconded by Hosfield, to recomnend <br />site and drainage which incorporates the foliating features <br />of the two proposed plans: <br />(1) The I'JE comer of tlie site be graded so drainage comes <br />toward County Road 15 and 19 as proposed in latest <br />plans. <br />(2) Roof of building be drained into the same drainage <br />system by underground pipe. <br />(3) Retention pond be eliminated and minimum grading <br />and distrubance of that 100' south and west be <br />done as shown on tlieir earlier drawing. <br />SUPER VALU <br />RYAN CONSTRUCTION <br />3333 SHORELINE DRIVE <br />SITE AND DRAINAGE <br />PLAN APPROVAL