My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-18-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
09-18-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2023 2:43:28 PM
Creation date
9/28/2023 4:30:44 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
647
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #2059 <br />September 15, 1995 <br />Page 5 <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Following is a punch list of items for Planning Commission review and consideration. <br />Watersh^ District representatives are expected to be in attendance at Monday night s meeting <br />to address any issues of concern. Many of the issues noted below are addressed in the attached <br />materials. <br />• Are the iKcessary variances in regards to tree removal vegetation clearing and <br />excavation within 75’ of a tributary supported by adequate hardships and <br />justification? <br />• Are the benefits to water quality in Long Lake provided by this project sufficient <br />to balance the loss of vegetation, habitat, etc.? From an aesthetic standpoint, <br />does plannin g Commission accept the revegetation plan as adequate? <br />• Is the project necessary or are there alternatives? <br />• Has MCWD adequately addressed mitigation of wetland per Wetlairf <br />Conservation Act guidelines? Is mitigation for the loss of Tyj» 2/7 wetland in <br />Orono going to be mitigated in Orono. or at least within the upstream <br />subwatershed? <br />• From a safety standpoint for the finished pond, does Planning Commission concur <br />that the access road should be gated? Does Planning Commission have any <br />concerns regarding the potential for this area to become an "attractive nuisance"? <br />• Are there any concerns of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Pierce, that the <br />City should aware of and address? <br />The following questions and possible concerns relate specifically to the construction process: <br />• If Medina forces traffic from this winter ’s Deer Hill Road project on to the <br />Tamarack/County Road 6 intersection, how will MCWD address safety concerns? <br />While this is not strictly a planning issue related to the County Road 6 project. <br />Chairman Peterson lives at the northwest quadrant of this intersection, and other <br />Commission members live within a short distance of this area and use this road <br />often, and may have specific comments . . . <br />• Regarding the County Road 6 project scheduled for 1997/1998, does Planning <br />Commission concur with staff that the conditional use permit/variance resolution <br />should be written to not expire after one year, but extend to the expected start
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.