My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-20-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
11-20-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2023 10:44:03 AM
Creation date
10/5/2023 8:44:35 AM
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.
/
433
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 #205^ <br />November 15, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />Included in this packet are the comments submitted by the property owner, William Pes^e, at <br />the September 18th meeting, as well as a copy of the settlement agreement. Additionally <br />enclosed is a copy of the DNR permit issued in late September. <br />Construction plan E.\hibits F3, F4, F5 and F7, have been slightly revised since the September <br />packet. F3 and F4 now include the planting schedule. Note that in F4 and F5, the two basins <br />of the Orono pond are separated by a peninsula rather than an island as noted previously. F7 <br />contains additional detail regarding the gate proposed for the access road. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />Please again review the memo of September 15th (Exhibit G) which reviews the variances and <br />conditional use permit required, discusses shoreland ordinance permit review guidelines, reviews <br />the City Engineer's comments, discusses health, safety and welfare issues specifically dunng <br />the construction process, and defines a list of items for Planning Commission review and <br />consideration. <br />Finally, note that while MCWD is pursuing legal action against the City of Medina due to their <br />refusal to issue the necessary permits, MCWD remains optimistic that the Medina pond will <br />be constructed this winter. Therefore, it is critical to address the safety issues regarding spoU <br />disposal for that project, which may require extensive truck traffic at the County Road <br />6/Tamarack Drive intersection. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval with specific conditions. <br />2. Recommend approval, directing staff to develop appropriate conditions. <br />3. Table, specifying what additional information or review process is appropriate. <br />4. Recommend denial, stating specific reasons. <br />5.Other.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.