My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-08-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
09-08-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2026 12:03:25 PM
Creation date
1/12/2026 11:57:22 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.
/
218
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 I.Lie #1039 <br />August 14, 1986 <br />Page 2 <br />Staff's only concern with Boudr.eau's finding is that permit 86- <br />C178 was issued by the DNR on April 22, 1986 (Exhibit C). Staff <br />specifically asked in the Local Unit of Government response (Exhibit <br />Q) that the DNR delay all action until the City's review is completed <br />dated J -ne 11, 1986 - form recieved by City 5/19/86. The City never <br />received the same material for permit review 86-6178 and yet note in <br />that letter of approval that the mayor of the City may call for a <br />public hearing wirnin 30 days. <br />Staff has reviewed this matter with John Noble who had correctly <br />assumed that the DNR would have taken care of this through normal <br />procedural review. He advises that the well had to be drilled before <br />the DNR would consider the permit ttnis has been confirmed by staff) <br />and that the well serves not only the geothermal use but will serve <br />the more intense needs of the residence. <br />Staff has had difficulty trackin,; down John Fax because he has <br />been transfered to a different division. Clearly, this is not a <br />problem related to the applicant's doing but a failure of <br />communication between the two levels of government. Staff will <br />resolve this matter with the DNR. The issue has been reviewed in this <br />memo because certain members have addressed the installation of the <br />well and the unusual timing of the installation. <br />Issues for Consideration: <br />1. Could the discharge pipe have been designed to drain into wetlands <br />to the east - without creating drainage pi, blems for surrounding <br />properties? <br />2. Is Planning Commission satisfied that. City's only jurisdiction <br />over this specific application is the excavation and installation of <br />underground lines within the lakeshore protected area. It would <br />appear that both P.C.A. and the DNR are satisfied with the use level <br />and well specifications for ground water- use. <br />3. Are there other areas in this review that should be considered as <br />part of the City's review? <br />Staff has asked that an engineer from Bonestroo, Anderlick & <br />Associates be present to respond to any questions you may have <br />regarding the relevai - of the technical information submitted in <br />response to our specific questions. Please contact my office prior to <br />t.ne meeting if any member has additional questions. <br />If Planning Commission is able to make a recommendation upon <br />satisfaction that all applicable standards have been addressed, refer <br />to Section 10.09, 10.08 and 10.55, Subdivision 25 A for direction in <br />making the necessary findings for action - note you would be dealing <br />with both a conditional use permit and variance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.