My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-2006 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
01-23-2006 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2015 1:04:53 PM
Creation date
7/13/2015 1:04:31 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.
/
204
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
#OS-3131 <br /> December 8,2005 <br /> ' Page 7 <br /> L. Utility Locations and Av�il�bility <br /> Municipal sewer service is proposed to come fi�om the existing system in Elm Lane. This sewer <br /> system discharges to the Long Lake sewer system and its use will require an amendment to <br /> cui7ent sewer agreements with Long Lake, Orono does not have City water at this location; the <br /> developer is plaiuzing to coiuiect to the Long Lake water system in Glendale Drive. <br /> M. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees Required <br /> The developer will pay all costs of utility construction and installation. It is contemplated that <br /> Long Lake will charge unit corulection fees for new water com7ections to their system; these <br /> would likely take the place of any Orono coruzection charges. <br /> N. City Engineer Comments <br /> The City Engineer has provided comments regarding the application, attached to this memo as <br /> Exhibit D. While a number of detailed plans will be required for final plat approval, there are no <br /> red flags in Kellogg's coinments that suggest issues with the proposal. <br /> Issues for Consideration or Discussion <br /> 1. Has the applicant provide sufficient infonnation showing how development of the site <br /> can meet the City's Conservation Design goals? <br /> 2. Does Council have any concerns regarding any elements of the Planning Commission or <br /> Park Cominission recoininendations as noted in this meino? <br /> 3. Are there any other specific concerns remaining unaddressed? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff finds that this rezoning/subdivision proposai has been revised a number of times and has <br /> generally or specifically addressed all concerns raised by staff and the Planning Conunission. <br /> Staff would recommend that Cotuicil direct staff to draft � resolution for General Concept Plan <br /> Approval for review at your January 9 meeting. <br /> COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br /> Review the proposed subdivision, and especially the Conservation Desibn recoinmendations of <br /> AES. Address any rernaining concerns or issues which need consideration, and direct staff to <br /> draft a resolution for General Concept Plan Approval For review at your January 9 meeting. <br /> The applicant should be advised to formally request an eYtension of the Review Period, since the <br /> cun•ent e�tension expires December 19. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.