My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
12-12-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 2:21:47 PM
Creation date
1/12/2023 1:59:26 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.
/
302
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
L • <br />M0S3I3I <br />Dtccmber 8,200S <br />Pa|c7 <br />L. Utility Locatiou and Availability <br />Municipal sewer service is proposed to come from 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 />current sewer agreements with Long Lake. Orono does not have City water at this location; the <br />developer is planning to connect 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 connection fees for new water connections to their system; these <br />would likely take the place of any Orono connection 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 requir^ for final plat approval, there are no <br />red flags in Kellogg's comments that suggest issues with the proposal. <br />Issues for Constderation or Discussion <br />1.Has the applicant provide sufficient information 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 Commission recommendations as noted in this memo? <br />3. Are there any other specific concerns remaining unaddressed? <br />Stuff Recommeudatiou <br />Staff finds that this rezoning/subdivision proposal has been revised a number of times and has <br />generally or specifically addressed all concerns raised by staff and the Plaiming Commission. <br />Staff would recommend that Council direct staff to draft a resolution for General Concept Plan <br />Approval for review at your January 9 meeting. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br />Review die proposed subdivision, and especially the Conservation Design recommendations of <br />AES. Addrm any remaining 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 qiplicant should be advised to formally request an extension of the Review Period, since the <br />current extension expires December 19. <br />H.4__xj.M <br />V <br />j <br />: <br />• I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.