Laserfiche WebLink
' <br />V ■ <br />i.' <br />OF APRII' <br />miuotes of the commission <br />i£ they denied the plat that^the^ <br />Callahan stated t a „ould factory. Hesurrounding Pt°P“ty „„„ „ere satrsfaoto y <br />laits that had proPuid^.t aown f t%lan. <br />hf wov^ld only come ^ack Id agree onSToSa“ ■..« «r ss <br />the of on traffic. <br />further mf developer could <br />°'’*'^^acr«fth"a“^i«efen"t plan with less numbers, <br />come ba a-his plat now the <br />Hovegno stated tna^y a^ t ^^^t. <br />developer would come o <br />Plerst stated t-^-^the^raff bal recon^ended this <br />had suggested and rn <br />plan. .:.r,vation should be done <br />povegno stated ;^,^^iS®“°“Rov:g^ then^expl^ tP t^^-t <br />Audience!: who^was^still^pres^^^^ an| <br />some level -ov>ablv would There is not muchts'SK- s;-..difference between <br />Page ® <br />SCHLEE (CONT.)i-i <br />• ■ <br />vote- Ayes (2), Nays (5). Motion failed. <br />^Uahan -n ,^^ved^^^ folJ^rtirs-. <br />unit plat subject to th <br />the problem. (City -o ^ <br />, 48 single family units allows .2-48 singx Engineer s <br />3 . sewers to flow north per <br />recommendation. Engineer's plan <br />4 . water main extension per City <br />approval. city Engineer and <br />5 . storm drainage system per City <br />MCWD plan approval. engineer's plan <br />6 . street construction per City <br />appto'^®^* , to Park Commission <br />, Tot lot park dedicati^on subDect^ dedication per <br />^ - recommendations with ,„d the | <br />°/urrenf1ef scredule. ^„d <br />. of all required devel p ^g^ication fees, <br />« - !:rovement inspection charges or <br />type is decided. <br />rt^d vote: Ayes (5), Nays (2). Rovegno seconded. Vote <br />* V V <br />: <br />■V-