My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-19-1984 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1984
>
03-19-1984 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2023 4:05:10 PM
Creation date
6/22/2023 3:48:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
183
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
^83 <br />>/84 <br />654 and 769 <br />ncil <br />a note <br />as never <br />action <br />a be sub- <br />r the ap- <br />anxes not <br />•ri <br />. f- <br />. -f • ;i:. <br />'f*'■ <br />i <br />% <br />-i <br />Ifl*1! <br />h <br />r <br />• I <br />Planning Commission <br />March 15, 1984 <br />page 2 <br />? enclosed the subject resolution (Exhibit K) because it <br />df»v<a 1 forth Council*s position in denying the total <br />plan submitted with both Applications 654 and 769 <br />th^tota]®d»5°T®^ of 654 specifically addressed the fact that’ <br />«iv plan was not receiving approval only the <br />Exhibit r^^*^T°h Manor. Review Conry’s response, <br />sketch*^ the referenced planner's <br />*1 ~ attempt to address Council concern but <br />Sir development where the totalnu^er of developed lots would not be affected. A total de- <br />velopment plan could be designed where the negative effects <br />facing lots would be reduced by the use of cul de <br />acred designation of larger, deeper <br />thilf ioicerns°“"Ti^ revised plans thit addressedthese concerns. The applicant refused and continues to do so <br />i/laikedViivieed"r^i'i‘^S"''^,'® current application noting that <br />the appticatiorn stated that <br />I do not want the application delayed before the Plannina Com <br />mission because of Conry's refusal to submit a new plan ^ in <br />tharrreiiSol^’V°®"^"'?"' Commission Sitt’asf <br />S ! addresses Council's con-cern - -F-i* t-nau auuiresses council's con- <br />iSctor Srf 5 to future lots via surrounding collector streets prior to Council's review of current proiSLl? <br />Before we get into the review of AoDlicatinn im#; <br />council meeting stating he had no authority to sneak for- <br />ship."°^ deeded to other members of the limited partner- <br />Review of Application #816 <br />The second stage plat contains five, two acre lotc* a»v,o <br />plat road will be extended westward 300'+ wi<-h a existing <br />to be constructed between lots I'and 2^ block 3 ^The^drv^bntid® <br />fi«t“eview®*' of the retention pond - same as in ‘ <br />Plann <br />March <br />page <br />Septi< <br />The ei <br />at 10 <br />desigr <br />origir <br />for th <br />To tab <br />until <br />staff: <br />JAM:jl
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.