Laserfiche WebLink
'm <br />Plan of Outlet <br />ners of Dicon, <br />de Manor, and of <br />ition. Lake <br />like to see the <br />developed. <br />to completely de- <br />he requirements <br />ubmitted in July <br />ats to the City <br />oncern was ex- <br />cted. The reason <br />over rain water <br />he city may in- <br />ny, room for <br />ird Conry, and his <br />rey, Inc., met <br />>ld that this con- <br />'■ road. Gary <br />leter lots border- <br />fhe planning direc <br />; were collector <br />1." He made the <br />ior roads. <br />’n was expressed <br />The Countryside <br />jncil did not <br />1 <br />ti <br />h'A <br />a: <br />l#‘ <br />t’-- <br />■fj- <br />■. > <br />■?... <br />fm <br />vvvy-: <br />r *''• P. • A#" <br />The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council <br />The Members of the Planning Commission <br />Mrs. Jeanne Mabusth/Page 2 <br />approve of the concept plan. The concept plan was to be further discussed <br />should a Phase II plat be submitted. <br />fSr''“ph^sfll%e“cS'p"n%Sn;d'unch::9:r^^^^^^ <br />Planning Commission a°letter'^f?om‘*the City'’Engi'nee^ tha^no°traffic <br />grrrert^e^^bj the at ach^a letter from the City <br />Engineer leaves no doubt that traffic is not a conce . <br />The Council wanted to explore the of extending^the^^^^ <br />to the north in order to ^rejected that idea for reasons <br />representative ?Je conve?Ltion’continued to the point whereby <br />given later on in tnis lecter. , .. pntire site should be served <br />denv the olat. This motion was amended to table the plat until the C y <br />ney reviewed the application. A consultants of the partners. <br />welfare reasons. <br />Cariois alieJna^ive^wereTrawnlnd^edrlSra^S «drawn'’aga?n.^'’A plan w?s"sibl <br />mitted concept plan made any sound planning sense. A 9 --i-i-iaiiw <br />anM nf nirnn'5 oartners produced a unanimous consensus that the origina y <br />p^iMe^Jf irap^Tthe northeast lots from future internal road »c«ss That <br />plat application is before you now. It contains no variances and explicitly <br />conforms to the city's subdivision requirements. <br />Tho annlnrant and the below Signed partners of Dicon urge the council to recon- <br />I?Lr"aiJ acLpt the coniept pl^ as submitted for the following reasons: <br />1. Double Facing lots <br />First and foremost in our minds is the fact that if the <br />lots are serviced by interior roads, all of these lots will then become double <br />facing lots (double road frontage lots). It is basic in any planner s min