Laserfiche WebLink
461 <br /> • <br /> • <br /> October 9,1970 <br /> rely request that thestaff objectively revie` <br /> my <br /> conditions <br /> • <br /> those other developments enclosed <br /> proposedat <br /> or subsseegquent[ nrealistically pearidentical <br /> and-inmore adverse impacts. Thefollowingareas <br /> cimpact <br /> were equal to r greater thanthose of Madison lark. included <br /> lake, soil,steeplopes,traffic,schools,sewer,parks and <br /> drainage. <br /> When viewed objectively,it is plainly apparent thatthe s <br /> am <br /> e <br /> person didn't prepare the conditions for althree projectsand there <br /> a considerable amount f discrimination levied again[projects, <br /> Park. • <br /> I am enclosing 0 <br /> Conditions of Tentative Approval for the Plat <br /> and PHD of madison <br /> Park. <br /> Planning S affwhileeliins D rly0400,000 of discriminatory prooals of s <br /> viaidns. Please give this serious consideration and thank you for your <br /> Councilman Langur a this plat w charged f others • <br /> • <br /> were not, skid why <br /> that when Kenilworth Hills development � <br /> came beforenthe Planning Commission his ewer charge m len came <br /> to he attention o the staff. They felt there would be a a for a <br /> charge in order a <br /> properly maintain construct sewers to take care <br /> of theadditional <br /> tritional usage by KenilworthPlat. <br /> Mary Past <br /> Haglund,of <br /> Studye the Public Works <br /> felt there culd be federal P <br /> and state <br /> y for n w we and repairs t sewer n Ne City. • <br /> funds atfewamonths agotheCity had been notifiedtheybe re- <br /> .1 <br /> eiding t and so the charge h would <br /> the de- <br /> City,rs tThis his naturally <br /> came in a this knowledgewas <br /> made against <br /> bythe <br /> rallyathey nwere c arged.the same as ysfuture development <br /> would be charged. <br /> allethe area not they an roposed pfat,eP gednting the Couuncilltotvot 900 residents • 1. <br /> the c ceptural approval° dethe';tentative separately <br /> approval for the <br /> ofplat.development <br /> said the developer eeaweO s vela forthcope <br /> f e time <br /> and ion one they were shown <br /> todevelop the so for <br /> he decision on this could be d going ed. we said also he telt <br /> le • <br /> some <br /> di C and Woodridge devil opmenca ehouldtb be loft in condition R4 1�4 <br /> regardingncharrggingdthese developers pers for the c of signal lights. He <br /> again <br /> n[com area. the accumulative affect of other developments coming <br /> into ncl lmenet then asked what his advice would b o un <br /> hewerecityCAttorney,and he Said they could defer until t <br /> ere proposal tonight,or separate t proposal certain <br /> act <br /> on the PRO r date. <br /> Councilman asked x tly what conceptual apptovemen of t <br /> thedeveloper <br /> have to come plan n wi.la dry, <br /> Very and requPHO meant, est <br /> d v <br /> plan a est a rezone for this area in order to build these condo- <br /> miniums. <br /> Bill Baker,Attorney for thevelops:rs,said they could not have made <br /> the c on he platthey h if the not awaoved.,This <br /> pr no was concessions together a whole proposal n e requested le <br /> salbeuapp . <br /> opo <br /> Councilman Overstreet red a e density ofethe sPR,and Mr. `F.1 <br /> Baker repliedit wasthesame as B-2. <br /> 1'j <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br />