My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2715 EVERETT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
EVERETT AVE
>
2715
>
2715 EVERETT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2017 6:42:28 AM
Creation date
2/13/2017 6:40:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
EVERETT AVE
Street Number
2715
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
671
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).
View images
View plain text
�� John Patzold <br /> ` �° Celia Strong � �1 <br /> ��^�' March 5, 1980 . <br /> History of Special I'roperty Use Review �• <br /> File: Bcthany Ternpl� Church <br /> Original discussions with Public Works, Planning and applicant began in <br /> approximately April, 1977 concerning access and streets. o <br /> � <br /> Between original contact and February 9, 1979, at least three complete site plan ,�'„ <br /> reviews were performed. [ach time, the resubmittal contained proposals that had " <br /> been previously rejected. � � <br /> -i �n <br /> � Unfortunately, all "preliminary" reviews (with PUD comments) were returned to �,_ <br /> the applicant (by Planning Dept.) without any copies retained in Public Works. We o m <br /> no lonRer use this practice. Anyhow, original comments are not available. m o <br /> c� <br /> February, 1979 Public Works response to Planning addressed new site plan of � m <br /> revised Special Property Use Proposal (SPU) that deleted a large northern tract =� <br /> from their earlier site plans. Memo attached. '" <br /> ... <br /> oz <br /> c <br /> In July, 1979, a "new, revised, revision" was sent for comments. Public Works D 2 <br /> rejected (without review) the site plan based on earlier criteria not being addressed � ;,, <br /> by appiicant. Memo attactied. -� � <br /> o � <br /> -n n <br /> August 16, 1979, Planning held a meeting with applicant and PW's where a sampting -� m <br /> of the numerous past proposals were provided by the applicant (of course, not the m.. <br /> marked up copies). A frank discussion was made concerning applicant's o `" <br /> responsibilities. � m <br /> c tn <br /> m N <br /> February 7, 1980, acceptable SPU site plan received. Z r, <br /> `6(� -� r <br /> m <br /> February 13, 19�4, Planning Commission PSU Hearing. Applicant expressed some A <br /> minor concern about width of Fulton (but not improvement). After the Planning .� <br /> Commission meeting, applicant (Bob Butterfield) and myself addressed specifics a <br /> about his concern on Fulton width and extend of improvements. This was the first � <br /> time s cific concern was mentioned regarding Fulton reconstruction. _ <br /> _ _ _ „ <br /> N <br /> Told Bob we would look into the situation but we needed something more than a Z <br /> general site "sketch". Examples that we discussed included ROW widths actual � <br /> -i <br /> street curb line on Fulton, actual (surveyed) location of trees and his proposals of � <br /> dealing with issues. m <br /> - , , , . , ._ <br /> , � �,i n� iN�i��i�:�ay � � �,� , . ., . � . . . � . . ., .. _ _ � . � . . . � �,�.��;tl�n:usrd� <br /> " i ' ' , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.