Laserfiche WebLink
10. That the Applicant is/is not proposing a high quality of desig-n and design compatible with <br /> surrounding !and uses, both existirig and planned. <br /> <br />11. That the proposed public amenities, facilities and open spaces are/are not greater than the <br /> minimum requirements of existing zoning and determined to be in the public good. <br /> <br />12. That the Applicant is proposing a development that is/is not compatible with the purposes <br /> and intents of this Zoning Chapter and the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />t 3. That the proposed development will/will not exercise any substantial detrimental influence <br /> on the market value of surrounding properties. <br /> <br />14. That the proposed development will/will not show a favorable economic impact on the <br /> community at large. <br /> <br />15. That the proposed development will/will not adversely impact natural features such as <br /> wetlands, water features, woodlands, and steep slopes. <br /> <br />16. That the proposed development will/will not protect and preserve scenic qualities to the <br /> greatest extent'possible. <br /> <br />17. <br /> <br />That the proposed development will/will not impose any undue burden on public services <br />and facilities, including fire and police protection, schools, streets, water systems, sanitary <br />sewer systems and storm sewer systems. <br /> <br />18. <br /> <br />That the proposed development is/is not designed in such a way as to lbrm a desirable and <br />unified environment within its own boundaries, and also will/will not be detrimental to <br />future land uses in the surrounding areas. <br /> <br />19. That the proposed development is/is not consistent with all other applicable City and State <br /> regulations. <br /> <br />20. <br /> <br />That the following deviations from City, Ordinances are found acceptable as part of this <br />PUD; the presence of two principal buildings on one lot of record and a reduced rear yard <br />setback of 26 feet instead of the required 35 feet. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember <br /> , and upon vote beh~g taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: <br /> <br />and the following abstained: <br /> <br />42 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #03-09- <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />