Laserfiche WebLink
10. That the Applicant is/is not proposing a high quality of design and design compatible with <br /> surrounding land uses, both existing 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 />13. That the proposed development will not exercise any substantial detrimental influence on <br /> the market value of surrounding properties. <br /> <br />14. That the proposed development will show a favorable economic impact on the community <br /> at large. <br /> <br />15. That the proposed development will not adversely impact natural features such as wetlands, <br /> water features, woodlands, and steep slopes. <br /> <br />16. That the proposed development will protect and preserve scenic qualities to the greatest <br /> extent possible. <br /> <br />17. <br /> <br />That the proposed development will not impose any undue burden on public services and <br />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 designed in such a way as to form a desirable and unified <br />environment within its own boundaries, and also will not be detrimental to future land uses <br />in the surrounding areas. <br /> <br />19. That the proposed development is 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 />Kurak, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec <br />Councilmember Cook <br />Councihnember Kurak <br />Councilmember Pearson <br />Councilmember Strommen <br />Councilmember Zimmerman <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #03-09-264 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />