Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />5. That the applicant is proposing a development that is compatible with the Comprehensive <br />plan designation of this property by providing denser housing on the County Road, but <br />remaining sensitive to the existing single family and the market demand for detached, <br />association-maintained living. <br /> <br />6. That the Applicant is proposing to develop the plat with a wider range of housing types, <br />price ranges and styles. The development will include detached townhomes, and cannot <br />meet the R-l standards or the R-2 standards with this proposed building style and the <br />confines of the lot configuration. <br /> <br />7. That the applicant is proposing to provide essential trail connections. <br /> <br />8. That the proposal be will be consistent with all other applicable City and State regulations. <br /> <br />9. That the proposal will/will not be detrimental on surrounding market values. <br /> <br />10. That the proposal will/will not be a benefit to the Community as a whole. <br /> <br />11. That the proposal will/will not impose undue burden upon public services and facilities. <br /> <br />12. That the proposed will/will not be detrimental to future land uses in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember <br />Pearson, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec <br />Councilmember Cook <br />Councilmember Pearson <br />Councilmember Elvig <br />Councilmember Olson <br />Councilmember Strommen <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />and the following abstained: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />and the following were absent: <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #06-06-196 <br />Page 2 of3 <br />