Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br /> I <br /> f ~ <br /> , <br />. <br /> 2. The small lot size is inappropx-iate to the area and <br /> would change the character of the neighborhood. <br /> ;. I <br /> The plan provides for townhouse structures abutting ! <br /> 3. i <br /> the backyards of already existing single family , <br /> detached homes. There is nO natural buffering between <br /> the two, such as existing trees, shrubs or rolling <br /> topography. The land is basically flat. This <br /> proximity of these two types of structures is detrimental <br /> to use of both properties. <br /> : <br /> , <br /> , <br /> 4. The open space provided in the plan is not intergrated I <br /> into the development and the petitioner uses the PRO <br /> to maximize the number of units in a particular area , <br /> , <br /> ; <br /> and designating as open space that property which is i <br /> I <br /> not as economically buildable and, therefore, not i <br /> readily usable for park or recreational purposes. <br /> 5. The overall plan is not. a gOC)d plan, is poorly <br /> conceived, showq little imagination, laeks professionalr <br /> ism and does not propose the best use of the property , <br /> 1 <br /> , <br /> and is not consistent with the basie pu+-POse and inten~ <br /> of the zoning cOde. <br /> 6. '!'he overal~ plan does no,t meet theba.ic Objective of aj <br /> PRO as defined by ordinance but simply seeks increased <br /> density while'?providing no compensating advantages to <br /> the City or immediate neighborhood in the form of <br /> innovative and sensitive site design adequately <br /> handling the problems of soil, slope, unusual shape and <br /> other conditions which exist, or are said to exist on <br /> the si'te. <br />" 7. Although petitioner stated that one of the reasons he <br /> was presenting the PRO plan was poor soil conditions <br /> on the property. He presented no evidence to support <br /> his claim on the property. <br /> 8. There was no evidence presented to justify the <br /> applicability of the PRP provisions of the Zoning Code. <br /> 9. There was no evidence presented to document the width <br /> of 1be pipeline easement over the property which <br /> easement could seriously affect the proposed lot <br /> arrangement. <br /> 10. The plan is inconsidtent with the t,pe density height <br /> and bulk of surrounding lands and the petitioner has <br /> failed to show that the design and layout ~uld not be <br /> detrimental to the public health, safety, and morals <br /> and general welfare. <br /> i <br />