Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ '-..... <br />- <br />. <br />'" ~ . <br /> 4. The overall plan is- not a good plan, is poorly conceived, <br /> shows little i..rragination, lacks professionalism and does <br /> not propose the best use of the propertY and is not consistent <br /> with the basic purpose 911d intent ,of tile zoning, code. <br /> 5. The overall plan does not neet the basic 6bjecti ve of a <br /> PRDas defined by ordinance but sinply seeks increased <br /> density while providing nocort1f?e!lSilting advantages to the <br /> City or irrIrtediate neighborhood in the form of innovative <br /> and sensi ti ve site design adequately handling the problems <br /> of soil, slope, unusual shape and other conditions which <br /> exist, or are said to exist on the site. <br /> 6. There was no evidence presented to justify the applicability <br /> of the PRD provisions of the Zoning Code. <br /> 7. There was no evidence presented to dOCUIrent the width of the <br /> pipeline easenent over the property which easerrent could <br /> serious 1 y affect the proposed lot arrangeIlEIlt. <br /> 8. The plan is inconsistent with the type density height and <br /> buJk of surrounding lands and the petitioner has failed to <br /> show that the design and layout would not be detrinEnta1 <br /> to the public health, safety, and rrora1s and general welfare. <br /> 9. The property owners in the surrounding area object to relaxation <br /> of the density requirerrents of the Zoning Code. <br /> Adopted this 19th day of May, 1976. <br /> ~dl/~ <br /> . gmsF.~,~r <br /> ATI'EST : <br /> ~e,Q()~ <br /> Vernon C. Pederson, Cler-Treasurer <br /> ( SEAL} <br /> ;n <br />