I The shape of the property provides a larger area in the eastern portion, <br />2 closer to the river. The planned open space is oriented parallel to the riverfront <br />3 path, which maximizes space between the development and the river. The city <br />4 reasoned that the lot configuration restricts site design alternatives that could <br />5 support the requested number of units. The city reasoned that a 94-unit multi- <br />6 family apartment complex is a permitted use in the R-2 zone, and that the site <br />7 design locates "all of the development in the western portion of the property-as <br />8 far away from the river as possible." Record 39. <br />9 Petitioners argue that the city failed to consider different configurations, <br />10 such as taller buildings in the western portion of the property that could maximize <br />11 open space between the development and the river. Lombard responds that, in <br />12 fact, the development cannot be redesigned to create more open space near the <br />13 river because the western portion of the site, which is planned for two-story <br />14 buildings, is narrow and could not accommodate the number of units that would <br />15 need to be relocated to obviate the need to develop the improvements that are <br />16 closer to the river. Further, Lombard points out, a shift in units would also create <br />17 parking planning and circulation problems due to the shape of the lot. <br />18 The city's decision demonstrates that the city balanced factors and <br />19 determined that the site design provides the maximum open space between the <br />20 activity and the river. The city balanced factors such as the shape of the property, <br />21 the number of units allowed on the property, and the configuration of the <br />Page 16 <br />