Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. COMMENTS: <br /> 1. In September of 1985, a nearly identical application for rezoning <br /> was submitted. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br /> rezoning and PUD Concept Plan for a 48-unit apartment building, but <br /> the City Council denied rezoning. The basis for denial was the <br /> proposed density and its potential impact upon vacant property to <br /> the east. <br /> 2. With the development of the large church complex on the adjacent <br /> site, the development of R-1 single-family on this site is unlikely, <br /> in our opinion, because of its relative isolation and small size. <br /> The relationship of the site to Highway 96 further supports the <br /> development of multiple dwellings as designated on the Comprehensive <br /> Plan. The density of such multiple development is the real issue. <br /> 3. The proposed 48-unit building is not out of scale with the nearby <br /> church complex, nor does the building crowd the site. It may <br /> influence the future use of the land directly east across Snelling <br /> Avenue, land \'!hich is designated for low density development on the <br /> Comprehensive Plan. However, a single, high-quality building set <br /> back more than 200 feet from Snelling Avenue should have minimal <br /> impact on adjacent property. <br /> 4. The plan proposes a single access point from Highway 96 approximately <br />. 185 feet west of the Snelling Avenue intersection and 150 feet east <br /> of an existing median crossover. For reasons of safety and preservation <br /> of traffic-carrying capacity, MnDOT is attempting to minimize <br /> direct access to Highway 96. Access to Snelling Avenue may present <br /> a greater impact on adjacent properties, but is considered a better <br /> long-term solution for traffic-related reasons. Limiting the site <br /> access to Snelling Avenue only is recommended. <br /> 5. Additional comments regarding the site plan are as follows: <br /> a. On-site circulation and access to parking seems indirect and <br /> inefficient, but the parking lot adjacent to the church <br /> parking area is better than any location nearer the single- <br /> family development across Snelling. <br /> b. Preservation of the wetland is beneficial both for drainage <br /> reasons and as an amenity for the development. <br /> c. Significantly more screening (both plant materials and berms) <br /> along Snelling Avenue is required. Additional landscape <br /> screening is also necessary adjacent to the existing single- <br /> family house. <br />. <br /> CASE #87-23 <br /> PAGE 2 OF 3 <br /> illOo <br />