Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. CONCLUSIONS: <br /> l. The requested rezoning from R-1 to R-4 is not consistent with the <br /> Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 2. Rezoning of this parcel to R-4 may be expected to influence land <br /> use proposals on the property to the east. <br /> 3. The proposed R-4 development does not represent excessive density <br /> for the area because: <br /> a. The site is limited in size and relatively isolated. <br /> b. The large open space on the adjacent church site to the south <br /> reduces the impact of the increased density. <br /> c. The siting of the building to maximize the distance from <br /> Snelling Avenue will minimize the visual impact on the adjacent <br /> R-1 property. <br /> 4. If the Planning Commission favors the rezoning, I recommend that <br /> effectuation of the rezoning be withheld until the PUD General Plan <br /> has been reviewed in detail and approved for issuance of a building <br /> permit. (By ordinance, the PUD General Plan requires a publ ic <br />. hearing. Since the documentation submitted at this time does not <br /> respond to all the requi rements of the PUD ordinance, the current <br /> plan is considered a PUD Concept Plan.) <br />. <br /> CASE #87-23 <br /> PAGE 3 OF 3 <br /> mOo <br /> --- <br />