Laserfiche WebLink
* <br />Zoning File #1778 <br />November 9, 1992 <br />Page 4 <br />precedent allowing any large (2-f acre) sewered lot within the <br />MUSa boundary and in g 2 acre zone, to be subdivided into 1 acre <br />lots. There are a significant munber of such lots, mainly in the <br />Stubbs Bay and West Ferndale project areas, a few in Crystal Bay, <br />and a few others scattered about. <br />It has been a longstanding City policy that <br />to existing dense rural development is merely to <br />problems, not to allow for the creation of <br />development. The Community Management Plan (Page <br />part that sewering existing residences is one <br />solving a documented health problem, but "in no <br />sewerage foster new development; it would only be <br />existing deficiencies...” <br />bringing sewers <br />solve existing <br />higher density <br />6-44) states in <br />alternative to <br />case would such <br />used to correct <br />Kesoning Potential <br />A review of the Minnetonka Bluffs Sewer Project Area <br />suggests that no increases in development density are likely to <br />result from a rezoning to 1 acre standards. Only 2 of 25 sewered <br />lots currently exceed 1 acre in area, those being 1.05 and 1.02 <br />acres respectively. Further, there are no existing vacant <br />parcels which could be built on without the need for at least a <br />50% variance, which the City would not necessarily have to grant. <br />Although one might argue that with 5 building sites currently <br />consisting of 2 or more uncombined parcels there is potential for <br />those parcels to be sold and variances requested, that potential <br />already exists under the current zoning, and a rezoning to 1 acre <br />does not chanr e the parameters for granting area and width <br />variances for buildability. <br />The most compelling reason to rezone would be to allow <br />property owners more freedom and flexibility in improving their <br />properties. By having a set of zoning standards that more <br />closely fits the existing character of the area, variances will <br />be reduced. <br />Analysis of Variance Request <br />In analyzing whether or not to grant a variance. Planning <br />Commission should consider the following questions: <br />1.Does the wording of Resolution No. 1178 and the City's <br />subsequent placement of the MUSA boundary constitute an <br />obligation and Intent to grant a future variance, or <br />does it anticipate a rezoning of the sewered Minnetonka <br />Bluffs properties to a 1 acre standard? <br />j <br />airri-d ii~ii ^