Laserfiche WebLink
• “ ^»*>r** <br />Zoning Pile #1778 <br />November 9, 1992 <br />Page 5 <br />2.Are the hardships and unique circumstances stated in <br />applicant's letter of request sufficient to justify a <br />recommendation to grant a lot area variance associated <br />with a subdivisionr in light of the strong directive of <br />Section ll.lO, Subd. 14? <br />3.Has the City granted such a variance in the past? Are <br />there other similarly situated properties which could <br />make the same request? Would granting this variance <br />set a negative precedent? <br />Staff Re dation <br />The subdivision code^ Section 11.10, Subd. 14 states very <br />clearly and succinctly that a variance shall not be approved to <br />Increase the density above the minimum lot area requirements. On <br />this basis alone, staff would have to recommend denial of the <br />requested variance. <br />In light of the 1980 resolution and 1981 MUSA boundary <br />placement, it is clear that applicant was relying in good f.*ith <br />that the City would provide a means by which his subdivision <br />could legally occur. Staff believes that a rezonlng of the <br />Minnetonka Bluffs area is the most logical and appropriate way <br />for this to occur. Such a rezoning and other possible rezonings <br />of previously sewered rural neighborhoods should occur within the <br />context and guidelines set forth in the Community Management Plan <br />regarding development and sewering of the rural area. <br />Isv <br />1 <br />I <br />J