Laserfiche WebLink
L3 <br />The City has denied variance appl i cat i one +,lr lot area and lot wi d th <br />(or rather attempted to deny) for the following reasons: <br />1. Restricted building envelope. <br />2. Property never assessed for s•ewor. <br />3. Stubs never provided. <br />4. Assessed market value sun --gists unbui1dable lot. <br />5. Land lathed - inability to provide legal access. <br />h. Shape of lot. <br />7. Topography thz�t would inhibit construction or safe access to site. <br />As to the question the integrity of the zoning code ,-.,ni the LR-IB <br />zoning district. There is no question that r'Ecent develi--rif,•:lnt within the <br />Minnetonka Summit Pert:: neighborhood shows development at a lower density in <br />comparison to the high density development of the seasonal cabin dwellers <br />of the 30's and 44's and the uncontrolled development of the 50's and early <br />bi"r's. Will the Courts uphold the City's attempt to maintAin the <br />"integrity" of the pattern of current development for a given neighuorhood" <br />How does sewf.�r .affect the Court's position'." Remember the case references <br />in Batty's review (D-L-dering vs. Johnson) involved rural property. The %it; <br />has always felt secure in the denial of similar applications involving <br />rural/unsewered properties. <br />have made arrangements: for the applicant. neighbors and attorneys to <br />recieve copies of this final packet. Council members are ast:.ed to contact <br />Staff prior to the meeting night if additional information is required or <br />if members have ary questions. <br />Council is to give conceptual direction to staff. The resolution will <br />be drafted and press?nted for Coucnil action for your meeting of November <br />1-, 1984. <br />1 <br />