04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

minimum lot eudc , setback^ ind hardcover requiremeiits and lunitations if one of the very small nearby properties in th '. area was seeking to rebuild? Look at Uic recent demolilion and total rebuilding of the 1101 West Femdate Road property. How can the City possibly expect that rebuild would meet tho 75 foot lakeahoro setback, two acre minimum lot si/fj, side setbacks, drivwny, and hardcover limitations? I low was that rebuild ever approved and completed excqrt by granting multiple extreme variancea from the crit/s retpiiiements? What was tlic owner of that property supposed to do? Abandon 1101 aa unhuildahic? Or Forever use the minimal and tiny summer cabin which previously existed, no matter how high the land value increased? How is it fkir to now hold all oc any of the other surrounding property owncra to far stricter enforccmenl of these same codes and reg^tions'/ How are the hardships any different? How is one owners desire to use, improve, enjoy, mi(i mawim iff? property value dilfcrcnt than any other ownei^s similar desires/ When tlie time comes to rebuild on the 1 lOS West Perndale Road property, bow can that |Nti|)crty over meet the 75 foot lakeahore setback from the lakeshore on throe sides of die lot? I tow can it ever misel tho various side hardcover, driveway, and two acre minimum lot tl» reciuircments? Ag|un« why should aunuunding projicrty owners be treated ao difrerolly? The reality is that the 1070 property is one of the larger lemaining properties on Weil Fcnidalc Road. Rven if it docs not have two acres of dry land, it has much more undeveloped surrounding property than ronrt others. * The obvious foci is that all of the pn)pcrfics around lake Minnetonka arc tieing continually subdivided into sinatler and smaller IcKs over time. This is il»e result of a number of factors. ITiis same thing is very nolicably happening nationwide, to varying degrees and with varying siiecd, to all valuable waterfront properties and other highly drsirible residential areas. Okie major factor ia the very rapidly rising value of these residcnlial propertiea. Ai tlie values rise dimmatically, there are fewer and fewer potential luivate individual biiyen who me aide and willing to pay the tnie underlying great value of tlie leinainuig huge propatiea. Ihe (luc value is the fiighcst reasonable or posaihle use that the property can be utilized fur, and the coneapooding value that could be received for sucdi use. Fewer and fesver individuals are Rnancitlly able or willing to match the tiiUl actual value that large desirmbte propcftics can reasoiuibly sell for and obtain when split into t number of smaller parcels and sold to a far greater number of competing potential buyers, Fach of these multiple potential partial buyers are bidding in a sip^iincaiUly lower, more affordable price bracket for each of the smaller multiple lots, nicsc potential buyers are much more readily available and numerous than the much smaller number of potential buyers who arc able and willing to purchase the entire larger property and keep it intact as one single property. The individuals who can pay the entire true value usually do rot can: to invest that much in a single property to achieve the privacy, swurity. and other benefits that such a larger pro|icrty can provide. Tlic opportunity costs of owning this incrcasmgly higher and higlier value property is just too much for most potential buyers and owners to justify, lliat same money can be put to so many other comfictiiig productive usea by all potcntit.1 buyers. The remaining large properties which can possibly now, or in the future, be subdivided, rarely sell to individuals for their true underlying value. This is a fact which zoning cannot actually change. Zoning cannot change the fact that smaller properties are getting larger and larger selling prices, zoning restrictions are preventing the larger property ownen from gaiiang this same value pfoportionalely, by artificially forbidding exactly similar use, density, and selling prices that can be obtained through subdivisiorc This is clemly unfair io the larger property owners. Another factor is a dramatic change in potential buyers* tastes and desires. The current two acre minimum zoning was enacted decades ago uixicr very different circumstances. Current buyers are different than those of the 1970s. Ihcre is a very different emphasis arul set of expccUtions for the buyers of today in comparison to buyers of many years ago. Most buyers now have a much lower expectation of being able to afford large acreages, low density, and achieve maximum privacy. Current buyers are much less willing and able to even attempt to seek these benefits out at the current far greater property prices. Higher pricing is less tied to acreage size and low density now than was the case in the past. Very small properties are now routinely accommodating much larger total square footage houses than was true in the past (or when the current two acre minimum and various hardcover and setbacks rules i jre adopted in the 1970s). A coiiiparison of Orono's older and newer Homes will make this change obvious. Small, higher dcn.tity properties with little or no privacy or f.?r.H