04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

miiumtim lot size, idbtck« and hardcover requiftmcnta and liinltations if one of the very small nearby propeities in this area was seeking to rebuild? Look at the recent demolition and total rebuilding of the 1101 West Femdale Road property. I low can the ('ity possibly expect that rebuild would meet the 7$ foot lakeahoro setback, two acre minimum lot aiTe, side setbacks, driveway, and hardcover limitaliocui? Ilow was that rebuild ever approvert and coffipteled except by granting multiple extreme variances from the Cit/s iei|uireiiienu7 What was the owner of that proficrty supposed to do? Abandon 1101 aa unbuildable? (>r Forever use the minimal and liny summer cabin which previously existed, no matter how high the land value increased? How ii it fair to now hold all or any of the other surrounding property owners to far stricter eoforoement of these aame codes and regMlatiocui? Ilow are the hardships soy diffbrent? How is one ownct^s desire to use, improve, enjoy, and maximize property value difTerenl than any other owner's similar desires? When the time conics to rebuild on the I lOS West Femdale Road property, bow can that pro|ierty ever meet the 7^ foot lakeahore setback from the lakeahoro on three tides of the lot? Ilow can it ever meet the various side setbacks, hardcover, driveway, and twu acre minimum lot size requimnents? Ag^in, why should surrounding property owners be treated so difTerenlly? Hie reality is that the 1070 |iroperty is one of the larger remaining propertiea on West Femdale Road. l\en if it does not have two acres of d«^ lan^ it has much mure undeveloped surrounding property than most others. The obvious fact is that all of the properties around Lake Minnetonka are being cofitimially auhdiviited Into smaller wid smaller lots over lime. Ihis is the result of a number of factors. Hus same thing is very noCtcably hap|icning nationwide, to varying degrees and with varying sp^, to all valuable waterfhiiil properties and other highly ttesimble residential areas One major (actor is the very rapidly rising value of these residential propeitiaa. As the values nac drainatKally, there are fewer and fewer potential private individual buyers who ace able and willmg to pay the true underlying grrat value of the remaining large properties. The true value is the highest reasonable or possible use that the |ini|ierty can tie utilized for, and tlie curmqxmding value that could tie received for such use. Fewer ard fetver individuals are financially able or willing to match the total actual value that targe desirable properties can reasonably sell for and I f.i obtain when split into a number of smaller parcels and sold to a far greater number of competing potential buyers. Hach of these multiple potential partial buyers are bidding in a significantly lower, more affordable price biacket for each of the smaller multiple lots. Hicsc potential buyers arc much more readily available and numerous than the mudi smaller number of potential buyera who are able and willing to purchase the entire larger property and keep it intact as one single property. Hie iiidividuals who can pay the entire true value usually do not care to invest diat much in a single property to achieve the pnvacy, security, and other benefits that such a larger property can provide. Hie opportunity costa of owning this increasingly higher and higher value property is just too much for most potential buyers and owners to justify. That same money can be put to so many other competing productive uses by all potential buyers. The remaining large properties which can possibly now, or in the future, be subdivideil, rarely sell to individuals for their true underlying value. This is a fact which zoning cannot actually change. 7xming cannot change the fact that smaller properties arc getting larger and larger selling prices. And zoning restrictions are preventing the larger property owners from gaining this same value pro|'urtionately, by artificially forbitlding exactly similar use, density, and selling prices that can be obtained through subdivision. Hiis is clearly unfair to the larger property owners. Another factor is a dramatic change in potential buyers' tastes and desires. The cuneiil two acre minimum zoning was enacted decades ago under very different cirrum.\tanccs. CurrerU buyers are difTerent than those of the l9'/lh. There is a very difTerent emphasis and set of expectations for the buyers of today in coiiipartsun to buyers of many years ago Most buyers row have a much lower expectation of being able to afTord large acreages, low density, and achieve maximum privai v. Cunait buyers art much less willing and able to even anempt to seek these benefits out at the current far greater property prices. Higher pnemg is less tied to acreage size and low density now than was the case in the pash Very amall properties arc now routinely accommodating much larger toul square footage houses than was true in the past (or wlien the current two acre minimum and various hardcover and setbacks rules were adopted in th 1 1970s). A coropanson of Otoiwi'b older and newer homes will make this change obvious. Small, higher density properties with Uttle or no privacy or f.**