03-17-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1080 March 9, 1987 Page 2 Review of Application 11080 -- Applicant, John McDowell. Application #1080 was initiated by John McDowell in October 1986. The original application asked for the rezoning of the Maus, Burger, Anderson and Miner properties (approximately 40 acres) from the existing RR-lA, five acre minimum, to the I.R-lA, two acre lakeshore residential. See Exhibit E. Upon approval of the rezoning, McDowell as developer would then seek to subdivide the Burger and Miner properties into an eight lot plat (overall increase of 4 units), review Exhibit G. Please note the Anderson and Maus properties were never included in the subdivision portion of the proposal. Both owners would not support the appliCation for rezoning if Lt meant a change from the present density. At the October public hearing for the rezoning, the entire neighborhood came out in mass to oppose the rezoning application based on the negative effects created with the impact of four additional homesteads within an environmentally sensitive area and the need to install a private road through a Major wetlands area. The large lot owners to the ,northwest side of Miner and Burger properties objected strongly to any change in the density as they all purchased their homesteads with the expectation that the City would maintain the established five acre standards. The residents held that the proposed rezoning was not based on good p-Lanning standards but appears to serve as merely financial gain for Burger, Miner, and of course, McDowell, the future subdivider. The Planning Commission considered the intent and guidelins set forth in the zoning code and the CMP by addressing the following questions and issues: 1. Per Section 10.1.0, Subdivision 3 "It is necessary to find that the proposed rezoning is in the best interest for the physical development of the City" This is the only standard available from the rezoning section of the code. 2. Review the intent of zoning districts: RR-lA and LR-lA. a) Which of the districts more clearly reflects the current pattern of development? b) Review Exhibit O - the majority of the properties are located within 1,000 feet of the lakeshore. c) Review CMP 3-20 8. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL, ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment.