Laserfiche WebLink
' REGJLAR i�EETIIIG OF iHE OROT10 COtJP1CIL, FEBRU2I�ZY 27, 1979 Page 8 <br /> 12. The bay and the Property are not physically PUBLIC HEARIPJG <br /> � suited for cor_uaercial marina develoPrient. Stubbs Bay Plarina <br /> � (Continued) <br /> - 13. The City, the LtiCD and the DNR would never permit <br /> a "new" marina on this site. <br /> 14. The proposed development would he a "new" marina <br /> because no viable, active r�arina exists today. <br /> 15. Allowing developr*ient of the Property for rnarina <br /> use (or boat slip rental use) would adversely <br /> affect neighboring pronerties , properties abutting <br /> Ma�aell and Stubbs Bays and the quality of Lake <br /> P4innetonka. Such adverse ir.mpact could be described <br /> as a legal "nuisance" which is substantially <br /> unwarranted. The benefit to the property owners <br /> would be at the exnense of the neic�hboring owners <br /> and the public in c�eneral. <br /> 16. Use of the property for residential purPoses is <br /> compatible with the neighborhood, would not increase <br /> the demand for public services and expenditures , <br /> and is physically compatible with the condition <br /> of the property and the condition of the bav. <br /> 17. Because of the physical flood plain restrictions, <br /> any developr_lent of the property has s�ecial concerns <br /> or requirements but on the whole, residential <br /> -�`a inpact appears to have more positive aspects and <br /> fewer (or the same) negative restrictions as would <br /> coru-iercial development. <br /> 18. Any diminution in value which riight occur because <br /> of the cessation of comrtercial activity can rlost <br /> likely be attributed to arbitrary or at best <br /> speculative value associated with the previous <br /> non-vesting licensed rights to some given nuriber <br /> of boat docks construction on and in the public waters. <br /> 19. The private right to unlirlited cor:u*�ercial development � <br /> of maringal property, and the private exploitation of <br /> public waters is far outweighed by the most general <br /> public right to reasonable, compatible land use <br /> planning and c�eneral benefit. <br /> 20. The continued zoning and use of the property for <br /> cor_uzercial purposes is not in the �ublic interest. <br /> End of report and findings <br /> Mr. Douglas Carney, attorney representing ?ir. George <br /> Johnson, and Mr. John I3owe, architect, displayed plans <br /> for the area showing detailed drawings for a loia-profile <br /> �_operation comrienting ttiat there will be no r.iajor repairs, • <br /> no food served, and no drinks. . � <br /> (Continued) <br />