Laserfiche WebLink
December 20, 1992 <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />Residential density - but not on Lake Minnetonka <br />Impervious surface - but not on Lake Minnetonka <br />Top of the Bluff <br />Decks - additions/expansion to nonconforming structures <br />1. LOT WIDTH <br />No flexibility is sought for property on Lake Minnetonka or General Development pikes. A <br />10 foot reduction in lot width for duplex dwellings is requested to allow 125 feet of lot width <br />instead of 135 feet. No construction of duplexes is anticipated. Allowing duplexes to have a <br />width of 125 feet on Natural Environment Lakes is also requested, however, duplex <br />development is not anticipated. <br />NATURAL ENVIRONMENT <br />LAKE <br />Cart Krty Lake <br />Lake St. Jot <br />Scoot Lakt <br />SaBoy Lak e <br />Lake Tamarak <br />RECREATIONAL <br />DEVELOPMENT LAKE <br />Lake Aoburn <br />Chorcli Lake <br />Kclatr’s Pood <br />Lake Minomraslita <br />Seboix l^e <br />Lake Scicfer <br />Lake Virpaia <br />Ziifflbra Lake <br />GENERAL <br />DEVELOPME.NT LAKE <br />Bavar'a Laka <br />Laic, Miniwtoaka <br />DNR STANDARD <br />Ripirim 125 ’ . f.. 225 ’ dup., 325 ’ tri., <br />425* quad. <br />75 ’ ..f.. 135 ’ dup.. 195’ iri.. <br />255 ’ quad. <br />75 ’ ..f.. 135 ’dup.. 195’tri., <br />255 ’ quad. <br />Nofuipanan 125* iT., 220* dup., 315* in., <br />410* quad. <br />75 ’i.f., 135 dup.. 190 in., <br />245' qu«d. <br />75 ’*.f.. 135 ’dup., 190’tri., <br />245 ’ quad. <br />VICTORIA EXISTING*125 ’125*U0’/100’«» <br />VICTORIA PROPOSAL <br />Ripinan 125 ’».f. 125 ’dup.123’125 ’ dup.no* a.r. N/Adop. <br />NonriparUn 125 ’ «.f.. 125* dup.125 ’ i.f.. 125 dup.110’ t.f; .S/A dup. <br />•Vktorii OnJin.nc. .How. . two UtnUy dwdlin* (Hupl.*) in (he R.wtaniUI D.Mnct (• »n(i« f.mily wd two Cimily zom) 06 • nHaiimim <br />lot >U« of oi».-h.lf «ct« in ih« dtottUnd btrt no tnere... in lot wtdth i. retjoired. <br />••Section 405.02 provide, for 110 feet *nd refer, to Section 415.06.2 which '.How.- the mimmum lot width to be lOO f.et. <br />RATIONAL AND lUSTOTCATlON Essentially: historical reasons, sound suburban <br />planning/design, reasons associated with urban improxements (streets, utilities) and cost <br />efficiency in subdividing property to meet market needs. <br />Requiring wider lots for riparian lou has value in that it is likely to improve or allow <br />retenuon of the scenic quality of the lakes and results in less hard surface run off near the <br />shoreland. Requiring nonnparian tots to be wider than normal may not improve the <br />aesthetics or water quality since the structures are removed from the shore by a greater <br />distance and the extra lot width adds to the length of street p>cr lot, thus increasing the public <br />hard surface area and run otf.