Laserfiche WebLink
i. Front Yard Setback 25 feet <br /> ii. Rear Yard Setback 40 feet <br /> iii. Side Yard Setback 10-15 feet <br /> The Owners wish to work with the City using the rezoning to RPUD as a tool to create an improved development. <br /> We feel there are several opportunities to enhance the development including but not limited to: <br /> 1. Allowing flexibility with exact lot sizes to create the best size and style of lot in the best location on the Property. <br /> Where there are natural resources present, we feel the lots should be kept large and the house pads shouid be <br /> created around those features while protecting them. Lot's 4, 5 and 6 all follow the LR-1A ordinance with <br /> respect to size, setbacks, width and depth but those strict rules don't create the best configured lots. We wish <br /> to explore a better layout for those building pads by perhaps allowing some wetiand buffer averaging to <br /> increase the tlepth of the building pad and in exchange restoring Wetland 3 in the middle of the site. <br /> 2. The existing house has a large pool and has lake access with one dock. The Property has enough shorelantl <br /> frontage for a total of 3 total lakeshore lots while retaining the existing house as a lake view property. All three <br /> lakeshore lots exceed the 2 acre zoning requirement and meet the minimum lot width at shoreline. Lot's 1 and <br /> 3 are far greater than 2 acres in size. When applied directly, the LR-1A and Shoreland Overlay zoning district <br /> zoning requirements make for not the best lakeshore lot layouts. The strict compliance forces the loss of the <br /> pool at the existing house in order to obtain three new lakeshore lots for building sites. With the RPUD <br /> process,the Owners wish to discuss moving some of the lot lines around slightly to create no more lakeshore <br /> lots but instead save the pool and provide for better house placement on the three new lakeshore lots being <br /> createtl. <br /> 3. The Owners wish to explore the idea of rezoning the entire site to RPUD as opposed to only the portion outside <br /> of the 250 feet from the Ordinary High Water. The Owners presented the Plan showing two different zonings in <br /> order to meet the Shoreland requirement of no rezoning in that area. Again, the Plan as drawn is a good plan <br /> but it isn't the best plan. A rezoning of the entire parcel to RPUD will allow for the best design and flexibility to <br /> achieve all City and owner goals for the development. <br /> The Plan shows a new road configuration with two cul-de-sacs. The proposed width of the road is 50 feet. The <br /> Owners wish to discuss the nature of the road and are open to a rural ditch section private road possibly with a trail <br /> system throughout the Property. The Plan also shows a 10-foot private trail easement along all roadways to <br /> partially fulfil the RPUD required 10% private recreation area. <br /> D. Comprehensive Plan Conformity 1 Density Considerations 8�Comparisons <br /> We understand that the site is defined within the Rural Area. In review of the city's development standards and <br /> policies it is apparent that the importance of rural development is to protect the natural environment of the City, <br /> especially Lake Minnetonka, antl preserve the existing character of the City. By having larger lots there is less hard <br /> cover and development pressures that negatively impact the Lake. Our proposal is to develop the site to remain <br /> rural adjacent Long Lake and transition to a more urban feel along Brown Road. We believe our request is � <br /> reasonable and conforms to the Comprehensive Plan due to the following: � <br /> � <br /> � <br />