Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum front setback of 20 feet for a corner lot side yard, where 30 <br />feet is required. <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, where 10 feet is required. <br />• Flexibility to allow a minimum right-of-way width of 54 feet, where 60 feet is required. <br /> <br />In exchange for this flexibility, the developer is: <br /> <br />• Designing a more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of the <br />standard R-3 zoning district. <br />• Providing amenities (playground and shelter) to the proposed park that exceeds the City <br />standards for park dedication requirements. <br />• Providing a landscaping plan that exceeds City standards. <br />• Creating a stormwater reuse irrigation project within the development. <br /> <br />2. BACKGROUND: <br /> <br />The properties are generally located at the north end of Oneka Parkway. The plan shows 59 <br />proposed residential lots, stormwater ponding areas, a passive park, sidewalk and trail <br />connections, and road connections. The applicant is proposing the project to be built in one <br />phase. The developer has indicated that an HOA will be established for the development to <br />maintain the landscaping and the water re-use system. <br /> <br />In the Summer of 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a sketch plan for <br />the development, at that time known as the “Drake Property or Oneka Prairie”. The Planning <br />Commission and City Council generally liked the variety of lot sizes and the trails within the <br />development. The Planning Commission and City Council provided the following comments: <br /> <br />• They highly encouraged stormwater reuse for irrigation throughout the development. <br />• They liked the trails and proposed park dedication and improvement to the park. <br />• Generally okay with the portion of Oneka Parkway to be built to the north property line <br />with the development and not extending to 165th Street. <br /> <br />The Parks Commission also reviewed the sketch plan and provided informal comments in <br />regards to trails, park improvements, and park dedication. The plan at that time included a <br />concept on how the park could be developed in an active way including a pavilion and <br />playground equipment. The developer stated they proposed improvements to the park to meet the <br />PUD criteria. In general, the Parks Commission liked the proposal, but realized there are details <br />to work out for the design of the pavilion and playground equipment. The Parks Commission <br />recommended approval of the proposed park dedication for the development. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />