Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1573 <br />August 15, 1990 <br />Page 3 <br />PQview Definition Sections noted above. To be consistent with <br />the procedures for requiring lot width at setback lines (i.e. required <br />setback to rear of front setback line), the Code lacking clear <br />direction as to the required width for a lot at the lakeshore has <br />followed the same procedure for required lot widths for non-riparian <br />lots. For consistency, lacking clear direction from the Code, the <br />lot width (Lot 2) of 100* is met at the 75' setback mark. The <br />existing irregular shoreline is approximately 75-85'. The Code does <br />not require 100' at-. shoreline but would require the lot width <br />at the lakeshore setback line. Please review the Staff Sketch Exhibit <br />E. Note that the lot width to the rear of the proposed residence <br />structure on Lot 2 is only 97'. Staff would ask for a realignment o <br />the lot line so that a 100' width is maintained for the depth of the <br />proposed building envelope, although the average setback line would <br />define auilding envelope northward to the average lakeshore setback <br />line. Note that your Code does not provide directives that would <br />require a specific width for the depth of a building envelope. We <br />have a clear need for a zoning amendment to provide clear guidelines <br />for building envelopes. Staff would encourage members to review the <br />lot standards for the specific zoning district and all pertinent <br />sections of both ChapterrlO and 11 as noted above to confirm staff s <br />findings. <br />In the original two-lot subdivision, staff requested that the <br />drainage ditch be realigned along the shared lot lines of the lot to <br />the immediate east. Applicant has realigned the drainageway along the <br />shared lines up to the existing drainageway that now intersects the <br />building envelope of Lot 2. Rather than require the realignment of <br />the drainageway along the newly proposed shared lot lines of 2 and 3 <br />requiring a separate conditional use perinit and variance review# staff <br />would recommend to the applicant and applicant's surveyor that the <br />drainageway within Lot 2 remain as proposed and to require a lot line <br />change between 1 and 2 to assure the 1/2 acre dry contiguous is <br />satisfied. <br />Options of Action <br />Denial - If Planning Commission proposes denial, please refer to the <br />necessary findings set forth in Chapter 11. <br />Approval - If approved, the following findings may be considered; <br />1. The proposed division satisfied lot standards of the LR-IC <br />zoning district. <br />2. This subdivision has been found to meet all pertinent <br />standards of the subdivision regulations. <br />3. There is adequate sewer and water to serve the newly <br />proposed lot.