Laserfiche WebLink
.mwji <br />Zoning Pile #1721 <br />March 12, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />t'ri '.-■■■.■ <br />JtiVv . <br />within Lots 2 and 3. Both wetland areas have been impacted by the <br />recent high waters of the Browns Bay wetland. This condition will <br />be discussed in more detail further on in the memo. In your <br />earlier sketch plan review, it was decided that future access to <br />the undeveloped western properties is not practical based on the <br />expansive wetlands to the south and west, steep topographies to the <br />west and impact on dense wooded areas. <br />Review of 5-Lot Subdivision <br />Lot Configuration <br />The structural setback from the Tanager Bay side along the <br />south is 100* for all existing and proposed structures and has been <br />met except for the guest house on Lot 1, located approximately 75* <br />from the shoreline. The septic system appears to be located <br />approximately 65-75* where a 75* setback is required from the OHWL. <br />Both are non-conforming and must be recorded as such in the final <br />subdivision resolution. All other existing accessory structures on <br />Lot 1 r ^et the required setbacks from proposed lot lines. Lot 1 is <br />now classified as a lakeshore lot, accessory structures can be <br />placed within the street yard. It should be noted that the tennis <br />court is also non-conforming because of the substandard setback <br />from the wetland area. Even though the wetland is not designated <br />as a protected wetland, the City will ask that the area be <br />designated as a wetland at the 932.3 elevation. <br />Lot 1 does not meet the required lot width measured in a <br />straight line the points at which the side lot lines <br />intersect the C,' - i ofer to Exhibit P, Page 28). Line can be <br />adjusted to satisfy code requirement. <br />Please review Exhibits D and E. The applicant*s consultant <br />has confirmed that there is no excessive hardcover within the <br />setback zones on Lot 1. Note guest house structure does not <br />conflict with hardcover standard. <br />All lots meet the required dry contiguous area requirement of <br />the RR-IB zone. As already noted during the sketch plan review, <br />proposed Lot 2*s building envelope is severly restricted although <br />the lot meets all standards of shoreland and the RR-IB zoning <br />district. Development of this building site will have a major <br />aesthetic/view impact on Lot 1. <br />fcl <br />■ ■■rmimsm <br />■ VX., -xX -- rx'v--. <br />4.V.. <br />r