Laserfiche WebLink
#715 Victor Norton <br />Page 2 <br />Subdivision <br />4 - No structures allowed on such outlets except for a lock <br />iV box structure not to exceed 3', 4', 5' ?? in height or <br />20 sf in area. <br />5 - Require special lot combination agreements wlten such <br />ownership patterns are created. <br />Parcel A has 400*4- of lakeshore and an average measured depth <br />of 70* to 80*. Parcel B has 200* of lakeshore and an average <br />depth of 30* to 40*. The depth of the outlot widens as you <br />go northward. <br />As for requiring a plat, the planner strongly recommends approving <br />a metes and bounds division for if platted there may be more <br />chance of pressure for residential development at some time in the <br />future. As for a plat being more acceptable over a metes and bounds <br />division because of the changing, eroding shoreline, a metes <br />and boiinds description would run to the existing shoreline and <br />the plat defines the shoreline at the 929.4 elevation. The <br />need to establish a fixed shoreline point does not appear an <br />issue for this review. <br />The Planning Commission should make a recommendation regarding need <br />to realign the lot line so that a portion of the outlot is located <br />directly across the street. The lots still remain legally impossible <br />to combine as one tax parcel. What practical reasons would <br />require the realignment - greater depth to north, less potential <br />for accidents, easier to watch over property - Planning Commission <br />you make a recommendation and if you ask for it how wide of a <br />corridor is to be required 20', 50', 100'? <br />If you propose to deny this application your findings should <br />cover some of the following criteria: <br />1 - Negative precedent setting. <br />2 - Create a hazardous condition that would be detrimental to <br />the public health, safety and welfare. <br />3 ■* If strict determination of LR-IA standard need to <br />approve several variances. <br />* r*