Cobblestone Court analysis/Feb 2008

Home Browse Search

a 2. The wetland setback encroachments approved for this site by the City were for a �a structure on Lot 1 that was no closer than 5' to the wetland"finger", which allowed for a structure up to 80' in total length and still being within the 41' x 86.5' lot boundaries. For Lot 2, which is offset 30' from Lot 1, buffer encroachments were approved that would allow for a structure 90' in total length, generally within the easterly 90' of the 97' x 40' lot boundaries. In both lots,the 7j� ° approved footprint and approved encroachments did not allow for a house extending the full length of the lot. In Lot 2, however,the encroachment only encompasses the southwesterly 10', so conceivably some portion of the house not affected by either the City's 26' setback requirements not the Watershed's 35' 7i�� buffer requirements could make use of the full 97' length of the lot. 3. We believed that the Watershed District approved a buffer plan that did not follow the strict 35' setback from the wetland"finger"but drew a straight line 50' in width that would allow the originally proposed homes to be constructed, but �� similar to the City's approval, did not allow for complete use of the entire length of the lots. In both Lots 1 and 2,the southwesterly corners of the actual lots are within the 35' buffer and can't be built on. To confuse the issue, I have now obtained the official attachment to the MCWD buffer agreement that establishes where buffers are required. This is Landform Sheet C3.9 dated February 7, 2003 which James Wisker of MCWD emailed to `l��p � me at my request on February 7, 2008, coincidently. The City previously had never been provided with a copy of this sheet as approved by MCWD. Sheet C3.9 has a huge impact on the issue of the side yard of Lot 1. Sheet C3.9 r� shows a replacement ("new") buffer to be located along the side lot line of Lot l, � � . � effectively negating the ability to expand southward from Lot 1. �G �,�' Sheet C3.9 does not match Landform Sheet C3.8, last revision date January 22, 2003, which apparently is the original wetland/buffer plan provided to the �� , MCWD. My conclusion is that Sheet C3.9 reflects the revisions to C3.8 that the MCWD ultimately required. Additionally, to add to the mix, we have been working off of Landform Sheet C2.5 dated October 28, 2005, the Buffer Monumentation Plan, which makes no �0.-' mention of, and does not depict, the additional side yard buffer that appears on . C3.9. As a result, when I discussed with you the potential for a side yard deck on February 13, I was unaware that my suggestion was in conflict with the approved MCWD buffer plan. Building Permit Review 4. On January 29, 2008 we received your first plan set for these two lots. The survey and plans indicated for Lot 1 a building of total length 86' +that �. encroached closer than 5' to the wetland and with a cantilever actually over the wetland, where both features had to be at least 5' from the wetland based on the �, I�,�. VI