12-11-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2082 November 14,1995 Page 2 Discussioa On a routine inspection of the Oxford Road neighborhood, the Building Inspector disco\ered violations as noted abo\*e and asked dial all work cease until applicant had applied fc .le necessar> approvals from the City. The Zoning staff and City Engineer met with Mr. Stark at the site to review the specific violations and to review the area originally designated as a conservation area in the 1978 plat. Review Exhibit L, the City wetlands map of the area dated approximately 1971. The subject etland was defined as a marsh (MA). After inspecting the lakeshore yard, staff concurred that the iginal wetland designation may have been overly ambitious. The applicant was advised to ha\e _ soil delineation made of the area to determine the exact location ot the w etland. Review Exhibits F, H and J. the new wedand area is shown at less than halt the area of the original conseivation area. w on a SOI The City Engineer has reviewed the Westwood report and confirmed the findings. Applicant was encouraged to file the necessaiy vacation to allow for the redefining of the wetland area. Review E.xhibit violations on the property include the removal ot trees, approximately ten ^^*^**| the 0-75' setback area, ten within the newly defined wetland cuea (designated as /Vrea A ) an approximately twelve live trees located within the original designated wetland to the east of the newly defined wetland line (designated as Area "B"). Applicant asks the City m allow him to replace the ten trees within the 0-75’ setback area to be planted some time in the spring of 1996 and to not require the replanting of trees within the remaining portions ot the newly defined wetlands and %viihin the wetland areas to be vacated to the east of the new wetland delineation line (Areas A and B). Statement of Hardships Please refer to Exhibit C-1-3, applicant noted he was never made aware of the existence of the conserv ation easement at the time of the sale of his property nor did his title company alert him to the existence of the casement. The document is filed on the Chain of Title of the property. He was ignorant of the requirements of the ordinance inx olving the lakeshore protected area and has agreed to replant the trees removed within the lakeshore protected area but asks that the City not require the replacement of trees within the remaining portions of the disturbed area (A and B). He notes the existence of several mature trees w ithin the yard. He also asks Planning Commission to obseiv ’e that the marsh-like area within 30-40 ’ of the shoreline has not been disturbed and still retains original marsh-like vegetation. Refer to Exhibits G and N. At the time of the original inspection of the property by staff, the majority' of applicant’s lakeshore yard was absent of groundcover except for the 40-50 ’ adjacent to the shoreline. Applicant was asked to immediately install erosion control, which Nlr. Stark installed immediately. Once the soil delineation report was reviewed and approved by the City, Mr. Stark was