02/13/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 10 Staff indicated, as shown on the development plans, the construction of a bridge approximaltye 300 feet in length is necessary to access the subject property. The applicant has indicated that the bridge length will extend above the ordinary high water elevation and that no wetlands will be impacted. Because the submitted plans do not indicate pier locations, that cannot be verified. The acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Staff reviewed the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District which imposes a minimum 150 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (883.7 feet) for all structures. With the upland area of the proposed lots ranging from approximately 160 to 220 feet in depth, the 150 foot setback requirement cannot be satisfied. According to the submitted grading plan, structure setbacks averaging approximately 90 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level are proposed. Staff explained that if a reduction in setback is to be allowed (via the PDO), the following are recommended in exchange for such allowance: 1. A detailed tree preservation plan be submittedw, + °h includes the following: A. An inventory of significant trees. B. A description of tree preservatio ffo that uld be implemented during both mass and custom gra C. Specific parameters for tre <• eserva or custom graded lots including the percentages of signific e saved. 2. Custom grading plans be s . ted in= ding: A. An escrow for cus -_�� ots. B. Tree prese C. House p1 ent t ` t r sults in minimal disruption to existing vegetation and natural D. Drainage plans each lot that conform to the final drainage plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties. E. A 40 foot shoreland buffer strip. 3. Deed covenants are established to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. 4. The shoreland buffer area is physically demarcated to avoid encroachment and disruption. It was noted that the Environmental Board had reviewed the development proposal at their December 19, 2001 meeting and did not recommended approval as currently presented. Specific concerns of the Board related to the inclusion of the property in a "high ecological value zone" (where development should be discouraged) and ground water contamination on the western portion of the island. Additional concerns were cited over proposed tree preservation efforts. The Board also stipulated however, that if the project does move forward that such approval be subject to various conditions.