05-09-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r : 1220 Tonkawa Shoreline Allerallon November 10,2004 Page 2 3. 5. This summer we found that the applicants without the appropriate City approvals had done significant wofk and grading to the shoreline in the area oftlie ‘hump’. This included rip-rapping the shoreline; construction of a 2* high boulder wall directly above and adjacent to the rip-rap, and grading the entire area of the hump, towering it approximately 1 -2' in my estimation upon visiting the site. There was virtually no understory remaining in the area graded, and pre-existing vegetative and topographic screening of the house from the lake was substantially reduced. I have no doubt that the shoreline required rip-rapping. The bank at the shore is fairly abrupt, and erosion of the bank was a concern. The problem with the current plan is that while it may protect the integrity of the bank with a 2' boulder wall directly abov e the rip-rap, there is no flat area between the top of rip-rap and this lower wall to plant screening vegetation. The view fiom the lake is essentially a 4'-S* high wail of rock, about 40' long. Screening this lower wail with some type of vine, rather than pushing the wall back into the hill to gain flat planting space for shrubbery in front of it, may be appropriate. The proposed upper wall, yet to be placed, is in two diverging sections; one to hold up the bank at die north end vdiere the hump was ranoved; the second being parallel to the shore, 25' in length, and about 5' bade from the initial wall. These second walls are proposed to be approximately I .S' in height The proposed screening with shrubbery between the lower and upper walls may help to screen the upper walls, but I question whether they are necessary, as opposed to starting at the top of the lower wall and rebuilding the hun^ with fill, establishing 3:1 slopes, and then sodding or establishing some other deep-rooted ground cover on the hunp to eliminate surficial erosion. This will yield a more natural looking shoreline than the additional retaining wall. The Orono Comprehensive Plan discourages the use of rttaining walls. CMP Part 3A, the EnviroiunentalProtection Plan, in the section titled Gene»al Policies for Natural Resource Management. Policy 9 states: PV.'.v.;.::; ”9. Lake sbordiacs will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be pr eserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged." 'C * V , % The qiplicants* project as proposed, and as evidenced by the submitted cross-sections, is intending to create a gently sloped lawn area between the house and the lake that will tend to drain to the south, away from the house but not directly to the lake. This is not an unreasonable goal, as long as all the remaining trees are preserved and substantial natural vegetation between the house and the lake can be preserved or re-established. However, this plan does not re establish the hump to the height at which stafTbelicves it previously existed, and therefore the topographic screening of the house is compromised to the extent of 1-2'. 1