11-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1220 Tonkawt Shorcllnt AtUration N««cmbcr 10.2004 Page 3 In ihe section titled Urfain Area Policies for Natural Resource Management. Policy 2 states; *‘2. Retention of natural vegetation svill limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heiglits will be limited to less than the topical tree hciglu. Minimum green belts will be prosnded with prohibitions against clcarcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Naniral vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in 'vhich case they will be screened with natural vegetation." bi regards to the upper wall, the City Engineer has indicated that from an engineering standpoint the proposed plan is acceptable. Howev cr. from an aesthetic standpoint, eliminanon of the upper wall will be less visually intrusive. Tire Engineer has indicated to me verbally that the upper wall s>stenr could be eliminated as long as a 3:1 or flatter slope was maintained above the low er wall, and natural vegetation with a strong root system was established at that location. My lasic issue with the project is loss of the natural grade of the shoreline, replacing it w ith the upper retaining wall that may not be strictly necessary', and replacing the natural \ cgctalion w ith contnv cd plantings and a garden-like view rather than a natural look. A more natural lot^k could could be accomplished by eliminating the upper wall and replacing it with a gently s!op:d hill -id? a 3:1 or flatter slope. The primary area where excavation occurred to lower the *hump’ is betw cen the nv o sets of n.aiurc black oaks showm on the recent survey. It is my belief that the slope previously was uni fomi betw cen the bases of those two groupings ofoaks, whereas after the grading it seems that just south of the northern group :s a significant cut (which the submitted proposal would reinforce w ith a wall) and then a flat area to the base of the southerly oak group. This area currently has an clev’ation of 936 ’-937*. whereas our 1992 topography and the actual surveyed tree base clc\ aiions suggest it should be a gentle slope 6om elevation 939’ at the north end to 936.6' at the south end. The wall and stairway perpendicular to the shoreline extending from the south end of tlie house, is of lesser concern to me but might be unneccssan if addiiioiul fi 11 w as brought in to taper the grade further south. Tliis w all will only be mimmally visible from the lake. Applicants' cross scctioi. A1-A2 is the primary area I would change if the intent is lo rc-cstablisli the ongiiul topographic screening. It could nsc from the bottom ofthe steps (937 0) toward the shoreline U* to a point with elevation 938.0, then drop to the top of the lower wall (933.6) in a distance of approximately 18’, for a final slope of 18:4.4 or about 4:1. Tltc slope parallel with the shore should be unifonn in a line betw cen the two definitive oaks, and that line becomes the drainage divide. The only area of concern is at the north end w here this grading will have to blend in w ith the more precarious slopes remaining on the neighboring property. Conclusion:I believe a grading plan can be devised that substantially restores the origimd topography without resorting to an upper retaining wall, allowing for a more natural looking shoreline, allowing for replanting of screening and bank stabilization vegetation to reduce the visual impact ofthe home ’s dose prorximity to the lake, and that is more in line with the City’s policies. J