01-27-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tf02-2854 1973 I'igernest Point Rood Joubory 16,2003 Paged 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Docs Planning Commission conclude that the walkout grade elevation should be restored, as would result from Option 1? Should the sidcslopcs also be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder wall project? The impacts of this arc that: a) A much narrower exposure of the west facade will result, but possibly at the expense of less stable, not-as-maintainable slopes, or the addition of even more retaining walls. None of the 3 Options bring the sideslopes back to what we believe was the pre-existing condition as shown in the photos. Maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention. If the sideslopes were restored to the pre-existing condition suggested by the photos, the walkout level windows would likely have to be changed out. The result of filling the sides of the west facade would be to leave a narrow walkout corridor, perhaps at an elevation that will drain to the lake, i.c. the width of a w alking path. This w ould be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3' lower in elevation due to the low ered doorway. It should be noted that the 1998 topographic sur\ cy does not reflect the walkway that is shown in the photos, nor docs it reflect the short retaining wall along the north side of the old walkout level. b) c) While Option I restores the walkout level grade, it also results in the mo-’t hardcover, but only by a few percentage points... Does Planning Commission find that the perspective as viewed from the lake will be better if one Option is chosen over another, or are they so similar that this is not important? Is Planning Commission satisfied with the nature of the proposed plantings between the shoreline and the house? Should there be some trees added to the plan to help soften the factadc as view ed from the lake? Finally, docs Planning Commission agree w ith the general concept of bou;lder walls in the 0-75* /one for this property, or should grades be changed to minimi/c the need for walls? Remember that the CMP states in Section #3A, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management, as follows; “2. Rctentioii of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights w’ill be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts w ill be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserv ed on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which ease they w ill be screened with natural vegetation.*’ Preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they w ood timbers, boulders, keystone blocks, etc. Other methods for .aadkl