11-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«02-28-4 1973 Fagi-rncsi Point Road November 16, 2002 Page 3 I- 7, Undcrciitling of the lakcshorc bank due lo high water wave action is lo some extent a separate issue from the work that has been done in the lakeshore yard. The bank at the immediate shoreline is very sleep, approximately 60% slope (steeper than 2:1) with little vegetation to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up, this bank has a potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future. Review of Proposed Boulder Wall Landscaping Plan The current topographical survey and boulder wall plans were received on November 12, leaving staff and the City Engineer little opportunii y to react lo them. The City Engineer ’s initial comments are attached as Lxhibit L. While the proposed boulder wall design docs not include proposed contours, it does define proposed spot elevations at critical points. The boulders will add significant amounts of hardcover to the west 0-75* zone (39.5% per the submitted calculations) The Engineer has asked for a number of additional details lo clarify the plan. In general, the proposal appears to continue the applicants ’ apparent goal oferealing a wide yard that walks out from the new door elevation where a narrow, higher yard previously existed. Please review the pre- and post construction photos attached as Kxliibit F. The photos also show to some extent the degree of cicarcutting that has resulted from the grading work in the west 0-75’ yard. The staff sketch (cross section at survey line) attached as Exhibit II depicts the grade changes that have been made. Notwithstanding the obv ious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion, the current plan has a number of aspects which require Planning Commission consideration so that the applicant can be directed as to how to proceed. Planning Commission should consider the following in reviewing the proposed boulder wall / landscaping plan: 1. Should the grades be returned to their pre-consiniction status as pan of the boulder wall project’? The impacts of this are that: a) A much narrower exposure of tlic west facade will result. b) /Vn outside below-grade landing and steps will be required lo cnter/exit the walkout door; a short retaining wall system within a few feet of the house may be necessary lo retain walkout window exposures (the new windows are much closer to the ground than the original windows) (see photos and staff sketches). Perhaps the windows should be replaced with windows that are not so low to the ground, and the grade brought back up against the house where it was originally. c) Maintenance of the restored sleep slopes may require special attention. 2. An option lo consider is allowing a narrow walkout corridor at an elevation that will drain to the lake, i.e. the width of a walking path. This would be similar to what existed prior lo the grading work, but 2-3' lower in elevation. It should be noted that the 1998 topographic surv ey does not refiect 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.