Laserfiche WebLink
* •f 9 <br />#2492 Rick & Gail Luzaich <br />June 17,1999 <br />Page 2 <br />It wouldn't be practical or reasonable to transplant the site with large trees. However, 29 trees <br />of 2-inch caliper (maples and lindens with a few red oaks) on a 25' average spacing would <br />replace the 14,450 s.f. lost canopy in a period of20-25 years. Spacing should be staggered <br />to provide a natural look. <br />Larger 4.0-4.5 inch caliper trees should be placed at the top of the slope to soften the and <br />obscure the roofline of the existing residence as viewed from the lake. <br />A majority of the existing stumps and root systems should remain in place to stabilize the <br />slope. <br />Planting witliin the slopes should be done by hand to avoid soil disturbance. <br />Bedker indicated to staff that the retaining wall at the base of the slope is qq! necessary for <br />stabilization of the slope; it is purely an aesthetic item. There are a few areas where ruts from the <br />tree removal equipment have started to erode. These should be filled and sodded ASAP. He <br />indicated there is no strict need to place larger trees at the base of the slope, as they will not assist <br />in adding to the visual restoration. <br />Brief Review of Revised Proposal <br />Applicant's revised proposal was submitted without the benefit of Dedkefs recommendations. The <br />revised proposal includes 4 birch clumps at the base of the slope and a half-dozen maples along the <br />2 sides of the site. Other proposed plantings are primarily shrubbery, either along the edges of the <br />lot or on the lake side of the retaining wall, llie apparent reason for the 5' retaining wall is to <br />slightly decrease the slope above it. <br />The proposal results in the following hardcover changes on the site per the calculations of the <br />applicant's landscape architect: <br />Existing Allowed <br />Proposed <br />0-75' Zone 0.5%0%3.0%(2.5% increase) <br />75-250' Zone 31%25%32%(1% increase) <br />250-500 ’ Zone 15%30%15%(no increase) <br />Lack of Conformity with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code <br />The applicant's revised proposal makes no attempt to, over time, restore the site to its original <br />appearance. It appears to be a second generation attempt to provide a landscape plan that meets the