Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File ^^2056 <br />August 18. 1995 <br />Page 3 <br />Having viewed the site, it is staffs impression that \bc shoreline and slope as they <br />exist ti?day are quite attractive (beauw is in the eye of the beholder). It currently <br />has a very natural look, in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to <br />preserve the namral character of the shcvreline. There is no evidence of erosion, <br />the vegetation ir nl.ice is fairly well established, and the only reason for <br />excavation and boulder wall at the base of the slope is to create an unnatural ­ <br />looking terraced beach area. As proposed, this 3.5* high wall will not be <br />screened by vegetation. <br />There is some merit in the upper southerly wall extension towards the house. <br />That area of the yard suffers from surface erosion due to the slope and rrof <br />runoff, and a terrace wall near the house would be suitably screened by existing <br />vegetation. Such a wall at a height of 1.5-2.5* would allow the lawn above it to <br />be relatively level. <br />In the area proposed for walls, tlwre is little or no impact from drainage that <br />comes from the east (uphill) %ide of the house. That drainage either goes to the <br />north or the south of the 2:1 sloped area, and some of it actually flows to the <br />neighboring property which might some day be an issue. However, that drainage <br />does not appear to have eroded any visible channels but appears to be dispersed. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />Are the justifications given by the applicant sufficient to allow the proposed <br />excavation in the flood plain and in the 0-75’ zone and the installation of the <br />proposed boulder walls? <br />Absent evidence of slope instability, are the aesthetic justifications suggested by <br />the applicant, in keeping with the goals and principles of the Comprehensive Plan <br />(see Exhibit G)7 <br />Will the proposed planting of ornamental shrubs result in a "contrived" shoreline <br />appearance? <br />While there is no doubt that the City has approved construction and replacement <br />of extensive retaining wall systems on other lakeshore properties, most of those <br />applications were approved in the context of providing needed slope stability, ^d <br />required plantings to minimize the visual impact of the walls needed to provide <br />the stability. Where does the applicant ’s proposal fit in this context?