10-23-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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