Laserfiche WebLink
■' "Kaircb 2, 19ii pag« S <br />lid protect the slope froa <br />?est top portion of the <br />balance. As stated in <br />ition ... will be promoted. <br />)n and alteration." We <br />reline. However, if the <br />of the land within 75* of <br />this "shoreline" has <br />igh erosion and that our <br />alleviating any future <br />i states that "Natural <br />reserved insofar as <br />rard surface runoff and <br />rs this objective as well. <br />t natural views, vegetationi <br />Lts...." By avoiding <br />ral views and vegetation <br />Lt in accord with this <br />by stating that "Natural <br />Eind retaining walls will be <br />Bsary to prevent <br />nnepin Conservation <br />baslze that retaining walls <br />ased by groundwater <br />here. Retaining walls are <br />drainage problems." The <br />p to be revegetawcd. It is <br />ope with plants having long <br />ns such as sumac and day <br />oposal would have an <br />fety. or welfare. On the <br />slope where it is <br />fety of the slope for <br />n of the neighborhood, as <br />may be on our property. <br />nt by the ordinance is the <br />1 will only have a positive <br />the storm damage in an <br />y will enhance the <br />e Increase its market value <br />could be made regarding <br />Hr. Hichasl Gaffr«i Rei and Lynn Waldron ProfwrtyIfSl Concordia Straet <br />1. There will be no significant or <br />hardcover; <br />March a. 19tt page § <br />material iiwreass in <br />3* Laksshore banks will bs at a grads for sasier <br />malntenanes and tbs potential for erosion of lakeshore banks <br />will be decreased} <br />3. There will be tso adverse iapact on the quality and <br />quantity of rux»ff into the lake as a result of thsi <br />pxo^pommlt <br />4. The proposed alteraticm does not adversely affect the <br />neighboring properties since it presents no view <br />encroachments, no adverse drainage effects, and does not <br />materially change the surrounding topogra^y since a gradual <br />rise in elevation from the Begets property to the Ceepler <br />property will bs maintained; and <br />5. The proposed plan will alleviate the need to install <br />less aesthetically pleasing retaining walls or stabilization <br />fabric or cribwall syatams. the latter two of which would <br />involve significantly more earth moving and significantly <br />greater possibility of degradation to the lake durii^ <br />construction and afterwards. <br />These findings and conditions are substantially identical to <br />those found by the City in its approval of the walkout for the <br />William Sinclair property in 1943. The Sinclair project involved <br />removing three tiMS as such earth and involved no real hardship <br />since the foundation could have easily been replaced without <br />creating a walkout. Desire for additional living area was not a <br />hardship either. Also, the fact that most of the Sinclair grading <br />took place at least 40 feet froa the shoreline whereas ours takes <br />place within 50 feet is insignificant unless it can be sho%m that <br />our excavation would result in degradation to the lake. The <br />Sinclair project had a such more obvious aesthetic impact as well. <br />See enclosed photograph. <br />Finally, we have investigated the cost of s.abilization <br />fabric, cribwall. retaining walls and modified retaining wall <br />systems. All are prohibitively expensive and. as a practical <br />matter, we therefore simply cannot implement them. Therefore, we <br />see no other options open to us than the present one. <br />JBWtcy <br />Enclosures <br />dron