03-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 2, 2980 paga 4 luch closer to the lake it or below the lakeehore By contrast, we are >p of the slope and, with luring construction, no the other two proposals radation of the lake further, the City Lon fabric method has not ibject to rot over time. :o be as permanent as the Ls would not have this I less aesthetically kries of retaining walls Dorhood than the ground aasurements indicate that nches lower than the endowed photographs n the lakeshore outside a low just north of the high point at the to the left of the the stairs, a black rea of earth which would set is a yardstick which e purposes. Thus, if our ke, one can see by the north of our the south thereof, that n of the gradual upward y to the Gempler II keep our property in ring residences. rather than regraded nable. If the proposal reates an aesthetically hat rational objection wed much more significant he James Hoff property in ty notes it has allowed irious erosion problems. lid be in complete •ono's Community isal would retain natural soil er<Mion ■■■iiMr. Michael Gaffrom Ret John anl Lynn wmlAron Frqparty I9SI CtOKQrtlia street:Kerch I, Ifit page S vegetation on the lekeeide slope end would protect the slope fron further eroeion by taking away the ateepeet top portion of the al^e end allowing tta to revegetate the balance. As stated in C.M.P. 4**f, *Retention of natural vegetation ... will be proaoted. Shorelines will be protected frwi eroeion end elteratlMi." We sttbmit that «« are not altering the shoreline. However, if the •shoreline” is deemed to be any portion of the land within 75* of the lake, tiMn it is our position that this *shoreline* has already been significantly altered through erosion and that our proposal is the beet practical naans of alleviating any future eroeion or alteration. C.M.P. 4*13 also states that "Natural vegetation in shorelend areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reaemukble in order to retard surface runoff and • see Our pr^^oeel furthers this objective as well. C.M.P. 4-15 states that "Preservation of natural views, vegetation always produces K>re aesthetic results....” By avoiding retaining wells, we are preserving natural views and vegetation end are producing a more aesthetic result in accord with this goal. C.M.P. 4-19 echoes this thought by stating that "Natural vegetaticm will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except trhen absolutely necessary to prevent erosion....” As James Piegat of the Hennepin Conservation District has stated, ”We cannot overemphasise that retaining walls do not solve slope pr^lMs that are caused by groundwater conditions similar to those encountered here. Retaining walls are Q solution to lazHlscaping problems, not drainage problems." The top of the slope at present is too steep to be revegete.ed. It is our plan to revegetate the remaining slope with plants having long tap roots and otherwise good root systems such as sumac and day lilies. We know of no argument that our proposal would have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare. On the contrary, by reducing the height of the slope where it is accessible, tre will be enhancing the safety of the slope for ourselves, our children and the children of the neighborhood, as well as other members of the public who may be on our property. The other criterion deemed important by the ordinance is the effect on property values. Our proposal will only have a positive effect on property values by remedying th*. storm damage in an aesthetically pleasing way. The balcony will enhance the usefulness of the property and therefore increase its market value also. In summary, the following findings could be made regarding our proposal: KlfSti