03-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.a■■■: V.uv . • HMarch 2, I9i8 pag« 3 las no r.agatlv* affects beyond either end of the ict any natural areas Id froB the lake or 'oaaisslon previously :k. The only difference »elng much smaller, Is ited, the only Issue that iutas a view obstruction iclosed plate shows, the within the average deck itltute a view mers. In any 1 joining property o%mers I Is thick vegetation on ts their view through to Irenes between our t is that there is not a growth of soil- ;rround level decks. The indlng properties since a substantial wooden ■ the back door of their for recommending denial Lcony is necessary to bhe house and for n our proposed reduction osal, we have already as good as the others point of view. In other on the quality or riterion is probably the ng whether a given City's objective of by the Clwy is whether a truslve method of City Engineer has e removed from the site 00 cubic yards. We would hand, our engineer has e moved for a tern would be c yards for a cribwall urrently on file. In reed slope system and the >Mr. Michael Caffnmi Bst John and Lynn Waldron Property IfSl Concordia Street March a, 19tSpage^ €cribwall syst« would involve excavation much clooer to the lake eimoo the work would have to start right at or below the lakeshore level in order to MMrure a proper systMi. by contrast, we are removing only throe feet of soil at the top of the slcgto and, with pr<M^r balsa and other barriers in place during construction, no further silt should reach the lake, with the other two propmals for stabilisatiiHi fabric or 'Tibwall, degradatlOT of the lake during construction would be avoidable, further, the City Engineer has a<baltted that the stabilisatiwi fabric method has not been tlM-proven and that crlbwalls are aubjeot to rot over time, thus, neither of these methods can claim vo be ee permanent as the excavation we propose■ Of course, e eeriee of retaining wells irould not have this disedventege elthou^ they would prMient e lees eeethetieelly pleasing view froa the lake. Surely, a aeriae of retaining walls is much lees in conformity with the neighborhood then the ground excavation which we ere proposing. Our sMesurementa indicata that the Regetx proiMrty is e^roximetely 29 inches lower then the lakeside portion of our property. As the enclosed photographs indicata, the ganaral alopa of the land on the lakaahora outside of the hesMS in our neighborhood reaches s low just north of the Ragats property er^ climbs gradually to a high point at the Ceaipler property. The photographs show, tu the left of the stairs, e black line end, to the right of the stairs, e black plastic sheet, both of which depict the area of earth which would be removed. To the right of the black sheet is e yardstick which wee inserted for measurement end reference purposes. Thus, if our proposed excavation is viewed from the lake, one can aaa by comparing it with tha land iiWKliataly to tha north of our axisting dack and tha land immadiataly to tha aouth tharaof, that it will maraly appear to ba a continuation of the gradual upward alope of tha land from tha Ragatz proparty to the Gemplar property. Thus, our excavation would still keep our proparty in character end conformity with the neighboring reaidences. The feet that earth will ba removed rather than regraded under our proposal should not be objectionable. If the proposal doss not harm tha laka or lakeshora and craataa an aasthatically plaaaing raault, it is difficult to aaa what rational objaction there could be. Again, tha City has allowed much more significant removal of earth in the 0-7S' area with the James Hoff property in 1985. In allowing that regrading, tha City notee it has allowed regrading of lakeshore lots becausa of serious erosion problems. Such is exactly the situation hsre. Further, our proposed excavation would ba in complete accordanca with tha goals sat forth in Orono's Community Management Plan. Specifically, our proposal would retain natural ii»i M: •** ’• ■ T..-* 4 mmmm mm ymrm