03-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

elope area, build a len refill the bank to ng becomes invisible B steeper slope to be n order to construct lasted and stock piled cern. There would be -vegetation period as expensive due to the low for a relatively rade. system results in a f parallel horizontal :al fabric, which acts soil. The amount of ong-term effects are , as are the greater ng wall system, with planting of landscape a major visual impact installations on the :reened so as to be ;tion and design, this lity. The potential I would be relatively ht retaining wall at e slope from the base omewhat flatter than s option would be to 0 that the slope fr n 3 desired. Obviously, ter the visual impact ^ases as the height of 1 long-term effects on 3ns B and C. ••• Zoning File 11223 March 8, 1988 Page :> of 8 P. This is the applicant's original proposal to create a 6-i* deep excavation, which would allow for the desired 2il slopes along the tajor portion of the lakeshore and would decrease the weight of soil tending to cause the slumping effect that occurred in 1987. Ho%rever, with the deep cut proposed, the visual isipact from the lake would be significant. The short term surface erosion potential would be relatively high due to the large surface area exposed with no vegetation. Once the re-vegetation is complete, the long term impact on lake water quality would be no better and no worse than the BMjority of methods proposed. Again, the pris>ary environmental impact of this option would be the visual impact of creating an unnatural topography along what exists as a relatively uniform lakeshore bank in the neighborhood, as is shown on the photos submitted by applicant. The copies of that photo show the relative magnitude of the original and revised proposals. G. This is the applicant's revised proposal that suggests excavation of about half of the lakeshore lawn area to a depth of 3* below existing surface, which would then allow a lessei slope down to the lake. Again, the short-term potential impact for surface erosion is somewhat greater because a greater area of ground will be disturbed and remain unvegetated for a period of time.^ The visual impact from the lake will be not nearly as severe as the original proposal, as can be compared using the two photos. I would suggest that you compare Option G with Option E. Essentially they accomplish the same purpose, with the advantages of Option G being that the stability may be enhanced slightly due to 3' less of overburden uphill from the slope, and the visual impact of Option G may be somewhat less obtrusive given the additional distance of the wall face (in this case it is the basement fo>ndation wall rather than a retaining wall) from the shoreline. in.’4f ? ‘ - r r ' Ai '/fj / r 71 A.*• 1 r . ' ! « Lm ^ mm '^'1 'Ai- W: IHi ■ , tisi.