Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1223 <br />March 8, 1988 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />F. This is the applicant's original proposal to create a 6-8' deep <br />walk -out excavation, which would allow for the desired 2:1 slopes <br />along the major portion of the lakeshore and would decrease the weight <br />of soil tending to cause the slumping effect that occurred in 1987. <br />However, with the deep cut proposed, the visual impact from the lake <br />would be significant. The short 'srm surface erosion potential would <br />be relatively high due to the large s, ice area exposed with no <br />vegetation. Once the re -vegetation is c, _?ete, the long term impact <br />on lake water quality would be no better and no worse than the <br />majority of methods proposed. Again, the primary environmental impact <br />of this option would be the visual impact of creating at unnatural <br />topography along what exists as a relatively uniform lakeshore bank in <br />the neighborhood, as is shown on the photos submitted by applicant. <br />The copies of that photo show the relative magnitude of the original <br />and revised proposals. <br />G. This is the applicant's revised proposal that suggests excavation <br />of about half of the lakeshore laws area to a depth of 3' br low <br />existing surface, which would then allow a lesser slope down t,, the <br />lake. Again, the short-term potential impact for surface erosion is <br />somewhat greater because a greater area of ground will be disturbed <br />and remain unvegetated for a period of time.* The visual impact from <br />the lake will be not nearly as severe as the original proposal, as can <br />be compared using the two photos. I would suggest that you compare <br />Option G with Option E. Bssentially they accomplish the same purpose, <br />with the advantages of Option G being that the stability may be <br />enhanced slightly due to 3' less of overburden uphall from the slope, <br />and the visual impact of option G may be somewhat less obtrusive given <br />the additional distance of the wall face (in this cAsc it is the <br />basement foundation wall rather than a retaining wall) from the <br />shozeline. <br />* ArPcICA.-J r rrl ^P^ �t � 1G �lt•;� _LI 4 r � f � �L. 'i Ht f �" 1`_ DI.r+�R C+�L <br />�Q : CwJ l r t <br />t, <br />