Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael Gaffron March 2, 1988 <br />Re: John and Lynn Waldron Property page 5 <br />1951 Concordia Street <br />vegetation rn the lakeside slope and would protect the slope from <br />further erosion by taking away the steepest top portion of the <br />slope and allowing us to revegetate the balance. As stated in <br />C.M.P. 4-6, "Retention of natural vegetation ... will be promoted. <br />Shorelines will ;ie protected from erosion and alteration." We <br />submit that we are not altering the shoreline. However, if the <br />"shoreline" is deemed to be any portion of the land within 75' cf <br />the lake, then it is our position that this "shoreline" has <br />already been significantly altered through erosion and that our <br />proposal is the best practical means of alleviating any future <br />erosion or alteration. C.M.P. 4-13 also states that "Natural <br />vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as <br />practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and <br />soil erosion ...." Our proposal furthers this objective as well. <br />C.M.P. 4-15 states that "Preservation of natural views, vegetation <br />... always produces more aesthetic results...." By avoiding <br />retaining walls, we are preserving natural views and vegetation <br />and are producing a more aesthetic result in accord with this <br />goal. C.M.P. 4-19 echoes this thought by stating that "Natural <br />vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be <br />discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent <br />erosion...." As James Piegat of the Hennepin Conservation <br />District has stated, "We cannot overemphasize that retaining walls <br />do not solve slope problems that are caused by groundwater <br />conditions similar to those encountered h-re. Retaining walls are <br />a solution to landscaping problems, not drainage problems." The <br />top of the slope at present is too steep to be revegetated. It is <br />our plan to revegetate the remaining slope with plants having long <br />tap roots and otherwise good root systems such as sumac and day <br />lilies. <br />We know of no argument that our proposal would hive an <br />adverse effect on t�-P public health, safety, or welfare. On *' <br />contrary, by reducir .he height of the slope where it <br />accessible, we will be enhancing the safety of the slope for <br />ourselves, our children and the children of the neighborhood, <br />well as rather members of the public who may be on our property. <br />The other criterion deemed important by the ordinance is the <br />effect on property values. Our proposal will only have a positive <br />effect on property values by remedying the storm damage in an <br />aesthetically pleasing way. The balcony will enhance the <br />usefulness of the property and therefore increase its market value <br />also. <br />In summary, the following findings could be made regarding <br />uur proposal: <br />