03-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Gaffron March 2, 1988 Re: John and Lynn Waldron Property page 5 1951 Concordia Street vegetation on the lakeside slope and would protect the slope fr<m further erosion by taking away the steepest top portion of the slope and allowing us to revegetate the balance. As stated in C.M.P. 4-6, "Retention of natural vegetation ... will be promoted. Shorelines will be protected from erosion and alteration." We submit that we are not altering the :shoreline. However, if the "shoreline" is deemed to be any portion of the land within 75' of the lake, then it is our position that this "shoreline" :zas already been r.gnificantly altered tarough erosion and that our proposal is the best practical means of alleviating any future erosion or alteration. C.M.P. 4-13 also states that "Natural vegetation in shoreland areas wail be preserved inso.'ar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surtace Yuncff and soil erosion ...." Our proposal furthers this objective as well. C.M.P. 4-15 states that "Preservation of natural views, vegetation ... always produces more aesthetic results...." By avoiding retaining walls, we are preserving natural views and vegetation and are producing a more aesthetic result in accord with this goal. C.M.P. 4-19 echoes this thought by stating that "Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion...." As James Piegat of the Hennepin Conservation District has stated, "We cannot overemphasize that retaining walls do not solve slope problems that are caused by groundwater conditions similar to those encountered here. Retaining walls are a solution to landscaping problems, not drainage problems." The top of the slope at present is too steep to be revegetated. 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 heeltn, safety; or welfare. i the contrary, by reducing the height o: the slope where it accessible, we 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 Grit^rion deemed important by the ordinance is the effect on property values. Our proposal will only have a positive effect on property values by remedying the 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 mdde regarding our proposal: