Laserfiche WebLink
U <br />Page 22 <br />SUBDIVISION <br />4695 North Shore Dri <br />(Continued) <br />: '-H <br />fe. <br />v\ <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMI <br />45Xa-Nqrth Shore Driv <br />^•Pe^er Switenki <br />(Continued) <br />i <br />.V <br />'■ <br />IM I \m\\ <br />REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, JULY 28, 1980 <br />The conditional use permit is requested by Mr. <br />Switenki to construct a seawall along his shoreline <br />to combat a muskrat invasion. I had originally <br />refused the Department of Natural Resources permit <br />requesting seawall construction because the <br />property did not abut a channel. I recommend rip <br />rapping. <br />Mr. Switenki then recontacted me and informed me <br />of the severity of the erosion along the lakeshore <br />and the pot holes that create hazardous conditions <br />for his young children at play, all apparently <br />coming from muskrat activity. <br />i <br />It should be noted that the entire shoreland area <br />of this and the neighboring pr *perties consists <br />of dredge spoils and fill placti over a former <br />wetland some years ago. This apparently makes <br />the area especially susceptible to muskrat habitat. <br />There are holes in the lawns, but a personal <br />inspection is necessary to determine the relative <br />severity of the situation. I cannot say that it <br />is any worse here than in many other areas of <br />the City. <br />The Department of Natural Resources and the <br />Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would normally <br />approve of seawall construction as an acceptable <br />method for controlling muskrats. Rip rap would <br />apparently not be' effective against the bank rats <br />because they could tunnel between the rocks. <br />Mr. Switenki has hired a trapper but he gave up - <br />the area was an ideal breeding ground and trapping <br />was never going to solve his problem. <br />Page 23 <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERM! <br />4510 North Shore Dri^ <br />«569 <br />Peter Switenki <br />The local game warden has been out to the site <br />and approves the seawall as a sure method of <br />success but could not recommend another method <br />more acceptable to City*s policy of shoreline <br />protection. The City Engineer approves the <br />engineering plans and feels it is an expensive <br />method but sure to be successful. He cautions <br />that the neighboring properties will get the overflow <br />of bank rats and that before the City approves of <br />the project, owners of adjacent properties should <br />submit letters stating they approve of the proposal. <br />The Planning Commission questioned whether other <br />methods more in keeping with the City's shoreland <br />policies might not be available. Eventually the <br />Planning Commission did recommend seawall approval <br />in this particular case.(Continued)