Laserfiche WebLink
■f . <br />I <br />i <br />[1 ’ <br />I. <br />MLNUTES OF A rLWNlNG CatUSSlON IDibTING IU:LD APRIL 18, 1977 - PAGE 7 <br />A lengthy discussion followed on the issue of riprap vs. <br />aluminum seawall. Mr. Hai-lmaim explained that the members <br />of the association have been meeting on a regular basis <br />for several months to discuss this problem. During these <br />discussions, they established a set of common objectives - <br />marsh disturbance, shoreline changes and total costs. He <br />also stated that they did not want to establish a new pre­ <br />cedent for wJiatever they do in the lagoon. Uicy found an <br />agreenent as to what frontage in this lagoon is co,.nonly <br />beneficial to all homeowners (channel is coinnonly bene­ <br />ficial and the 340’ west wall which is abutting the narsh). <br />They then came up with a formula to divide the lagoon <br />frontage between each individual oivner. <br />Their preferred solution to this problem is a combination <br />of riprap and seawall; three menbers prefer riprap (Ellis, <br />DeGregory, Crist), while four members prefer the seawall <br />Olartmann, Blunt, Nelson, Reese). <br />Mr. Hartmann stated that from an engineering standpoint <br />ice would have a more damaging affect on riprap than it <br />would on the seawall. Riprap would also require rerroval <br />of the high bank. The cost of the riprap is much higher <br />than the se^all. Another msnber of the association <br />expressed his concern for the removal of a large nurber <br />of trees that would be necessary if they were to riprap <br />the entire area. <br />The Planning Cemmission was not in favor of the iietal <br />seawall and preferred riprap or a wooden replacement. <br />Hweyer, this situation being unique because of the <br />straight sides and depth of the seawall and future <br />dredging would not be needed as soon as without rip­ <br />rap we allow, the Commission felt the seawall was a <br />solution to this situation. <br />The Planning Commission was also concerned about the <br />seawall from a public safety aspect. Mr. Hartmann stated <br />that the Association would be willing to provide the <br />necessary safety measures. <br />After some discussion, Pesek moved, Hosfield seconded, to <br />reconmend approval of a combination of riprap and aluminum <br />seawall for protection of the lagoon and channel subject <br />to the following conditions; <br />(1) The City's receipt of revised, detailed plans <br />(2) <br />(3) <br />indicating exact location of riprap and seawall as <br />j L . ........................................................................... -preferred by individual menbers of the Association. <br />A written statement of approval from all property owners <br />and underlying fee owner of lagoon and channel. <br />Provide safety measures along steep seawall such <br />as life line, roj^e ladders, etc, <br />Fngineer's review and approval. <br />Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />The Zoning Ailninistrator infonwd tlie Co.-mission tliat since <br />the work session at the last rceting, Mr. Lcbbcn has sub­ <br />mitted some plans for a bridge going over the existing creek <br />WALTERS PORT IJVOOON <br />(continued) <br />(#245) <br />Hl^.’NiiPIN OXJNTf \'0-TECH <br />2940 SIXTH A\TLNJE N. <br />CONDITiaMAL USE PERMIT <br />for access for the farm enuipnent from the Medina area. Proposed FOR ciop PROGRAM -'l^TiKAL <br />>ed 24' long and 8' wide, to be constructed (#247)bridge would be a flat bi <br />by tJie students.