Laserfiche WebLink
MlNUTl-^ OF A PLWNING CQ-MISSION Mi:hTlN'G HJILD .‘\i>RIL 18, 1977 - PAGE 7 <br />A lengthy discussion followed on the issue of riprnp vs, <br />aliiminitn seawall, Mr, Hai tinann explained tliat r;« iScrs <br />of tlic association hav'C been laceting on a regular basis <br />for several r>ontlis to discuss this problem. I>aring these <br />discussions, they established a set of coi.Lron objectives - <br />marsh disturbance, shoreline diangcs jmd total costs. lie <br />also stated that tliey did not want to establish a new pre­ <br />cedent for whatever tliey do in the lagoon. 'Dicy found an <br />agi'cenont as to wliat frontage in this lagoon is conmaily <br />beneficial to all homeowners (channel is coi:nonly bene­ <br />ficial and the 340* west wall which is abutting the mirsh). <br />They then came up with a fonnula to di\dde the lagoon <br />frontage between each individual owner. <br />Their preferred solution to this problem is a combination <br />of riprap and seawall; three rcirbers prefer ripnip (bills, <br />DcGregory, Crist), while four menbers prefer the seawall <br />(Hartmann, Blunt, Nelson, Reese), <br />Marti;iann stated tliat from an engineering standpoint <br />ice would have a rore damaging affect on rijuap tlian it <br />would on the seawall. Riprap would also require reiroval <br />of the high bank. Tlie cost of the riprap is inucli higlier <br />than the seawall. Aiother nc*irf)er of the association <br />expressed his concern for the removal of a large nui'ber <br />of trees that would be necessary if they were to riprap <br />the entire area. <br />The Planning Consnission was not in favor of the retal <br />seawall and preferred riprap or a wooden replacement. <br />Hoever, this situation being unique because of the <br />straight sides and depth of tJie seawall and future <br />dredging would not be needed as soon as without rip­ <br />rap we allow, the Coi.mission felt tlie sea-wall was a <br />solution tc 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 secontled, to <br />recoirtnend approval of a combination of riprap and aluminum <br />seawall for protection of the lagoon and channel subject <br />to the folleaving conditions: <br />(1) 'Ihe City*s receipt of revised, detailed plans <br />indicating exact location of riprap and ser\ all ns <br />preferred by indi\Tldual renhers of the Association. <br />(2) A written statement of approval frojn all projx?rty owners <br />and underlying fee o\sner of lagoon and channel. <br />(3) Provide safety measures along steep seawall such <br />as life line, ro|ie ladders, etc. <br />(4) Fngincer's review and approval. <br />Ibtion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />The Zoning A'lninistrator infonved the Comission that since <br />the work session at 1/ic last x'oting, Mr. If'bV.cn lias sub- <br />some plans for a bridge going over the existing cioek <br />for access for the farm e<|inj.;*jnt from the Medina aiva. Proposed <br />bridge would he a flat bc-d 24* long and 8* wide, to be constrnctc-d <br />by tlie students. <br />WALTERS PORT lAGOON <br />(continued) <br />(^245) <br />1 <br />H'X\'d>lN QXJNiY VO-TIUH <br />2940 SIXiH AVLNIE N. <br />(I'/N!) 1 f II ISb. PI ilM i T <br />K'.p f.K*.)P PK(X;R.\M - FiXHKAL <br />(#247)