Laserfiche WebLink
)RIVE <br />^ARUNCE <br />TO <br />l^FOFMING <br />9 9 <br />DRIVE <br />DVMVr <br />OC. <br />ON <br />^•Tiia <br />A lengthy discussion followed on the issue of ripxap vs. <br />aluminun seawall. Mr. Hartmann explained that the menhers <br />of the association have been meeting on a regular basis <br />for several months to discuss this problem, ^ring these <br />iscussicns, they established a set of comnon objectives - <br />arsh distuxbance, shoreline changes and total costs. He <br />also stated tiiat they did not want to est^lish a new pre­ <br />cedent for whatever they do in the lagoon. Ihey fouid an <br />agreement as to what frontage in this lagoon is comnonly <br />bmeficial to all homeowners (channel is oomnonly bene-* <br />ficial and the 340* west wall which is abutting the marsh). <br />They then came up with a fonnula to divide the lagoon <br />frontage between each individual owner. <br />Their preferred solution to this problem is a combination <br />of riprap and seawall; three meirbers prefer riprap (Ellis, <br />DeGregoxy, Crist), while four members prefer the s< <br />(Hartmann, Blunt, Nelson, Reese). <br />seawall <br />WALTERS PORT LA <br />(continued) <br />(#245) <br />fM N <br />Mr. Hartmann stated that from an engineering stan^int <br />ice would have a more damaging affect on riprap than it <br />would on the seawall. Riprap would also require removal <br />of the high bank. The cost of the riprap is much higher <br />than the seawall. Another menber of the association <br />expressed his concern for the removal of a large nunber <br />of trees that would be necessary if they were to riprap <br />the entire area. <br />The Planning Gonmission was not in favor of the metal <br />^sem#all and preferred riprap or a wooden replacement. <br /><_>However, this situation being unique because of the <br />straight sides and depth of tiie seawall and future <br />dredpLng 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 piblic 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 />recommend 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) 'Die City's receipt of revised, detailed plans <br />indicating exact location of riprm and seawall as <br />preferred by individual menbers ot the Association. <br />(2) A written s^tement of approval from all property owners <br />and mderlying fee owner of lagoon and channel. <br />(3) Provide safety measures along steep seawall such <br />as life line, rope ladders, etc. <br />(4) Bigineer's review and approval. <br />Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />^^Ihe Zoning Adninistrator informed the Connission that since <br />the work session at the last meeting, Mr. Lobben has sub­ <br />mitted some plans for a bridge going over the existing cre^ <br />for access for the farm equipment from the Medina area. Proposed <br />bridge would be a flat bed 24* long and 8' wide, to be constructed <br />by the students. <br />^1. ^ <br />HeJNEPIN OXJNIY VD-THM <br />2940 SIXTH AVENUE N. <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />FOR OOP PROGRAM - RENEWAL <br />(#247)