Laserfiche WebLink
.Zoning File #1215 <br />October 16, 1987 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />3. The City has approved seawalls along charnel areas and lagoon <br />shoreline. The code gives little direction regarding the pros and cons in <br />the use of seawalls. Review Item 6 - necessary findings. Section 10.55, <br />Subdivision 25. The desire of the City to preserve "natural land forms", <br />etc. - aesthetically the City has held that rip rap is a more natural <br />feature with shoreline of a lake than the seawall - that is on the main <br />lake. The applicant has provided hardships and unique findings for your <br />consideration. Note in the minutes of the M.C.W.D. (review Exhibit E), <br />they also question the use of the seawall on the main lake but accepted <br />applicant's hardships seeking only additional engineering review of the <br />design of the seawall. <br />4. In response to the City's past position on the use of seawalls on the <br />main lake, staff has asked for the lake view of the wall elevation at <br />various locations. In addition, a complete site plan has been requested <br />locating seawall and other improvements. <br />Review of Application - <br />The applicant proposes installation of a steel sheeting seawall along <br />280 feet of shoreline. In addition, a dredging permit has been approved by <br />the DNR to allow the removal of up to 3,17 5 cubic yards of spoils from the <br />lakebed (Exhibit K). Spoils are to be removed from site. Applicant's <br />addendum lists the following hardships and findings; <br />1. Seawall will allow maximum use of limited land area for park? <br />and storage. <br />2. Watercraft can be closer to service area and sewage pumping <br />facility. <br />3. Rip rap would require more land area to allow for the required <br />slope from parking area to lake. <br />4. The water quality/filtering plan is acceptable and may require <br />less maintenance over rip rap filtering plan because wave action is <br />eliminated. <br />5. The site is a non-natural feature of the shoreline as property was <br />created with filling. <br />6. The projection of this site from natural shoreline presents <br />unique erosion problems - seawall is the most effective method. <br />Planning Commission Action - <br />To table application pending receipt of the following: <br />1. Elevations of seawall. <br />2. Total site plan locating seawall, water quality filter location, <br />other improvements. <br />3. M.C.W.D. final comments. <br />4. Other information requested by Planning Commission members.