Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Access Ada topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission signals preference for Dog Beach alternatives that avoid dunes and breakwater area
Summary
Preservation commissioners signaled informal support for ADA access alternatives to the Dog Beach that remain within the dog‑beach footprint and avoid bisecting the nearby dune and natural area, after hearing public comment and consultant alternatives.
Mary Rosinski, who identified herself to the commission during public comment as a Parks and Recreation Board member, urged the commission to support a dog‑beach solution that provides ramp access without bisecting the dune and preserves dune and wildflower areas. "We were not very much moved by the MOBY mats," Rosinski told the commission, adding, "All we need is a ramp."
Commission staff summarized work by consultants (GEI) and said the study had produced two alternatives the commission had asked to be studied: a ramp solution that stays within the dog‑beach area and a more temporary, mat‑based solution that could be repositioned seasonally. Staff noted that Parks and Recreation had recommended concepts contained within the dog‑beach area and that the original design that bisected the natural dune area had drawn significant pushback.
During deliberation commissioners said they preferred alternatives that avoid the natural area north of the breakwater and minimize visual obstruction of the lakefront. Several commissioners urged that the project prioritize access, safety and minimal visual impact rather than design changes meant primarily to avoid railings by lengthening slopes. One commissioner summarized the commission’s guiding standard: "Every reasonable effort shall be made to adapt the property…in a manner that requires minimal alteration of the property… and its environment."
The commission did not take a formal binding vote but took an informal show of hands indicating support for the alternatives located south of the breakwater and discussed sending a brief letter of appreciation noting that consultants had incorporated the commission’s earlier comments. Staff and commissioners also discussed coordination with Public Works and Parks and Recreation, permitting triggers, and the limits of the commission’s jurisdiction when a city project does not require a building permit.
No binding permit or Certificate of Appropriateness was issued at the meeting; the discussion was advisory and intended to clarify the commission’s position to staff and to inform future submittals.
