08-22-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 12, 2005 Page 2 wildlife observation structure, as described in the Steinhafel application documents. Under these circumstances, the draft ordinance poses no impediment to the Steinhafel application, but what if the City were to interpret the draft ordinance to impose an absolute 4-foot width limitation on any dock type structure, as either a peimitted or conditional use, no matter what Orono property might be involved? If that were to be the case, a very real issue is presented by the Steinhafel application, which is: Should the 4-foot wide "boardwalk/dock/other reasonable access” limitation apply to every property in the City of Orono, no matter what the size of the property, no matter what the lakeshore, no matter what the nature and extent of the subject wetland and without regard to handicap accessibility concerns? Accordingly, if Sections 78-1606 and 78-1607, as presently drafted, are construed to prohibit all structures wider than 4 feet, we submit that the answer to the above stated issue is that different circumstances should allow different restrictions, and thus Section 78-1606 and/or Section 78-1607 should be revised. The 4-foot width limitation (a "one size fits all" proposition) should not be imposed arbitrarily on every property in Orono. Different widths could be stated for different sized properties as a pe^itted use. AKemativety, while a 4-foot wide limitation could be stated as the optimum in Section 78-1606, as a permitted use, discretion should be granted to the City under Section 78- 1607 to grant wider dock/walkway widths, when circumstances merit the same, as a conditional use. Accordingly, If the draft ordinance is interpreted to impose an absolute 4-foot maximum width, under both 1606 and 1607, we propose that 1606 of the draft ordinance be amended to permit greater widths as a permitted use, when acreage and wetland/lakeshore frontage warrant the same. AKematively, we propose that 1607 of the draft ordinance be amerKled to allow the potential for wider structures on a conditional use basis. Each of these alternatives would remove the arbitrariness of the “one size fits all” 4-foot dock width limitation. The foregoing addresses the draft ordinance In general, but what about the unique situation presented by the Steinhafel application, and why is a wider structure proposed by the applicant? The Steinhafel family wishes to provide reasonable handicap accessibility to the lake and to the wetland area through which the structure will pass. A structure 6 feet in width along its length, with an 8-foot width at its terminus, will allow reasonably safe and secure access to persons with special accessibility needs. A person in a wheelchair or walking with the assistance of a walker will be better able to maneuver, as will other persons using the structure contemporaneously. Then, too. with the Property here involved, there is the scale of the recreational use structure in relationship to the 45-acre size of the subject property. It is not as though the applicant is trying to squeeze an oversized st'ucture into an undersized lot. The scale of the structure is appropriate to the size of the acreage and length of the lakeshore here involved. J