08-22-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t. I- ^ ; * •( i. - j ■ August '12,200S Page 3 And no one can seriously argue, when one considers the size of the Property, that adding an extra 2 feet along the 92 foot leg of the structure (184 sq. ft.), or adding 4 fset to the 20 foot long platform portion of the structure (80 sq. ft.) adds any material impact to the wetland area over which the structure is proposed to pass. The total additional area, 264 square feet, is just not that significant. Finally, to address any concern that approval of the pending application would set any sort of precedent, we submit that the Property and this structure are unique. There will be no precedent, if the CUP requested by Mr. Steinhafel is granted. No other property owner can claim that his/her property presents the same circumstances as the Property. Another owner simply cannot in good foith make the argument that his 2. 5 or 10 acre parcel is the same as t^ 45 acre parcel which is the Property. Further, the size and configuration of the Property allow unique privacy. The structure proposed will not intrude on neighboring properties. This bundle of unique features sets the Property apart Any approval granted by the City respect to this unique Property will itself be unique, arid not a precedent binding the City as to other properties. In conclusion, if deemed necessary by the City in order to avoid a reading of the draft ordinance that would impose an absolute 4-foot maximum width on any dock structure, anywhere in Orono, we request an appropriate amendment to the draft Wetland Protection Ordinance, either (1) to allow greater widths for larger properties on a permitted use basis, or (2) to allow greater widths for any property on a conditional use basis. With either amendment, a reading of the draft ordinance that would impose an arbitrary 4-foot limit on all properties everywhere is avoided. As to the Steinhafel CUP application itself, Mr. Steinhafel requests the approval of his pending application for the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a permanent recreational use structure on his property, either under the City’s ordinances as presently set forth, or under Section 78-1607(a)(1), if the draft ordinance is adopted. Should the draft ordinance be amended to allow greater widths than 4 feet as either a permitted or conditional use, then we would proceed under the applicable provision. However we proceed, the proposed recreational use structure will allow greater safety and security all users, but especially for the handicapped or disabled user; is appropriate to the size of the overall acreage and lakeshore involved; will have no materially greater impact on the wetland that a narrower structure would have; and will not set a precedent with respect to other properties on Lake Minnetonka. Respectfully submitted. John b. Winston JBW/krm >L' - *■