03-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mmm .:h■-■ V :': : "v-•j'r ;^r^‘= : ■• •/.: .. -.V/VJ-.:;-;-v:.->v7 ■ ■ -: :■ ■:.■ A.■■ • ■ - V":.;fglMS-.‘Il'TwR-seeB tor nts In support of th« most bank erosion problem created an see from the sheets , we are no longer proposing a regrading of the of the yard three feet over he severe erosion occurred, ashore slope at its crest, the Hennepin Consexvatlon urn of August 14, 1987, a f Report of December 9, to maintain that the July 23 ip on our property within n other words, our plight is perty and not created by us. suffered bank erosion he unique character of the the fact that the situation locality. ng Commission recommending t the walkout cut was not ion needs. Our present is one of the he Hennepin Conservation roblem such as this. 8 stated that our present g standpoint with the other uggested by the City mmmm ECk; Vi •: rm^ ftiT- ■ . C. „■>: ■ ■ h If •V.'c=^' ;:.:-r Km'/' • . ■ •■■ '■ '■%•K‘m. mehael caffrcn Re: John and Lynn Waldron Property1951 ccHkcordia Street March 2, 198S page aEngineer. As such, there appeere to be no argument that our propoeel will adversely affect the quality or quantity of runoff into thm lake. Thue, as you correctly noted in your DecMber 9 Staff report, *The problem appears to boil <town to one of ^iloeopby.* While I understand and agree with the City's philoeo^y that the lake and lakeehore must be protected, as a practical matter, the specific means by which the City seeks to "protect* the lake and lakeehore must be rationally related to that ^jective. If they are not, they can be successfully attacked in a oosixt, of law. As a result, our prt^Msal should be analysed in terms of the criteria suggests by the ordinances and those criteria themselves should be examined critically as to whether they are rationally related to the objective of preserving and protecting t)M lake and lakeshore. One potential issue in this regard is the issue of hardcover. As mix enclosed hardcover calculations indicate, the proposed balcony will result in a .23% hardcover increase in the 0*‘79* tone. It is our positi<m that this slight Increase in hardcover is insignificant. Por example, it is less than half of the percentage hardcover increase escrowed by the Council at its August 24 meeting with respect to the Jack Swenson property. Moreover, ee the staff Itself has edmitted, there is s serious question as to whether the hardcover restrictions in the City's ordinences are really rationally related to the City's objectives of protecting the lake end lakeehore. A balcony is considered hardcover since, in the language of the ordinance, hardcovar ia any structura or othar matarial which intarfaras to any dagrae with the direct abeorpticm of rainfall into tha ground. I aasume that tha hardcover reetrictione were meant to hava the purpose of preserving the lake by making sura that structuras ara not placad does to tha laka which incraasa tha quantity of runoff and tha spaed of runoff, thereby transporting mora sadimant more quickly to the lake. However, some structures, such as a balcony, which are, by definition, hardcover, can actually hava a beneficial affect by slowing down ralnfell or runoff and Incraaaing its chancas for absorption before running into the lake. We submit, that, if anything, a balcony such as tha ona wa are proposing actually haa e beneficiel effect. It is not an unbroken flat Btirface such as a concrata patio which would hava the undesired effect, but rether is e series of spaced boards, between which the rainfall falls to the ground. The wood of the deck also has the effect of absorbing a certain amount of rainfall which would otherwis'' reach the ground. We submit that thara is no sclantific proof whataoaver that our proposed balcony would have a negativa impact on tha quality or quantity of runoff flowing to tha lake, which is the only rational basis for tha hardcover restriction in the first place.