Laserfiche WebLink
� August 12, 2005 <br /> � Page 3 <br /> And no one can seriously argue, when one considers the size of the Property, <br /> that adding an extra 2 feet along the 92 foot leg of the structure (184 sq. ft.), or adding 4 <br /> feet to the 20 foot long platform portion of the structure (80 sq. ft.) adds any material <br /> impact to the wetland area over which the structure is proposed to pass. The total <br /> additional area, 264 square feet, is just not that significant. <br /> Finally, to address any concern that approval of the pending application would <br /> set any sort of precedent, we submit that the Property and this structure are unique. <br /> There will be no precedent, if the CUP requested by Mr. Steinhafel is granted. No other <br /> property owner can claim that his/her property presents the same circumstances as the <br /> Property. Another owner simply cannot in good faith make the argument that his 2, 5 or <br /> 10 acre parcel is the same as the 45 acre parcel which is the Property. Further, the size <br /> and configuration of the Property allow unique privacy. The structure proposed will not <br /> intrude on neighboring properties. This bundle of unique features sets the Property <br /> apart. Any approval granted by the City with respect to this unique Property will itself be <br /> unique, and not a precedent binding the City as to other properties. <br /> In conclusion, if deemed necessary by the City in order to avoid a reading of the <br /> draft ordinance that would impose an absolute 4-foot maximum width on � dock <br /> structure, anywhere in Orono, we request an appropriate amendment to the draft <br /> Wetland Protection Ordinance, either (1) to allow greater widths for larger properties on <br /> a permitted use basis, or (2) to allow greater widths for any property on a conditional <br /> use basis. With either amendment, a reading of the draft ordinance that would impose <br /> an arbitrary 4-foot limit on all properties everywhere is avoided. As to the Steinhafel <br /> CUP application itself, Mr. Steinhafel requests the approval of his pending application <br /> for the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a permanent <br /> recreational use structure on his property, either under the City's ordinances as <br /> presently set forth, or under Section 78-1607(a)(1), if the draft ordinance is adopted. <br /> Should the draft ordinance be amended to allow greater widths than 4 feet as either a <br /> permitted or conditional use, then we would proceed under the applicable provision. <br /> However we proceed, the proposed recreational use structure will allow greater safety <br /> and security all users, but especially for the handicapped or disabled user; is <br /> appropriate to the size of the overall acreage and lakeshore involved; will have no <br /> materially greater impact on the wetland that a narrower structure would have; and will <br /> not set a precedent with respect to other properties on Lake Minnetonka. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> � <br /> ---__ <br /> John . Winston <br /> J BW/krm <br />