Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD APRIL 12, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1804 - CONT. <br />Hurr said she could not support a variance to this degree. <br />Mabusth explained that up until 5 or 6 years ago, lots with platted <br />corridors were not considered when determining average setback <br />Iines. <br />Jabbour felt the corridor platted to the lake renders the entire <br />lot unbulldable. He stated that by today’s standards the City would <br />never plat a lot like 2697 Ethel Avenue with a platted corridor to <br />the lake. The former platting creates the hardship. He felt the <br />ordinance intends to protect the views of adjacent properties, and <br />those most affected do not have a problem with the proposal, and <br />the contour of the lake makes this proposal totally outside of the <br />parameter of the Runkle house. He added the applicant Is trying to <br />build at a 943-950’ elevation, and if they are forced to adhere to <br />the average setback o^'dinance, they would push the house to be <br />built at a 960’ elev-cion which would increase the elevation by <br />15’ . <br />Mabusth reiterated the Planning Commission felt that they must deal <br />with the current view situation, and as there are no view windows <br />In the Runkle home that are adjacent to this lot as this area of <br />their house Is a garage The Planning Commission found there was <br />no Impact on lake views from windows of the residence. <br />Goetten stated she was surprised they were using the platted <br />corridor lot to determine the average setback line. She felt they <br />were not denying or diminishing the views of the Runkles. <br />Kelley felt this Is a buildable lot and the line should be drawn <br />using the Kauffman house. He noted the ordinance was written to <br />protect the views of adjacent properties and this proposal does <br />that. <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution <br />#3268 for Application #1804 Michael Revler, 2691 Ethel Avenue, <br />approving an average lakeshore setback variance for a new <br />res Idence. <br />Hurr requested the fesolutlon address the plantings along the lot <br />line screening the drive. <br />Mabusth stated on what grounds would we require this condition as <br />the variance has no Impact on the Kauffman view windows. <br />4