05-11-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'mipnmuTEs or THE OiiONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD fn.o«u/\iM i*£. iM'.mmi aiaffli?' i:?;' pif tS»: IpirfclR PS-i:4.. .. ^ V. ■*. •. mmmmm^ .^'^; pp".-te|; ^ mm-'Him ^ •«* • ’ ! .-K.-SlN--'^' fc: WiM§m P 11. The 15' elevation would give a true distance of 75' from the lake at about a 70' horizontal distance. 12. The variance will net r.cdify the character of the neighborhood. Additional findings should include the Krutzig findings in Resolution #1726. Before the motion was voted upon, discussion continued. Councilmeaber Grabek noted that he did not vote for the Krutzig application because he was building a new home on 2,j|)ceshore property and knew the zoning codes prior to building the home. Grabek stated that the past philosophy of the Council has been for the benefit of the lake and the City has been strict on any building within the 0-75' lakeshore setback area. Grabek stated that if the Council passes this motion, that the philosophy of the City is changing for certain reasons such as the home being built prior to the current owner and the general lay of the land because other homes extend beyond this home. Grabek stated that there are plenty of homes in Orono that may have the same hardships as Ragatz. Grabek noted that the general philosophy of the City seems to be changing. Grabek stated that he would have to vote against this motion in order to be consistent with past City decisions. Grabek noted that the Council should be willing to allow everyone else to build within the 75’ if they approve Ragatz's application. Councilmember T. Adams felt the same as Counci Imerober Grabek. Adams noted that this is a 20 percent lakeshore setback variance. Councilmember L. Adams stated that he agrees with the 0-75' 3etback rule with the lake, but that there are many lots around the lake which hav’e special circumstances that warrant a variance. Adams felt that the Krutzig application was one and that the Ragatz application is another one. Adams noted that he did not feel that thi-^ would be a philosophical change to approve this variance. Councilmember Frahra asked that the deck be moved just so it extends along the side of the home and out of the 75' setback zone. Richard Ragatz stated that a mature tree would have to be removed if the deck was to be placed on the side of the property. Ragatz noted also that the neighbors do not wish to have the deck outside their window and that he is trying to preserve the privacy of both homeowners. David Kirscht stated that approving this variance would not be precedent setting in that each variance is unique to each individual property and should be reviewed that way. -si" rv: 4