Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1985. PAGE 4 <br />11. The 15' elevation would give a true distance of 75' from <br />the lake at about a 70' horizontal distance. <br />12. The variance will not modify the character of the <br />neighborhood. <br />Additional findings should include the Krutzig findings in <br />Resolution #1726. <br />Before the motion was voted upon, discussion continued. <br />Councilmember Grabek noted that he did not vote for the <br />Krutzig application because he was building a new home on <br />lakeshore property and knew the zoning codes prior to <br />building the home. Grabek stated that the past philosophy <br />of the Council has been for the benefit of the lake and the <br />City has been strict on any building within the 0-75' <br />lakeshore setback area. Grabek stated that if the Council <br />passes this motion, that the philosophy of the City is <br />changing for certain reasons such as the home being built <br />prior to the current owner and the general lay of the land <br />because other homes extend beyond this home. Grabek stated <br />that there are plenty of homes in Orono that may have the same <br />hardships as Ragatz. Grabek noted that the general <br />philosophy of the City seems to be changing. Grabek stated <br />that he would have to vote against this motion in order to be <br />consistent with past City decisions. Grabek noted that the <br />Council should be willing to allow everyone else to build <br />within the 75' if they approve Ragatz's application. <br />Councilmember T. Adams felt the same as Councilmember <br />Grabek. Adams noted that this is a 20 percent lakeshore <br />setback variance. <br />Councilmember L. Adams stated that he agrees with the 0-75' <br />setback rule with the lake, but that there are many lots <br />around the lake which have special circumstances that <br />warrant a variance. Adams felt that the Krutzig application <br />was one and that the Ragatz application is another one. <br />Adams noted that he did not feel that this would be a <br />philosophical change to approve this variance. <br />Councilmember Frahm asked that the deck be moved just so it <br />extends along the side of the home and out of the 75' setback <br />zone. <br />Richard Ragatz stated that a mature tree would have to be <br />removed if the deck was to be placed on the side of the <br />property. Ragatz noted also that the neighbors do not wish <br />to have the deck outside their indow and that he is trying to <br />preserve the privacy of bot ,omeoaners. <br />David Kirscht stated that ap, oving this variance would not <br />be precedent setting in that each variance is unique to each <br />individual property and should be reviewed that way. <br />