04-13-2020 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o'clock p.m. Mattick noted the request in front of the Council involves a bathroom/plumbing in the garage. He would like to take a closer look at the connectivity between the two issues. When someone makes a request, the Council can impose conditions that are reasonably related to the request. He does not know the status of the current code violation, but his understanding is they are set to have a hearing, they have challenged the finding and are still working their way through the process. I le is not sure the Council can wait to have the process played out, because there is a 60-day rule. If the City wants to tic the shoreline issue with the restroom in a garage, the City will have to look at how to address it. He did not think it is as simple as saying a violation was found on the property so the City is not going to grant the CUP. Mr. William Griffith asked the Council to look at the survey being displayed and indicated one of the difficulties with the proposed garage is that it appears to be in the I-luelers' front yard the way the lot is configured as you come down the joint driveway. He thought there was discussion both at the Planning Commission and elsewhere about some screening of that building. He noted another question, looking at the driveway as it runs through Lot 2, is there has been continuous use of that driveway to service Lot 1, which is a subdivision condition when the lot was created that prohibits that driveway use. They asked the City to confirm, as they are issuing the permit, that the applicant is in compliance with the shoreline issues and driveway issues and provides screening of the building. Mr. Eric Vogstrom, 2710 Pence Lane, said the garage is more in front of the Iluelers' garage and there is not another place he could put it. Originally, he wanted to be farther back so he could build a 4-5 car garage. By him being 130 feet from the lake instead of 75 feet, he could only do a 3-car garage. The driveway issue was settled a long time ago and he hasn't had any violations yet. They also do not have any stop work orders on his property, as was mentioned to the Planning Commission. With respect to the DNR issue, that is mainly on the Dunkley property, and the Dunkleys are in the process of disputing that. He does not see how that has anything to do with this property. He is going to be building a garage with or without a bathroom, but adding the other items is setting a ridiculous precedence. The Council does not have any precedence as far as screening. City Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval. He is going to be working with the Huelers as far as screening on the entire property by planting pine trees together, and to have him do screening for this is unprecedented and unfair. If he moves the building, it would be more in front of their house, and that does not solve any problems. He also has the ability to put another 1,000-square foot building on his property. He wants a garage like everyone else in Orono. He feels it's a rubber-stamp deal. He hopes to be treated fairly like everyone else who has brought a similar issue to the Council. Crosby stated as long as this is in compliance, noting that it cannot be used as a rental unit, the City should move forward and draft a Resolution to accept. Walsh said they are called CUPS because they are conditional, not a rubber stamp. Otherwise, it would be in the code that people can just do it. Ile noted at the Planning Commission, Mr. Vogstrom said he had talked with the Huelers and said it would not be a big deal to put some screening there. There are some outstanding violations that might mostly be on the Dunkleys' but it is also on Mr. Vogstrom's. Part of the conditions is that it gets cleaned up, similar to when your child cleans their room, they can have dessert. Johnson noted right now there is an investigation into whether they did anything wrong and the Council does not know the findings with the DNR. It does not sound like the City has any jurisdiction on that issue and he is hesitant to loop that issue in. The screening item is between the neighbors. Mr. Vogstrom is not asking for a variance for the location of the garage, he is in a complying location, so he does not have an obligation to the City to have screen age. There has been a lot of turmoil in the area and it may be Page 13 of 25