|
MINUTES OF THE
<br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
<br /> Monday,March 16,2020
<br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m.
<br /> Mr. Bill Griffith, 8300 Norman Center Drive,Bloomington, said he represents neighbors Greg and Kelli
<br /> Hueler, who were out of the state. He had two comments: first, it has been a difficult building project for
<br /> the Huelers which has taken a couple of years. Second, if the City is going to recommend additional
<br /> screening, it is imperative that it become a condition of approval because a condition can remain
<br /> unresolved unless it is a condition of approval.They share a driveway, which has also been an issue,
<br /> although he believes that is getting resolved.There were violations during construction,but he believes
<br /> those have been resolved.His main point is,there are unresolved shoreline issues that are currently part of
<br /> a contested case. In his experience,cities rarely grant additional intensification of land use when there are
<br /> existing violations pending. They relate directly to this property and the use of this property. His clients'
<br /> request is to not intensify the land use by even adding a shower,because that is an intensification of use.
<br /> It also can be used for purposes other than as constructed. He thinks it is incumbent upon any property
<br /> owner that makes a request of the City to clean up their act, eliminate their violations, and then move
<br /> forward with their request.On behalf of his clients,he requested the Commission to deny the application
<br /> pending the shoreline violations,or if it does go forward,to condition it upon additional screening and
<br /> buffering.
<br /> Mr. Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, stated he did not appreciate them saying he had stop-work orders
<br /> on his property,because he did not. He is not sure where they got that information.They are resolving the
<br /> lakeshore issue on those properties. He talked to Greg and Kelli Hueler a few months ago,and they had
<br /> some grading issues, too. He thought they had buried the hatchet. They discussed when they were done
<br /> grading what would be the thought on trees for a screen edge and agreed to work on it together. They had
<br /> some low spots on their property,and they agreed to work together on that. He was under the impression
<br /> they were on good terms and he told them about his garage. They said as long as it was legal they did not
<br /> care,that he should not do things that are not legal. Obviously,this is something he can do.They are not
<br /> going to support any variances, etc.,but said they would not oppose something he can do legally. He
<br /> indicated they would put screening in; it is something they want and something he wants. He does not
<br /> think it is fair to put the burden on himself,nor is it something the Commission has done in the past. He
<br /> indicated he can do another 1,000 square feet there also, as long as there is hardcover. He did try to
<br /> consider their feelings.
<br /> Mr. Richard Crosby, 2705 Walters Port Lane,said he is a neighbor about 3 houses over from the project.
<br /> The way he looks at it is,if the Commission has not denied a shower in the past and if the owners are
<br /> going to fulfill the CUP,it should not be denied now. He does not feel a shower inside of a building has
<br /> anything to do with the outside of a structure or shading trees,etc. He thinks the Commission should stick
<br /> with precedence. The applicant has tried to be as cooperative as possible. He said he has been there since
<br /> the original house was built; and the more cooperation,the more neighborly, friendship,and so forth,the
<br /> quicker you get through the process.
<br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
<br /> Ressler said that when additional screening is discussed, it does not relate to a CUP for adding an interior
<br /> shower. It is a nice touch,and if the applicant would like to do so as far as being a good neighbor,that is
<br /> admirable; but he does not know if he would vote for or against based on screening.As far as the pending
<br /> litigation and the potential violation that is apparently not adjudicated yet,the City Attorney would
<br /> probably need to weigh in on that. Unless Staff indicated the Commission does not have the ability to rule
<br /> on the application based on the pending disagreement, in the essence of time, it would behoove everyone
<br /> to move this one way or the other on to the next steps.
<br /> Page 12 of 16
<br />
|