Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, March 16, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Paul Vogstrom, 1151 North Shore, said if there is a concern about the violations, he would love to <br />have the Commission dig into it and understand because, to his knowledge, there is only some <br />discrepancy on where the riprap has been placed. He stated his brother, Eric, the owner, has talked to the <br />neighbors about screening. They would have preferred to not have the detached garage added on to the <br />structure. They had many meetings discussing the average shoreline setbacks and had to move the house <br />so far away from the lake that it made the side yard setbacks quite a bit smaller. They were hoping to have <br />a few more stalls in the garage; it could have been deeper to accommodate the different storage unit <br />requirements that are needed for the detached garage. What they have proposed is in the code. It will not <br />be used for rental; people will not be living there; it will be used by non-paying people and family <br />members. <br /> <br />Ressler asked Staff what the ramifications are if the usage is not in compliance with the CUP. <br /> <br />Oakden stated it would be a violation of the CUP, which is something the Council could take action on. <br /> <br />Ressler asked if that would be a revocation. <br /> <br />Oakden said the Council grants a CUP and it stays with the property. If there are concerns that it is not <br />meeting the CUP standards, the Council can revisit the CUP at any time. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated the City Council would need to have a cause to do so. <br /> <br />Ressler clarified it would need to be in violation of the conditions. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the City Council could revoke a CUP in the same way that they grant a CUP, which is <br />through a public hearing, etc. What it would mean is, it would remove the ability for a shower but the <br />structure can remain there. <br /> <br />Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <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.