Living Here
How the residents got burned in the Oak Fire:
On June 20th, 2016 the planning commission (agenda item #15) held a public hearing and recommendation on a Conditional Use Application filed by Peter Jurgen’s on behalf of the Oakfire Restaurant to operate an outdoor commercial entertainment (restaurant). The planning commission unanimously approved the conditional use, but it did not approve the new building that was to be built. That later approval took clever maneuvering to slide it by the public, without being noticed.
The following explains how it was done:
On the same date, June 20th, there was agenda item (#16). During a public hearing a recommendation on a general development plan (GDP) application was presented, again filed by Peter Jurgen’s for Oakfire Restaurant. This was for building modifications; to include a rear addition, and a new second floor with indoor and outdoor seating. Even though there were no public comments or objections to the modification, the planning commission did not approve this applications, but continued the public hearing to the next meeting on July 18th. Between the June 20th and July 18th, meetings were held on July 7th & the 14th without legal notice, however notice was published about the continuation of the public hearing to the July 18th planning commission meeting; however, in this small legal notice there was a change in the public hearing’s application notice.
Critical words had been changed: “for building modifications” and “a new second floor” was changed to “for alterations to reconstruct the building.” The word “modifications” became “to reconstruct the building,” and a new second floor became an additional second floor or 3rd floor, while the agenda item for the July 18th meeting was unchanged and still read “for building modifications.”
So unless a resident happened to see the small legal notice, or read the planning commission’s packet, they would never have had any idea that “modification” in the agenda notice had been changed to mean “teardown and replace with a three story build”. Furthermore, because the agenda item still read “for building modifications.” It was ignored by almost all residents, however, one resident having noticed the difference between the agenda item and the incompatible details in the packet questioned what the commission was approving. No explanation was given.
The planning commission ignored the discrepancy between the posted modification agenda item and the teardown and replace request was allowed, and they approved it. On the following Monday, July 25, the same deceptive “modification” agenda item was placed on the city council agenda, and the city council passed it. That, in a nutshell, is how residents and the City of Lake Geneva got burned by the planning commission, Oakfire, and the City Council, and how the City of Lake Geneva got a huge Fire Blister as its new beach front center piece on the lake.
Let this be a warning to residents not to get burned a second time, because there has been talk about modifications to the Riviera, and to its 2nd floor (like Oakfire, sound familiar). Will the Riviera also to be demolished and replaced under an agenda item disguised as a “building modification?”
Place of the Week
Interesting. It should also be interesting to see of those who are seemingly silent about the Oak Fire monstrosity and how it affects “the lake’s environment/atmosphere”, how many are having a conniption fit about the Geneva Inn.
If one pays attention, you’ll notice something about Lake Geneva. When some businesses wish to change their front facade or sign, we hear complaints about how it will look visually or how it will affect the ambience of the area. Many of those same people turned around and said nothing when the cookie cutter glorified tin can known as the diner on Wells Street was built.
Guess the level of outrage depends on who you are and who you know.