07-27-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 13, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 19 Mr. Nygard said everyone could see by looking that he moved the property line to two feet off the boathouse because that is what the Planning Commission wanted. He also decided to adjust it to where the crest of the hill is. It is a fairly steep hill and would be next to impossible to maintain from above, so a large part of it would have to be trespassed on in order to maintain it. There is also a waterfall in the front part that’s over the property line that has been there for 18 years. The property line change would make that area part of 1386. The time period for adverse possession is 15 years in Minnesota. The hardcover is lowered for both properties; the hardcover stays the same for 1386, but adjusting the line gives it more hardcover so it drops from 27.5% to 26.2%. The hardcover for 1380 is down from 4,819 to 4,549, dropping it from 29% to 28.2%. Another issue is the side yard setback to the shed and boathouse. Both have been approved by Councils in their current location so they are legally non-conforming structures. He has been able to remove the shed from the side yard setback issue; it is now outside of 7 ½ feet so the shed, as far as side yard setback is concerned, is legal. He is gaining 3.92 feet along a 23-foot stretch by the boathouse that is going to reduce that setback. It is a win-win for everyone. The hardcover drops on both lots; one non-conformity is removed, although another is increased a little bit. He has tried to make the best out of the situation and solve problems for anyone who will own the two properties. Crosby noted, looking at page 2, the proposed percentage changes are a little different compared to what Mr. Nygard mentioned. For 1386, the proposed hardcover is 25.91%; for 1380, it is 28.43%. Mr. Nygard stated the numbers in the report are not accurate. He said he was not going to get a survey for what he was doing on the property because he did not have to until he decided he wanted to make additional changes. By the time he got the survey, he had removed the illegal hardcover. The survey that was submitted did not include the 270 square feet of hardcover that he removed from the property. He put together another document showing the actual hardcover numbers before and after. He stated he is a mechanical engineer and does this kind of work and is confident his numbers are accurate. Crosby said he wished Mr. Nygard had shared it with the City first. Mr. Nygard said he shared it several times. Barnhart stated the numbers on the second page of the memo were developed from the hardcover calculations in the survey provided by the surveyor as part of the original application. The original survey and hardcover calculations did not include the fence posts and other improvements shown. Crosby asked Mr. Nygard if h e agreed with Barnhart’s statement. Mr. Nygard said he agreed that the numbers came from the survey which did not include the illegal hardcover he had already removed. Barnhart clarified that the hardcover was already removed so it was not included in th e survey. Crosby asked if the 25.91% and 28.43% numbers were accurate. Barnhart said those numbers reflect the hardcover calculations in the survey as it exists today. Mr. Nygard stated the other numbers are from the date he bought the property to today and the survey was taken after he removed some hardcover. In order for him to get the driveway done last year, he had to pull it out before the ground froze. He had City water coming into the driveway and had to solve that problem