HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-31 CA Ltr to OPH Re Request for Minor Subdivision ECKBERG
LAMMERS IA i
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1809 Northwestern Avenue, Suite 110
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(651) 439 -2878
Writer's Direct Dial: Fax (651) 439-2923
(651) 351 -2118 www.eckberglammers.com
Writer's E -mail:
mvierling @eckberglammers.com
October 31, 2007 NOV —
•
Jim Butler
Building Inspector
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. No.
P.O. Box 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Re: East Oaks PUD
Request for Minor Subdivision
5850 — 5852 Oxboro Avenue
Dear Mr. Butler:
The City has asked our office to look at the minor subdivision issue between the above- referenced
properties. By way of background, Lots 11 and 12 of East Oaks PUD contain one single structure which
is comprised of two residential dwellings. 5850 Oxboro Avenue was intended to be built entirely on Lot
11, while 5852 Oxboro should have been built entirely on Lot 12. The party wall between the two
addresses should have fallen along the boundary between the two lots. However, the property was
constructed so that the dividing wall between the properties actually falls between 2 and 4 feet into Lot
11 causing an encroachment of the 5852 unit onto the 5850 property.
The builder recognized this encroachment issue approximately 10 years ago and during the May 13,
1997 City Council meeting addressed the City Council at a public hearing requesting a minor
subdivision to correct the problem. The builder had not submitted a survey of the property, and the
Council approved the minor subdivision, but conditioned it on submission of a survey depicting the
boundary realignment.
Since the time of the public hearing, it does not appear that any action has been taken with the
Washington County Recorder's office to correct the problem. To correct the problem, a surveyor should
provide two new non - encroaching descriptions for Lots 11 and 12. The adjoining owners will then have
to quit claim each other's property, based on the new descriptions, to the opposite owner.
ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF 3 VIERLING, PLLP
Family Law / Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury / Wrongful Death
Estate Planning / Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation
Jim Butler
October 31, 2007
Page 2 of 2
It is my understanding that some survey work has been done by Pioneer Engineering, which was
intended to correct the encroachment. The survey dated March 18, 1997 realigns the boundaries of the
properties by shifting the boundary line of the properties to the party wall separating the two units. It
then runs the boundary line from a point at the front of the building where the party wall ends to the
existing front lot comer. It also runs a line from the back of the building at the point where the party
wall ends to the existing rear lot comer. While this corrects the problem inside the house, I think that it
is highly likely that the new lot line at the rear of the property will cause an encroachment of the 5852
property owners concrete patio onto the 5850 property. In my opinion, it does not make sense to correct
the interior encroachment while leaving an encroaching patio, and I would recommend that both
encroachments be taken care of at the same time.
I would also note that the City is not responsible for readjusting these property lines. Granted although
the City granted the subdivision request, the encroachment itself is a private matter between the two
property owners. I would recommend that the City contact the property owners, and copy them with this
letter explaining the boundary issue. That letter should notify the property owners at issue and
recommend to them that it may be in their best interests to follow through with the subdivision and to
contact legal counsel regarding the encroachment issues.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have in this regard.
Yo ery truly,
Cameron R. Kelly
CRK/sdb
cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator