The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10B - Bryce Huemoeller Property - 2880 Center Road MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 lOB JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE LOT COMBINATION FOR BRYCE HUE MOELLER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2880 CENTER ROAD Historv: In 1997, Mr. Huemoeller obtained a building permit for a single family dwelling on Lots 7-12, Block 23, Spring Lake Townsite. The permit was issued based on an inaccurate survey representation of the parcel submitted by the applicant. The house was nearly complete before the staff discovered that the lots had not been combined. In order to obtain a final certificate of occupancy, Mr. Huemoeller has filed this application to combine these lots into a single lot. Administrative land divisions are approved administratively ifthere are no variances or if there is no written appeal received within 10 days of notification. Notices ofthe administrative lot division were mailed on August 5, 1998 to property owners adjacent to this site. On August 17, 1998, the staff received a written appeal from Catherine Wingard. Once an appeal is received, the Subdivision Ordinance requires the Council hear the objection and decide the matter. The Council may decide to hear the request now, and act upon it. As an alternative, the Council may refer the item to the Planning Commission for input. CUrrent Circumstances: This property is zoned R-1SD (Suburban Residential Shoreland District). The combined lot area is 24,556 square feet with a lot width of 150 feet at the front building line. The lot meets all of the minimum lot area and frontage requirements in the R -1 SD district. The survey submitted for the house also meets all minimum requirements. No variances have been requested for either the lot or the location of the structure. The Issues: The main objection to this lot combination appears to be the addition of a bituminous driveway along the east side of the house. This section of driveway was installed after the permit was issued and without a new permit. An as-built survey submitted by the applicant 1620~~!11g1~~\~~?~~:?~Spq:ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Falffl"~) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: on August 28, 1998, indicates the driveway is 5' from the property line, which is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Engineering staffhas reviewed the plans and inspected the site to ensure proper drainage is provided. The building and site have been developed in accordance with the approved plans. There is a drainage swale located on the property to deflect runoff away from the adjacent property. Conclusion: The combination of these lots is consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and with the existing parcels. The setback issue for the driveway should not affect the combination of the lots. Staff recommends approval of the combination of these lots subject to the following: 1. All pertinent documents must be filed with the Scott County Auditor's Officy withi~ sixty (60) days ofthe date ofthis approval. Copies ofthe recorded documents, along with the newly assigned Property Identification Number (Pill) for the new parcel, must then be submitted to the City as evidence that the administrative land division has been filed. There is no fiscal impact of this proposal. The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX approving the Administrative Land Division. 2. Deny Resolution 98-XX. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare resolutions of denial for review as part ofthe Consent Agenda at the next Council meeting. 3. The City Council may refer this requests to the Planning Commission for input. 4. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. Motion and second to adopt Resolution 98-XX approving the administrative plat. 11 1:\98files\98adplat\98-095\98-095cc.doc Page 2 ~~ ~NE:;9 RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING HiE ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT REQUEST FOR LOTS 7-12, BLOCK 23, SPRING LAKE TOWNSITE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS the Prior Lake City Council considered an application for administrative plat approval for the combination of Lots 7-12, Spring Lake Townsite on September 8, 1998; and WHEREAS: notice of the said administrative plat has been duly posted in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS: the City Council has reviewed the administrative plat according to the applicable provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and found said plat to be consistent with the provisions of said ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY 1.l1J!; CITY COUNCIL OFnlli CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that it hereby approves the administrative plat for the combination of Lots 7-12, Spring Lake Townsite into one lot with the following conditions: 1. All pertinent documents must be filed with the Scott County Auditor's Office within sixty (60) days of the date of this approval. Copies of the recorded documents, along with the newly assigned Property Identification Number (PID) for the new parcel, must then be submitted to the City as evidence that the administrative land division has been filed. Passed and adopted this 8th day of September, 1998. YES NO Mader Kedrowski Petersen I Schenck I Wuellner Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner {Seal} City Manager City of Prior Lake .J:\98fi1~\98qdolat\98~95\rs98.xxcG.dQc Perne t 16200 cagle LreeK 'Ave. ~.l::.., Pnor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (61Z) Lt.47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '" 1 :. ir " : II t,\ \ AUG 11\998 ' . '. i \'I\~\! II' i LJL August 14, 1998 City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. , Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Administrative land division Lots 7 to 12, Block 23, Spring Lake Townsite. This letter is in reference to the written notice of proposed administrative land division dated August 4, 1998. I am objecting to the procedure for the following reasons. When the building permit was issued, I assumed the city had thoroughly investigated all details of the proposed construction and all items were in order. Why is the land combination occurring after the house is built and occupied? The building permit survey certificate did not show a bituminous driveway along the east side of the new house. About two weeks ago a bituminous driveway was constructed along the east side of the new house. We have concerns about the slope between the driveway and our property line, and drainage along our common property line. There appears not to be adequate room for a proper slope from the driveway to the common property line without filling in the swale. I feel the City should check if the driveway of this residence conforms to setback standards before the proposed land division. S?~ !-~ Catherine E. Wingard 2892 Center Road SW Prior Lake, MN 55372 BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY PREPARED FOR: . BRYCE HUEMOELLER 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E. PRIOR LAKE. MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P. A. SUITE 120-C, FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFlCE CONDOMINIUM 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 P~/O~ Ct. 1.4k~ ./l9/~l 7 c;;: ,,~ .~.~ ,,< <',. '\ ~. +~ .. (~. v I' ,: <?---" 1,....,~ .;'.,; 'c.~~O .-d-'+ ",t(.~ ,'to' t:.O~ O,..'\:,..;~ ct- "I ~." ~ ~o ::::: OE9CRIPTlOO: i '''\" ~ ...l~'.", 8, 9'; -lo-......rr"arJIf 't2 . 81_. '~i SPR. 1.r.....u..U"'1'CHIS11'E, stott county. "iMItftOtIt and that Pftr:t of ttw now vac:at4d 16.00 foot aU-.y 1n aaid Block 23, ly1rq IIOUthal'IstflCly 0( tl'Mt-' '..~.~. ..1:11 ~ltftf'l of said Block 2:). and its nor:theut'lr:1y ext.enelc:n, ~; lyi.n9 . nco ttww.tl!dy of the cente~UM of Mid va.eated alley and it. northeMt4C'ly ..xt, ~lCl'l. .~lso ehovinq thfI 1ocatic:n of the __.. -i' ~.. _ ,1 houaIt aD atakec.t thb - 31st aay 01 .:July, 1997. , 00l'ES1 l. _ , .c tlevlltlon 914.46 top dm of An M.H. in C.entll'C 5te_t at centlliC' of !:hot pc'OPf'Irty. t 9~.3 [)enlX",s existing grade 191....,at~lon 1919.91 ~tes ...._...L J finished qr~ .1evnt.lc:n... OP.notes ~4_~___,.J ~lcectla1 o~ tininh~ surtl'\C8 drnlnagO! g"t tM gl!lt"aqll! slab flt ",lovnt:im 920.21 .!int. t.Ofl of bleek at. el'!vatbn 920.60 'l'he lCW'Ql5t lloor: vHi be at _lftvllltim 9\0.60 - ) '11rn~rnOWrn[. 1,'028911 1./ i REV 8/Z5/98 TO Si'4OW 81T. ORlVE, Wit WAl..k a EXIST GRAO~S ~ U'\.'( PAOf"f.RT'l' 1.1I'I( MV. Il/ZS/91 TO ACD PROPOSED DECIC a 'OACH AEV. 8/20/91 TO REMOVE PROPOSED DECk I hereby certify II'Iot "* survey WOI, .. I 111 me or '""" my dirK' lUPef"II_ton and Itlo, I am . duty LJco<lMd Land Surwyar ~~. krwo,;r -- 01 /C,c,. .AI"'-:W.l/..'2.....",._.. Da" "1-31-<;7 ~NO.IOtU =\ =V S - - 30 60 I IN FEET / HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 JAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER August 28, 1998 Telephone (612) 447.2131 Telecopier (612) 447-5628 Ms. Jane Kansier Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek A venue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Huemoeller Lot Combination Proceeding Dear Ms. Kansier: Thank you for providing me with Ms. Wingard's objection to our lot combination request. This letter responds to her objections. First, we still contend that this proceeding is not necessary or required since neither the Prior Lake Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances refer to lot combination proceedings. Although I did agree to submit a lot combination application, I did so only to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy for our home since we had no other place to live. The issue did not arise when the building permit for the house was first issued presumably because we owned both lots upon which the house was constructed. Apparently, it was our desire to use the 2880 Center Road address that triggered the need for the proceeding, which to me remains completely illogical. Nevertheless, I believe that Ms. Wingard's objections to the proceeding are totally without merit and border on the frivolous. Although the "as built" driveway is somewhat larger than shown on the site plan, the attached impervious surface calculations show that we are still 2,440 square feet under the maximum permitted coverage. The attached survey, revised August 25, 1998 to show the "as built" bituminous driveway, concrete walk and existing grades along the southeasterly property line, verifies that the driveway complies with the setback and elevation requirements of the Driveway Section of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. Both the survey and an inspection of the property by the surveyors confirm that absolutely no drainage problems are created by the construction of our house or driveway. In fact, to my knowledge, the basic grade and elevation of the drainage swale on the lot line between the properties has not been materially altered by the construction of our home, and nor do we intend to alter the swale in the future. Ms. Jane Kansier Page 2 August 28, 1998 Please advise if you need additional information or copies of the impervious surface calculations and revised survey for the city council meeting at which the application will be reviewed. I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the staff report relating to this issue. "Sincerely yours, \~~N~ Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:jd Enclosures .- 'JT , ~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Penn it Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address C.e~~ S\ ,e~-\- Lot Area 1..L\ I ~"'S\.o CI.~~~ e\. '\t)'-\.o Sq. Feet x 30% =:= .............. \ 'tJ\.o I ************************************************************************ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET HOUSE x = A TT ACHED GARAGE ~"S x lo~ -2:2..3 x '~\.-l = '"1..'2..0C,p lOr = TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... '2...~\3 DETACHED BLDGS (Garage/Shed) x x ~ '. -* DRIVEWAYIPA~VE AREAS A~ C!.O~*. ~iveway.paved r not) (Sidewalk/Parking Areas) TOT AL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... t1 ~. "3.<; -=- (,1 4c; x 17 = ~)<5S e x 'is = 3~(>') . ( x 2.3 =, le I TOTAL PAVED AREAS......................................... \~Lj?J TOTAL DECKS...................................................1.." \~/I () OTHER -* c..o,^,G \.U Po. \ tL- ~ .CoV\'5\-' t? x ~ 0 = ISo 10 X 15 = IS 0 ,.5 -I-- Ie> :.,5 TOTAL OTHER....................................................... 7J,S TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~VER .' Prepared By \) ~'\)e- ~'- 1P>l~ "~.~ Company \j 0. ~ \4'" '-1'12:1 "2...'-1'-10 Date--D - L. S -9 ~ ~ \.} 'R.\)eu '\ n~ c..o.) e ~ . \~ Phone # ULl.1 -1-~1 a HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 September 8, 1998 lAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER Telephone (612) 447-2131 Telecopier (612) 447-5628 Ms. Jane A. Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Huemoeller Lot Combination Proceeding Dear Ms. Kansier: Thank you for providing me with the staff report to the City Council on our lot combination request. Because of the Labor Day holiday, the Council meeting will fall on the same night as the Watershed District's monthly September meeting. Since I need to be at the District's monthly meeting, I am not certain that I will be present when the Council considers our request. I will, however, make every reasonable effort to be present and available to answer any questions. Although the survey submitted with our building permit does not show our tax parcels, it does accurately identify our lots and the adjacent vacated alley. Even though Don or you and I have had past discussions about lot combinations, it never occurred to me before the issue over our address arose that we would need to do something formal under the City's ordinances to combine our lots into one parcel. If the issue would have arisen in connection with the issuance of the building permit, I would have wanted the issue of the City's power to require a formal combination of the lots resolved then and there. As it was, however, the issue did not arise until the house was finished, and after our existing home had been sold, so my principles took a back seat to the practical real ities of going homeless. Ie.;. ~ ic:c.-1 ri '\\ r; 15.'\::::-\ i L~: \.'::7 1~_~~~-~~1 ~ ~ ) '\ ~, SEP 8 1998 I .. I i I \ \C/ Ms. Jane A. Kansier Page 2 September 8, 1998 Whether or not I am able to attend the Council meeting, approval of the request is important to us. We believe that our house and property comply with the rules. We believe that our improvements do not harm or endanger our neighbors, the Wingards, in any way. The Council's favorable consideration of our request will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, 1)~Lt- ~~. Bryce D. Huemoeller I rt BDH:dmw