HomeMy WebLinkAbout08000160123003_Variances_12-03-2008V
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that ^ Qi
this instrument # H>7.l.oe>
1049138
was filed/recorded in this office
for recwd on the 5___day ofLjg<^ 2008 at l3’ CO am/p^
-L. Metcalf, County R^dJ-der J
hvl r ^^-DSetmrifr^ '^cording fed^. ^
well certificate
Wendy
•£ ^(Z
THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
RECEIVED
NOV 10 2008
& KhiiUUKCF
COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER
540 WEST FIR, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537
(218) 998-8095
Otter Tail County’s Website: www.co.ottertail.mn.us
Application
COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number
Accepted By / Date
DAYTIME PHONE 218-233-8776Guv JohnsonPROPERTY OWNER
MAILING ADDRESS n Sth Avp 9nnth- Mnnrhpad . Mirmpc;nta SftS^O
LAKE NUMBER ^32 RDLeekLAKE CLASSLAKE NAME
TOWNSHIP 137 41___TOWNSHIP NAME CandorSECTION 16 RANGE
49110 Leek Lake Drive
Detroit Lakes, MN 56501
E-911
ADDRESS
PARCEL
NUMBER 08000160123003
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning 685 ft. N. of SW corner; East 285 ft.; North along lake 100 ft.;
West 285 ft.; N. 100 ft. to point of beginning.
TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check)
Sewage System Subdivision Cluster Misc.Structure Setback x Structure Size
SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS
THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.
1) Owner enclosed existing 8 ft. wide deck across front of manufactured home as a
sun porch. Variance from 100 ft. lakeshore setback required. Manufactured home
is 73 ft. from OHW. Front of sun porch is 65 ft. from OHW at closest point on
variable shoreline. -frotyt
2) Vision obstructing fence on boundary with public access to be built 40 ft. from OHW.
AP' l/artavtc^l^hr^ SSH>ac-K loP'T
I UNDERSTAND THAT ! HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY.
JAXOIUeR PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & NT REGALING THIS MATTER.I ALSO UNDERSTAND Tl
RESOURCE MANAGEMC
/L / DATENER / AGENT FOR OWNERlA'
APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING
(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing)
V
ts/3 ^ oS-Z:3l Frn.TimeDate Of Hearing
Motion
Guy Johnson - Approved the variance for the fence as requested, denied the requested variance for the enclosed
deck/sun porch and approved an alternative location for the porch. (8:31 p.m.)
After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion, second by Carl Zick and unanimously carried, to approve the
variances for the vision obstructing fence as requested in the variance application dated November 8, 2008, to deny the variance
as requested for the enclosure of the 8’ wide deck and to approve the placement of a porch no closer to the ordinary high water
level than the existing manufactured home with the condition that the existing non complying/non permitted sun porch must be
removed on or before July 1, 2009. It was noted that adjacent public access and the size of the public access creates a unique
situation for the applicant and the fence will provide privacy and protection for the applicant.
iirman/Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment
Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management
^ Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management)
No
Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR
LR Official/DI
bk 0407-001
329.512 - Victor Lundeen Company. Fergus Falls. Minnesota
December 3, 2008
Page # 3
Guy Johnson - Approved the variance for the fence as requested, denied the requested variance for the
enclosed deck/sun porch and approved an alternative location for the porch. (8:31 p.m.)
Guy Johnson, part of Government Lot 6, Section 16 of Candor Township by Leek Lake, requested the following:
Owner enclosed existing 8’ wide deck across front of manufactured home as a sun porch. Variance from 100’
lakeshore setback required. Manufactured home is 73’ from ordinary high water level. Front of sun porch is 65’ from
ordinary high water level at closest point on variable shoreline. Property owner is requesting a variance of 35’ from
the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the location of an enclosed deck 65’ from the ordinary high
water level. Also, requesting a 10' variance from the required side lot line setback of 10’ for the placement of a vision
obstructing fence on boundary with public access and 40' from the ordinary high water level. Carl Malmstrom,
Attorney, appeared with the applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or
against the variance as requested. A letter from Jeanette Wardwell in opposition to the variance as requested was
noted for the record. A letter from Bruce Winterfeldt, Trails and Waterways Area Supervisor expressing concerns with
the variance as requested was read for the record. After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion,
second by Carl Zick and unanimously carried, to approve the variances for the vision obstructing fence as requested
in the variance application dated November 8, 2008, to deny the variance as requested for the enclosure of the 8’
wide deck and to approve the placement of a porch no closer to the ordinary high water level than the existing
manufactured home with the condition that the existing non complying/non permitted sun porch must be removed on
or before July 1,2009. It was noted that adjacent public access and the size of the public access creates a unique
situation for the applicant and the fence will provide privacy and protection for the applicant.
Gary Frazier Et Al - Approved a modified variance. (8:50 p.m.)
Gary Frazier Et Al, part of Government Lot 1, Section 10 of Lida Township by Crystal Lake, requested the following:
We are asking to replace the existing 18’ by 22’ dwelling that is 1T from ordinary high water level with a two-story
dwelling, 20' by 25’ by 28’ high. The proposed new dwelling will have 2 second-story decks, sized 7’ by 19.5’. There
will also be a 6’ by 7’ utility addition on the dwelling to accommodate a 200 gallon sewage basin with pump and alarm.
The proposed replacement dwelling and decks will be 20’ from the ordinary high water level at the closest point
(easterly side). The septic system will be constructed on the mainland portion of this parcel. Andrus Watkins and
Scott King represented the applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or
against the variance as requested. After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion, second by Steve
Schierer and unanimously carried, to approve the replacement of a dwelling, as currently allowed by law (same size
and height as existing dwelling), in a location that is equally setback from the ordinary high water level on all sides and
at a location/elevation that will maintain the required 3’ vertical separation. It should be noted that the variance as
approved might required that the structure is not placed in a location that is equally setback from the ordinary high
water level on all sides in order to maintain the required 3’ vertical separation; therefore, the location is to be
determined by the Land and Resource Department in cooperation with the applicants/builder. It should also be noted
that the variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for this development. It is
important to note that the size and height of the structure cannot exceed the size and height of the existing dwelling.
The variance as approve should provide the applicant with a reasonable use of their property.
Red Rock Gun Club - Approved the variance application as requested. (9:07 p.m.)
Red Rock Gun Club, part of Sub Lots A and B and the South Half of the Northeast Quarter, Section 11 of Aurdal
Township by Fish Lake, requested the following: request variance from lake setback. Request setback of 75’ to
replace mobile home with a 20’ by 32’ cabin and deck of 10’ by 32’. Mobile home is located 70’ from high water mark
(set by Land and Resource). Cabin and deck will be located 75’ from ordinary high water mark. Variance is for 125’.
Gene Smith represented the applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or
against the variance as requested. After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion, second by
Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 125’ from the required ordinary high water level
setback of 200’ for the replacement of a mobile home with a 20’ by 32’ cabin and 10’ by 32’ deck 75’ from the ordinary
high water level as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application. It was noted that the proposed
development will be further from the ordinary high water level than the existing mobile home and that the proposed
development will be a general improvement to the property. It was also noted that all other setback requirements are
being met. it should also be noted that the variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other
variances for the proposed development.
November 16,2008 /cf-
\\
-\%
To the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment:
In regards to the application for a variance as per requirements of the Otter Tail County
Shoreland Management Ordinance for:
Guy Johnson
810 5‘“ Ave. South
Moorhead, MN 56560
The property concerned in the application is legally described as:
part of Lot 6, Property address - 49110 Leek Lake Drive
Section 16, Township 137, Range 41-Township name—Candor
Lake No. 56- 532 , Lake Name - Leek, Class RD
I have input to the application for variances of a enclosed porch and a vision obstructing
fence. I cannot attend the meeting on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 as I have
appointments that were set up a month ago in the Fargo-Moorhead area. I also have a
commitment to a monthly meeting at 7:30 in Moorhead that I have been attending for
years. Please allow me to place my input into these requested variances.
I am the full time resident of the south property adjacent to Guy Johnson’s property in
question. Guy Johnson own and operates Handy Guy Services from his Moorhead
address. He is well aware of the permits that are required for building. The year after he
purchased his lake property, he applied for a grading and filling permit that was not
allowed because of impact problems with the lake and the fairly steep grade to the
northern side boundary. I attended that meeting and heard the commissioners concerns.
That northern area was addressed then and there was a discussion about allowing all the
trees to grow as they were because they hold the bank and also provide a obstrucion of
view of the northern adjacent public water access. My Johnson had started right off
cutting the trees and shrubs from his property.
I owned my property when Ron McCaskel bought the lot (now Guy Johnson) and
planned to have the trailer moved to it. I was there when the discussion took place about
the placing of the trailer. He was allowed a variance at that time and told that he build
place an OPEN deck along the side and over the front tongue of the manufactured home.
As you can see by the placement of 73’ from the ordinary high water m2U'k.
In regards to the owner enclosing the existing 8’ wide front deck; I know that a building
permit is required to do such a project. Obviously there must have been no permit or this
set back ordinance would have been addressed at that time. Will you now reward Guy
Johnson for trying to get around these issues by allowing him a variance? He obviously
thinks that now that he has built the enclosed porch it is okay and he now is asking for a
permit and a variance to approve of his shadiness. I think you need to take his actions
should be taken into account. The now enclosed deck was built in the fall of 2007 so it
has now stood one year without a permit or a variance. It is encroachment of the lake as
there is only about 10 to 15’ before the ground slopes sharply toward the lake. An large
ground deck was placed in front of the existing wrap around deck. I believe that there is
sufficient reason as far as encroachment and no permit to deny this project. He was
shady about trying to sneak it in; why reward this behavior? If you do allow it, will it set
a president to other lake shore owners to just ignore the set back and permit
requirements?
As to the variance for the vision obstructing fence, again I have the same issues. The
fence was built and now that it has come to the board’s notice, should a variance be
issued when it was built on the sly? I have owned my property long before the mobile
home was placed upon the land. There never was an issue with vision to the public water
access because you could not see if for all the trees and underbrush. It was also an
effective noise buffer.
Since Guy Johnson has taken over the adjacent property, all kinds of trees and foliage
have been removed. If he would have left it, then privacy would not be an issue for him
or for me. I now have clear view of the dock md water and much of the parking lot due
to this destruction. Maybe he should allow all the volunteers to grow up and give both of
us the privacy that there once was. It was natural. For years I have worked at the public
access putting up chicken wire to protect the trees and shrubs from the beaver. I think we
could all learn from allowing the land to remain as it always has been. Isn’t that what
people come to the lakes for?
As lake shore owners we are encouraged to allow for natural planting that protect the
lake. We are not encouraged to clear cut and have vast “golf courses”. Allow the
boundary of the public water access to grow up and remain natural. The fence that was
placed there is hanging many feet in the air and looks hideous. How does that obstruct
the view. Check it out. From late fall, through \vinter and to early spring, we all get to
look at this hanging bunch of green wood and redwood, sagging sadly.
In an effort to get by the requirements, he went ahead and put up the fence in question in
the fall of 2006. It has stood about % finished all this time. Why not remove this fence
and porch and say, ”No.” to trying to get around requirements. Guy Johnson has more
knowledge of these issues than the average person and yet he tries to thwart them.
This past summer, Guy Johnson complained to Land and Water Resources because there
was an old camper sitting on my property frnm over 6 years. I had to have it removed
which was quite a chore for the person I gave it to as the rear wheels and brakes were
totally rusted and when he tried to move it it broke the drive shaft. It took over two
months. No “allowances” were made for me because it had been abandoned on my
property and I had used it for only storage not a second residence.
I had a court matter that Guy Johnson under oath swore he would sign the agreement
within 30 days. My lawyer had to repeatedly try to contact Guy Johnson and then a court
date set for Sept. 2007 was set on the no sign matter because over 90 days have
transpired. Guy Johnson and his lawyer never appeared. I had to pay the bill for these
unnecessary letters and trip to Fergus Falls for the lawyer and myself. After the judge
repeatedly attempting to get results to no avail; the judge signed the agreement so I could
put up a fence. Guy Johnson insists on a wire fence. Why is it that he put up the
opposite on his northern property?
I have gone into these details to show a general disregard and disrespect for the laws and
ordinances of our county. Please do not allow him to make a mockery of these processes
by allowing his applications. Treat him as he has treated me when I inadvertently was on
the wrong side of an ordinance that later took effect. Guy Johnson seems to be very
selective about ordinances. If he is so concerned about requirements being met by others,
why is it that he doesn’t follow them?
I have written this letter immediately upon receiving your notice so that you can check
into the records of the other issues brought up to verify them. When you check, you will
find a list of other infringements also; violations of licensing for electric and plumbing,
failing to have his vehicles licensed in the state he resided. I think these numerous
violations speak to the lack of honesty of Guy Johnson. His actions should be regulated
and strict observance of all requirements should be enforced in his enclosed porch and
vision obstructing fence. If these offenders are disallowed and removed, then maybe he
will get pemits and follow requirements in the ftiture like the rest of his neighbors.
I see no need that this letter be ready aloud during your meeting—only that I am opposed
to it on matters of land and lake impact and the fact that they were built without
following proper procedure which he is aware of due to a previous application.
Thank you for allowing me to be heard at length on this issue.
Respectfully,
Jeanette Wardwell
49072 Leek Lake Drive
Vergas, MN 56587
OTTER TAIL COUNTY
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
State of Minnesota )
)SS
County of Otter Tail)
I, Wayne Stein, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment for Otter Tail County, Minnesota, do hereby
certify that on the 14th, day of November, 2008 the attached Notice of Hearing for Variance was duly
served upon the individuals listed below and/or included in the attachment:
Guy Johnson, 810 5*'^ Ave S, Moorhead, MN 56560 2806
Sharon Sauer, Twp Clerk of Candor, 51902 County Highway 17, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501
Otter Tail County Cola, % John Matteson, 23674 W Silver Lake Rd, Battle Lake,MN 56515
Richard West, OTC HWY Engineer, 505 S. Court St. Suite #1 Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Terry Lejcher, DNR 1509 1^'Ave N., Fergus Falls, MN 56537
DNR Regional Administrator, 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE, Bemidji, MN 56601
Town Clerk
Board of Adjustment:
Paul R. Larson, 21283 County Highway 65, Henning, MN 56551-9573
Richard S. Schierer, 32117 260th Ave, Erhard,MN 56534
Carl Zick, 25850 Lida Shores Loop, Pelican Rapids, MN 56572
Randall Mann, 532 N. Ann St., Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Michael Harris, 35387 Northern Lights TrI, Richville, MN 56576-9672
David Trites, 20944 Westwood DR, Clitherall, Mn 56524 9596
by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the
same in the United States Mail at Fergus Falls, MN, property addressed to each of the individuals
listed above and/or listed in the attachment.
Dated: November 14th, 2008
Wayne Stein, Secretary
Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment
By:
Vi Manderud
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources rDIVISION OF TRAILS AND WATERWAYS
1509 I^"^ AVENUE NORTH
FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537
218-739-7575
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
November 26, 2008
Wayne Stein
Otter Tail County Auditor
510 Fir Ave. W.
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Subject: GUY JOHNSON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE (Sec 16, T137N, R41W)
Dear Mr. Stein,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Trails & Waterways Area Ib office has reviewed this
request for variance application. Our office has some serious reservations about this proposal. In
our 8 county area we review variance notices on a regular basis. In the past we have
recommended denying variances when it will negatively impact the users of public water access
sites.
The DNR Public Water Access site on Leek Lake shares a common boundary with Mr.
Johnson's property. The southerly line of our access site forms the northerly line of Mr.
Johnson’s property. The entrance road and launching ramp of our facility are in close proximity
to this boundary. The proposed “vision obstructing fence" has the potential to cause snow
drifting which would negatively impact public access by winter ice fishing users of this public
water access site.
MN Statutes 2000, 394.27 Subd. 7 addresses the issuance of variances. In that Statute it states:
“Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of official control in cases when there are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the
way of carrying out the strict letter of any official control, and when the terms of the variance are
consistent with the comprehensive plan." Of particular importance here is the requirement for a
hEirdship. In the view of this office, the conditions necessary for hardship are not evident. The
landowner can still make use of his land without a variance.
Additionally Mr. Johnson never contacted us with his proposed project. We often work with
adjacent landowners to address concerns dealing with visual screening. We feel other options
exist to screen his property, including planting shrubs and trees.
www.dnr.stute.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST-CONSUMER WASTE
Application for Variance (Johnson)
November 26, 2008
Page 2JI
Based on the above concerns, I would like to request that the Otter Tail County Board of
Adjustment deny this application for Variance.
;
Thank you.
Bruce Winterfeldt ^
Trails & Waterways Area Supervisor
CC: File - '5
£
:
Notice of Hearing for Variance
Otter Tail County
Government Services Center
SIOFirAveW
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
(218)998-8030/998-8041
Email - wstein@co.ottertail.mn.us
wwwxo.otter-tail.mn.us
Applicant and/or applicant’s representative must be present at the scheduled hearinq.
i To Whom It May, Concern:
Guy Johnson
,8105"'AveS
’■Moorhead, MN 56560
has made application to the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment fora variance as per requirements of the OtterTail County
Shbreland Management Ordinance, the Otter Tail County Set Back Ordinance and/or the Subdivision Controls Ordinance. The
Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble for this hearing on
Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.,
• in the Cohfimissioners’ Room of the OtterTail County Government Services Center, Fergus Falls, MN. (Please use the public
entrance located on the northeasterly side of the Government Services Center. The second left off Fir Aye.) Individuals
requiring special accommodations should contact the County Auditor’s office prior to the date of the public hearing.
The property concerned in the application is legally described as
part of Government Lot 6,
Property Address - 49110 Leek Lake Drive
Section 16, Township 137, Range 41 - Township Name - Candor
Lake No. 56- 532, Lake Name - Leek, Class - RD
The variance requested is-
; the following: Owner enclosed existing 8’wide deck across front of manufactured home as a sun porch. Variance from 100’
. lakeshore setback required. Manufactured home is 73’ from ordinary high water level. Front of sun porch is 65’ from ordinary
high water level at closest point on variable shoreline. Property owner is requesting a variance of 35’ from the required ordinary
high water level setback of 100’ for the location of an enclosed deck 65’ from the ordinary high water level. Also, requesting a 10’
variance from the required side lot line setback of 10’ for the placement of a vision obstructing fence on boundary with public
access and 40’ from the ordinary high, water level.
Date: November 12, 2008 'pyliyne Stein
Board of Adjustment Secretary
V-
SCALE DRAWING FORM RECEIVED
NOV 1 7 2008
LANL? & KL^UUKCI '
C3 ^Oo/6CWZJOO?
Tax Parcel Number(s)
The scale drawing must include the outside dimension (lotlines) of the property above the ordinary high water level, and must identify the type,
size (square feet), and location of all existing and proposed structures, additional onsite impervious surfaces, road right-of-way(s), ordinary high
water level(s), septic tank(s), drainfield(s), bluff(s) & wetland(s). Must also include all proposed topographical alterations.
/ ' - Jo %Impervious Surface Ratio
(Must Complete Worksheet On Other Side)
Scale
/ Ccj f-h-
RECEiVEO
NOV 1U2006
LAND & KbiiUUKCF
r<
PtJL ^ I
I c
aec
fr'
V'
' (y-iL d)' ^
LlQ
)i'
):tf
7r
CV ^tOo
■;o
3-
)
L c2-«^ KJZ
■J
Dateiture of Pi QIwner
BK — 0207 • Vicfot lyntlmn Tf. r’tintpis • rrmu* I'.iil.., MN • 1 000*J46-il8^0
RECEIVED
NOV 1U 2008
LAND & KhSUUKCF
WAIVER OF 60-DAY RULE
THIS WAIVER MUST BE FILED AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF LAND &
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BETWEEN OCTOBER 1^^ & MARCH 7^^
I understand that, due to snow cover, the Planning Commission Members
and/or the Board of Adjustment Members may not be able to view my
property/project (Tax Parcel
described in my
// ■ a
# 08000160123003
variance ______________________ Application
, As a result, it may not be possible for
Otter Tail County to meet the legal requirement to take action within 60
days of the receipt of the completed Application(s). I understand that in the
absence of a waiver of the 60-Day Requirement, the County may have no
alternative but to deny my Application(s). Therefore, I hereby agree to
waive the 60-day time limit in order to allow time for the Planning
Commission Members and/or Board of Adjustment Members to view the
property before taking action on my Appligation(s).
,2008dated
^2.
omiEk
Guy Johnson
11-02-04
Mbowman forms-apps waiver 60 day rule
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION WORKSHEET:
List of Onsite (Existing and Proposed) Impervious Surfaces (must be shown on scale drawing):
Ft2Structure(s):
Ft2Deck(s):
Ft2Driveway(s):
received
NOV 10 2006
LANU & KhiiUUKCF
«
Ft2Patio(s):
Ft2Sidewalk(s):
Ft2Stairway(s);:
Ft2Retaining Wall(s):
Ft2Landscaping:
(Plastic Barrier)
Other:Ft2
Ft2TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:
a roo Ft2LOT AREA:
I %X100 =t IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOTOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OTAREA
SmM -■ i ■ 1
"J^S" ■■ ■ ' ■ - '-"!-'"jC-'I
;
m
VM
v-5'>F
h
tt:
s'
■V i.f j
■ 'fitUi'At.iVi !
If irI ■'
f'''Iii I I||i< ! /;
Si''
: I ■ :i!
Ir,
/:l i
II' 'h^S; t S;uJIfIii'/:
,^ir ■-— ■ii‘■ Ki.■;
!. .m,■ fJ. ju I■u:mf9h''1;i
I i 4,!«uyh ■i
'j __£^!(;• D
I.s-
00Sm0yM9&^m^^S9!99m§l0fflllffSi0S$^
»«s. i.
;r• --?S
J?'ll
t4 A■y
K^Wi
'» ..
X:.‘;;w ' - - ?«■i-
msM
■■1 -fj\
iv r:i
■:i
^4m'i-;r i.si -Mi■\
■%\. '•1
\,
- <>■is,m
iw "mi:^^“St
a
I •vX
V
.■y' \
:#.■;r^
•■>
;:
Sg"*''- 'umm nIsmy,s’
5^^
■>aKT»»..<-*'T.|S
iv
, .1=
-«1
- }•.A*-■».f.
^St.
'•r*; -
.............................. ■'..............................................................„ . _
fjc^V: ■ / i,f -vA-,Vsij--.ffl,\x,t * ^,‘:r ,'v ■■ .' «ri''X“fes''v.iS-'f\.;^
'yr
^S4iiUr(£^iiUL,ki.4jy iLu .ii. >.ssiiiiiia^i^iliiigiiit^
■ ti
I?'
-i
i^») ^*r-»'.
5l
■' •■'*•
I'j'
!^:f
~y^v, kii'^^i*-1^1 ^r
m \!-> 'T-
u 'S i
f)
t
ill t!i
«'V\’-rt 1,
yr^t;3
Jv
'5 A
m ;;•i li'-4:k"1rA
'f:.3
''..,M
'\S¥. S' *,: ‘;^ -5T,>*'
: -1'n kt 'f-r‘P.1
Briggs, Ramstad & Skoyles, P.A.
P.O. Box 683
114 Holmes Street West
Detroit Lakes, MN 56502
Invoice submitted to;
Jeanette Wardwell
49072 Leek Lake Dr.
Vergas MN 56587
September 27, 2007
In Reference To; Real Estate Matter
Invoice# 21005
Professional Services
9/24/2007 CJR Travel to and from Fergus Falls; attend hearing
Amount
For professional services rendered
Additional Charges;
$560.00
9/24/2007 Mileage
Total costs
38.40
$38.40
Total amount of this bill $598.40
Previous balance $9,920.00
Balance due $10,518.40
Previous balance of Client funds $1,550.00
New balance of Client funds $1,550.00
3. That Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against Defendants and each of them; that Plaintiff
Jeanette M. Wardwell is awarded and granted a permanent and perpetual non exclusive easement
for ingress and egress and driveway purposes over, across, under and upon the following described
property: That part of Government Lot 6 in Section 16, Township 137, Range 41 in Otter Tail
County, Minnesota described as follows;
Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Section 16, thence North on an assumed
bearing along the West line of said Section 16 a distance of 585.05 feet to the point of
beginning of the easement to be described; thence North 87 degrees 11 minutes 45 seconds
East a distance of 120.11 feet; thence North 81 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East a
distance of 25.19 feet; thence North 80 degrees 06 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of
65.77 feet; thence South 64 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 17.40 feet;
thence South 10 degrees 08 minutes 28 seconds West a distance of 14 feet, more or less, to
the intersection with a line which bears South 89 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds Eaist from
the point of beginning; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of
224 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.
Said permanent and perpetual non exclusive easement may be maintained by Plaintiff, her heirs,
successors and assigns or by Defendant Guy W. Johnson, his heirs, successors and assigns as each
party sees fit, provided such maintenance does not interfere "with the use of the easement by Plaintiff,
her heirs, successors and assigns or by Defendant Guy W. Johnson, his heirs, successors and assigns.
Each party shall pay the entire cost of whatever maintenance they deem necessary, unless otherwise
agreed by the parties.
4. That Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against Defendants and each of them; that Plaintiff
Jeanette M. Wardwell and Defendant Guy W. Johnson are each awarded and granted a permanent
and perpetual non exclusive easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes from and to the
township road known as Leek Lake Drive over, across, under eind upon the existing public access
road running from the North boundary of their respective properties described in this Judgment
southerly and westerly across Government Lot 6 in Section 16, Township 137, Range 41 in Otter
Tail County, Mimresota and Lot 1 of Block 3 of said BRADBURY BEACH, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
5. That except as otherwise provided herein and except for the'mortgage granted to Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. dated September 22, 2003 recorded October 22, 2003 as document number
942144 in the office of the County Recorder in and for Otter Tail County, Minnesota, the adverse
claims of the Defendants and each of them, and of all other persons having or claiming any right,
title, estate, interest in or lien upon the said real estate described in paragraph numbered one (1) of
these Conclusions of Law or any of them to any right, tide, estate, interest in or lien upon the said
real property described in paragraph numbered one (1) of these Conclusions of Law are null and
void, and none of said Defendants have any right, tide, estate, interest in or lien upon said premises
or any part thereof.
These Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law may be entered and filed as the Judgment in
these proceedings.
Dated:
\1 HoiioraBie Mark Friiafisen
Judge of District Court
*QjiaHfied neutral under
Rule 114 of the Minnesota
General Rules of Practice
**Minnesota State Bar
Association Board Certified
Specialist in Real Property
Lmw
WILLIAM H. BRIGGS*
CHARLES]. RAMSTAD**
KAREN SKOYLESBriggs, Ramstad & Skoyles
JAMES O. RAMST.MD
LEGAL ASSISTANT
----- est. 1908 ------
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HENRY N. JENSON
(1884-1962)
ROBERT W. IRVINE
(1921-2005)
A Professional Association
August 23,2007
Mr. Ken Kludt
Attorney at Law
1001 Center Ave., Suite C
Moorhead, MN 56560
RE; Wardwell vs. Bradbury
Dear Mr. Kludt,
As you know, a hearing has been set by the Court for September 24, 2007 at
10:15 a.m. at the Otter Tail County Courthouse in Fergus Falls, Miimesota to address the
failure of your client to respond to the proposed Settlement Agreement and Findings of
Fact.
Please be advised that at the hearing called by the Court the Plaintiff intends to
move the Court to adopt the enclosed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for
Judgment and Judgment.
We will also ask the Court to sanction your client for his failure to respond by
assessing attorney’s fees incurred for this hearing. We will also ask the Court for an Order
requiring your client to sign the Settlement Agreement and the Quit Claim Deed which
was forwarded to you by my letter of June 7, 2007. /
Sincerely.
BRIGGS, Rj^S'SKOYLES P.A.
h
Charles J/Ramstai
CJR/mpl
RE: Jeanette Wardwell
114 West Holmes Street • P.O. Box 683 • Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 56502-0683 • Telephone (218) 847-5653 • Fax (218) 847-2406
whricrcrslSIIakesner.nef • rram.sraflfS).lakesnet.ner
*Qiialified neutral under
^le 114 of the Minnesota
General Rules of Practice
**Minnesota State Bar
Association Board Certified
Specialist in Real Proper^
Laiu
WLLIAiNL H. BRIGGS*
CHARLES J. RAMSTAD**
ICAREN SKOYLESBriggs, Ramstad & Skoyles
JAMES O. RAMSTAD
LEGAL ASSISTANT
----- est. 1908 ------
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HENRY N. JENSON
(1884-1962)
ROBERT W. IRVINE
(1921-2005)
A Professional Association
July 17, 2007
Honorable Mark F. Hansen
Judge of District Court
Otter Tail County Courthouse
121 W. Junius Ave., Suite 310
Fergus Falls, MN 56537
RE; Wardwell vs. Bradbury et al
Court File #C2-06-209
Dear Judge Hanson,
As you know, this matter was scheduled for trial on June 5,2007. While the Court
waited, the parties worked out a settlement agreement which weis placed on the record
and which both parties acknowledged. I was directed to prepare a Settlement Stipulation
and proposed Findings for the Court.
On June 7,20071 forwarded a draft of the Settlement Agreement and Full and
Final Release of Claims and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment by Default to Mr. Kludt. I
also forwarded proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and
Judgment.
On June 15, 2007 I forwarded some minor changes to those documents that my
client had requested.
I have had no response from Mr. Kludt. I did call him approximately three weeks
ago and he indicated that he was having difficulty getting his client to come in and review
the documents or cooperate in executing the Settlement Agreement. I have had no contact
from Mr. Kludt since then.
It has now been nearly a month and a half since this case was settled and we have
yet to file tlie proposed documents with the Court because we have had no cooperation
from Mr. Kludt's client.
- c.—. . no n«,. AQ1 . t oU„c EiAW.nAST . TM*-r,Br,np 847-5655 • Fav 671RV 847-240611-1 T T-1__