Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout53000990289000_Variances_06-02-1994Variances 2 Barcode 128 0^'ce of County Recorder ^ \\ dJ* County of Otter Tail I hersby certify tfiat the within b^rumenl tor record in this office on the _Il___ 4^Sy“MLimedTAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA (j,7G2153 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM was filed day of Receipt No. Application Fee $ County Rocorder DeputyTnorstenson Les Phone: 218-ggl-1 ?4?S.Owner: First MiddleLast Name 206 Mohawk Road Wadena S64fl? Zip No. MN SfafeStreet & No.City 56-243 Marion Lake ClassLake No.Lake Name 7 135 Range 59 Twp. Name Rush LakeSec.Twp. >Ae.v^r'Xj|/tWLegal Description:1£ZFire No. or Lake ID # E pt. Lot #9- Tr beg. 10 W of SE cor & W 37* of Lot #10 Parcel Number 53_000-99-0289-000 VARIANCE REQUESTED IS: Since we purchased this property about I5-I6 years ago, we along with about four property owners believed the property lines to be much different than what a recent survey found the lot lines to be.When the porch was built and permit As the survey looks, there is only about a foot of land along side of the cabin that is mine. Along with the cabin is the porch in question. The porch was added on to the back side of the cabin (away from the lake) and straight behind existing cabin, not changing the 16 foot width. The general thought of many of the neighbors is that this pohoh is aesthetically pleasing. ^ *. ,4 issued, the line seemed to be at least 10 feet from the cabin. PpjUv\if In order to properly evaluate the situation, please provide as much supplementary information as possible, such as: maps, plans, information about surrounding property, etc. APPLICANT SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING. I understand that I have applied for a variance from the requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance of Otter Tall County. Application dated 19 Signature Of Appiicant IjL.7. F.Date of hearing:Time:19 M MOTION AS FOLLOWS: Motion was made by Carl Johnson, seconded by Craig Anderson and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 9‘ from the required side lot line setback of 1 O’ for the location of an existing porch 1 ’ from the side lot line. The porch is no closer to the side lot line than the existing structure. hairman Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment YES NOPermitfs) from Land & Resource Management required:..Ms, ^ ' (Date/Initial) ) mailed copy of Application to Applicant. MKL — 0483-001 258,371 — Victor Lundeen Co.. Printers, Fergus Falls. Minnesota Scale: Each grid equals feet/inches RID PLOT PLAN SKETCHING FORM Dated:19 /Signature Please sketch your lot indicating setbacks from road right-of-way, lake and sideyard for each building currently on lot and any proposed structures. c A- .1. ^14 r CMibJ Sar\/^ Ovfe/fJ SiNce T'rtet^rc^wsoi!/ u>e^ r-RWK. MiNCn*-> Ol*^__ r'HvHl^r I• ff tri t♦ T1 \ "T f- + -1 ' +-. ' 4- +-;; +4 ; --p-f- -- y ^ ^ ^^C'4^^^^^215987®MKL-0871-029 VICTOR LUNOCCN CO.. RRIMTCRS. rCRCUB fALLS. UINN. /]^o^(<>t~ >7 7^::^ Each grid equalsScale:/inches GRID PLOT PLAN SKETCHING FORM Dated:19 Signature Please sketch your lot indicating setbacks from road right-of-way, lake and sideyard for each building currently on lot and any proposed structures. i u. . -4-1: -1 ■! r ■ z.;1- 5gimy' *T; r/nj-f-1 V ri:53-'tHu \;_4„11 i1 aePncT/wic : Aofo^lO 1A'2. J. il/r . .Lr X]^ //j j ■)•!. .4 !Mi;1■1—(“V'-f -—I ^ -|—p I '1 • ■ !'1 T '■f \ j- 1-4 I 1 tIsdij}r; j:.i ... ,* 1-4r-lr-i -i-1! J Rom> ’ SCU"VV V-O"^ .-I . -4 u JL_f-f ;i . ,_l..; t'h T -t-tl :ttr . 4— - - - — 4-— ---------4-. ’tL: : ■ -i-" .''■ f-,"- -i ■■ -th-i 4-1].,..1T-* i '■Xfr'-i- i‘ '" r ' i _v- 1 • . - ■• 4.U 1-r:t-ri7' r-; --Lri-4-r^:!I 4 . .' I : 1 - 4-1--4-44 '■ ■ :■ -1■^r : 21S98 7®MKL-0871-029 VICTOK LUHOEtN 00.. PftIHTCftS. rERCUS EALLS. WINN. received DEC % ^993 \fJ Iji JD I/^6ta/\ l/Hi^c/L- OAVtJS PfeC. I , (^<=53 - ___{ ________________ r__________ % WulD uc<c l/on>cJu^(x. ZL i<^—- ^U\P^ ^ ^Ov2t4 iMli^ ^\!hPL f^ojCj/^ ct" 'IMTIA^ u>i~tk ,{^j ihJW^' SN^ CT6 «> /K S.^tSTie'^ qS>k^\f c^ L B^-L i""t)ijue^u t # \/(XaiflM^ _ X[40iLi/^ ________ IM P I'S i Vfl- P,e>fo ,,IaJ firbpT'Hv, MP‘6PH^ RECEIVED OTTER TAIL CO. AUDITOR MAY 2 6 192; May 24, 1994 FERGUS FALLS. MN Mr. Wayne Stein County Auditor Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Mr. Stein: 1 just received your letter for a variance application for Les Thorstenson of Rush Lake Township, Marion Lake Lots 9 and 10. Mr. Thorstenson built an addition onto his house on someone else's land, without the proper permit and with a stop work order in place. It is my opinion that he knowingly placed this project in jeopardy. For this reason, I feel the variance should not be granted. Sincerely, LanyFuller 14045 36th Ave No. Plymouth, MN 55447 (612)559-0592 T- AKE .-y UN£ y-i- po,op>- ; 9 V it: 60 OCT ^ 5 W93 i rvESCissci SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET BEARINGS ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM, a DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND. • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET MARKED " RLS 1 3620" . June 2nd, 1994 Pa^ 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE OTTER TAIL COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 2nd. 1994 The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment met Thursday, June 2nd, 1994, with the following persons in attendance; Craig Anderson John Everts Cecil Femling Carl Johnson Randall Mann George Walter Pat Eckert, Land and Resource Management Kurt Mortenson, Assistant County Attorney CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman George Walter. MINUTES APPROVED-May 5th, 1994 Hearing no corrections or additions the minutes of the May 5th, 1994 meeting were declared approved as mailed. % VThe following variance requests were heard: Roger Gal breath - Tabled Roger Galbreath, Fergus Falls, MN, requested a variance of 70' from the required ordinary high water level setbe:k of 100' for a 9' by 12' addition to an existing 8' by 12' shed 30' from the creek. The property is described as part of Government Lot 4, Section 4 of Dane Prairie Township on Wall Lake. Motion was made by Randall Mann, seconded by Cecil Femling and unanimously carried to table the request until the June 9th meeting due to the absence of the applicant at the hearing. Les S. Thorstenson - Approved Les S. Thorstenson, Wadena, MN, requested a variance of 9' from the required side lot line setback of 10' for the location of an existing porch 1' from the side lot line. The property is described as part of Lots 9 and 10, Merryland Park, Marion Lake in Rush Lake Township. The audience was polled with Glen Johnson speaking against the granting of the variance request, In addition, Connie Branhagen and Sarah Thorstenson addressed the variance request. A letter from Larry Fuller opposing the granting of the variance request was read for the record. After consideration, motion was made by Carl Johnson, seconded by Craig Anderson and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 9' from the required side lot line setback of 10' for the location of an existing porch 1' from the side lot line. The porch is no closer to the side lot line than the existing structure. June 2nd, 1 994 Page 2 Amer and Mabel F. Holman - Approved Amen and Mabel F. Holman, Appleton, MN, requested a variance of approximately 2'6" from .the required side lot line setback of 10' for additions to an existing dwelling. The property is described as Lot 21, South Point, West Battle Lake in Girard Township. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration, motion was made by John Everts, seconded by Craig Anderson and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of approximately 2' 6" from the required side lot line setback of 10' for additions to an existing dwelling. The additions will be no closer to the side lot line than the existing structure. Rick R. Lebahn - Approved Rick R, Lebahn, West Fargo, ND, requested a variance of approximately 46.5' from the required ordinary high water level setback of 75', a variance of approximately 9' from the required shore impact zone setback of 37,5' and a variance of approximately 3' from the required 30' setback from the top of a bluff for the enclosure of an existing deck located approximately 20.5' from the ordinary high water level. The property is described as Lot 33, Block 3, Lida Shores, Lake Lida in Lida Township. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request, After c«nsideration, motion was made by Carl Johnson, seconded by Cecil Femling and unanimously carried, to approve the enclosure of the existing deck provided the enclosure is no closer to the ordinary high water mark than the existing structure. Hardship being a substandard lot of record. It should also be noted that the applicant does not require a variance from the bluff. Doug Kottom - Approved Doug Kottom, Battle Lake, MN, requested a variance of 16' from the required ordinary high water level setback of 75' and a variance of 2' from the required side lot line setback of 10' for the location of a dwelling 59' fr^m the ordinary high water level and 8' from the side lot line. The property is described as part of Government.. Lot 4, Section 26 of Everts Township on West Battle Lake. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration, motion was made by Carl Johnson, seconded by Cecil Femling and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 16' from the required ordinary high water level setback of 75' and a variance of 2' from the required side lot line setback of 10' for the location of a dwelling 59' from the ordinary high water level and 8' from the side lot line, it should be noted that the design of the applicant's dwelling will not affect the vision of adjacent property owners. Hardship being the unique design of the applicant's structure. Norman and Shirley Long - Denied Norman and Shirley Long. Erhard, MN, requested a variance of 25' from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100' for the location of a d-Tvelling 75' from the ordinary high water level. The property is described as part of Government Lots 8 and 9, Section 10 of Friberg Township on Heilberger Lake. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration, motion was made by John Everts, seconded by Cecil Femling and unanimously carried, to deny the variance request as no adequate hardship had been shown. It should be noted that the granting of the variance request would establish a precedent and there does exist reasonable alternatives for the applicants.