Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29000990306006_Variances_05-04-2000Variances 2 Barcode 128 5-M-2000 866756 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this instrument # 866756 was filed/recorded in this office for^c^d on the__Lw day of U-------------2000atJ6^00(^m !-L£tHLki£Lrecording fee by:Deputy well certificate l(IL THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL COURTHOUSE, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 (218) 739-2271 *** COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK***150-Application Fee isReceipt Number Digy^e Ros5 ______DAYTIME PHONE Mm ___________ PROPERTY OWNER P>Q e>0X 291 BoM\e. LaU.ADDRESS LAKE NUMBER 5(o LAKE NAME VJest 6cl~H k Lcckc TOWNSHIP 13) 3 RANGE PARCEL NUMBER LAKE CLASS GP (jirarc(30SECTION TOWNSHIP NAME FIRE / LAKE I.D. NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION 35' ot 95' . 95 crj^ JIj^ 39 iOM^ /5'4- -Uji TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) structure Setback X Structure Size Sewage System Subdivision____ Cluster Misc. SPECIFY VARIANCE REQUESTED 'i Our variance request is to add a 9X16" addition to the existing building that would not be closer than the 22 feet to the ordinary high water level that the existing building lies on. This would place our building no closer than four feet to the property line on the east side. I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. a-(i-oo DATESIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) July 6, 2000 Page ii Accepted By Land & Resource ^ V* tf- to L & R Official/Date iT 7.vto vf/y<.J?aax>Date Of Hearing Time Motion Diane Ross - Withdrawn Prior to the July 6, 2000 meeting of the Board of Adjustment the applicant contacted the County Auditor’s office to indicate her desire to withdraw her request. By general consent the Board acknowledged and accepted her request to withdraw her variance application. Chairman/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 And the MN DNR LR Official/Date bk 0198-001 291.306 • Victor Lundoen Co.. Printers • Fergus Falls. Minnesota -14-1-- : [-4 L /, ^.. -j.._feet.grid(s) equals feet, or .inch(es) equalsScale; ,-i-- -...... PKORPSEb■t i Dated Please use this sheet for the required scale drawing of your proposal. Be sure to include lot dimension, water_L^ frontage, and setbacks from RW, lake, sideyard, sewage system, top of bluff and existing structures. Signature Required impervious surface coverage calculation (See definition in Shoreland Management Ordinance) i-jizm10,92 3ia,9S■ -y ■r .%X 100rTotal Impervious Surface Onsite (FT2) Total Lot Area' (FT2) t-*- _i_-4- 4--•4T —f +.1 /r! JO , 4- ti- ■f -i- - - ir fI •--i Ttrj.r T t-i-!r i r 44--:....^ f -J-S£:-r --j—‘ t» :4:r -+■ ...L - 4.4.4- 44.4 ------ Ti 4 1 -J4 + Frof^os Gc' !) — ;4/ i-1? ^ : t t-. 4. 'T—'■ JC 4- t 4-tT i -14t/4 T t T ii» 4-r4- - -t- 4-1-—i“h -t—*--f-- +4--1-■ • 1io >r 3:<' : ................ ,. , ,[4 ; , . f4 U_ --+f-r-i 4- T/(?'4Ii-.:. 4 4 44-.1 *1-** 50 266.179 • Victor Lundonn Co^ Pfimars • Fergus Falls, MN ♦ 1-8CK>346-4g7C^ |BK —0599 —029 ■i. Lc(/r IJ_L :»L I%.grid(s) equals Jnch(es) equalsfeet, orScale:_feet EXisr/wG ^-/l-oo 4--4- i ■4-*!1 Dated Please use this sheet for the required scale drawing of your proposal. Be sure to include lot dimension, water: frontage, and setbacks from RW, lake, sideyard, sewage system, top of bluff and existing structures. Required impervious surface coverage calculation (See definition in Shoreland Management Ordinance) Signature :.%X 100 Total Lot Area (FT2) Total Impervious Surface Onsite (FT2) 1 + t - f I-4-—t i Lti Lt 4.144" i I :nr +T t I -t 4-. i 4. X i tti -L I . 4 -r4 -4/a L^S i t 4- 4T 4 t ;4 T 4 4 TIT14:1 4 4 rm: "io f r) ;■ tT4 i- t yl_4 r* •t f^W*l! ...8'Tic? Sh^J 7*/4^ : i;4‘V :3^4- f -f-H- 4 •1 • 1.4 a>'(!>I h i- aiec if: :: -4 4 4T-I L-4 t /Xti■|- OP MT44-^. . > ..4.!4-:I rit 4 so'r ..2SBJ29. -„yiaoLLun!li»ii Coi Pfinws ■ FwjwJaMfflLA i-»09-3¥-«mgBK — 0599 — 029 r IJc'e.rl: f"rrrTri II To the Ottertail County Board of Adjustment; We are applying for a variance for property that was purchased in 1987. It has a structure that was built in the 1950’s, it is not insulated nor reasonable for winter use. We are employed now in the area and would like to make our property suitable for year roimd residence. We would also like to make an addition that would be reasonable for our family of five. This would increase the value of our property as well as making the existing building into a more pleasing sight. As you can see by the attached drawings the existing building is 27 feet wide, and there is an 8’xlO’ shed. We are proposing to tear down the eyesore of a shed and add nine feet to the existing building. The current foundation would be lifted to add footings underneath. According to our contractor, this would provide a sturdy enough foundation to add a second story. We would also update our current sewer system. TTie existing 12’ deck would be replaced with a narrower 10’ deck. The property has access to the road through an easement with my parents’ property, in turn they have an easement for lake access. The description of our property and my parents’ adjacent property reads 50 feet at the base(or lake) and tlien gradually widens to 60 feet at the road. We cannot increase the area of the property, but we would like to improve what we have. It is no lotiger reasonable for us to live in the small two bedroom cabin, even in the siunmer months. Because of our close and sentimental ties to the history of this particular place we only have one option to continue living here and that is to increase our building size. The property is very valuable to our family, but because of the easement situation with the road and lake, it would not be realistic situation for just anybody. We are asking that you consider a variance due to the uniqueness of our property.•? Sincerely, -------- Chuck and Diane Ross '“T- May 4, 2000 Page 4 Diane Ross - Tabled Diane Ross, Battle Lake, MN, requested a variance of 53’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 75’ and a variance of 6’ from the required side lot line setback of 10’ for a 9’ by 16’ addition to an existing dwelling 22’ from the ordinary high water level and 4’ from the lot line. The property is described as part of Lot 38 and part of Lot 39, Girard Beach, West Battle Lake in Girard Township. The applicant’s husband appeared along with the applicant at the public hearing. A letter from Dale Werner in support of the applicant’s request was read for the record. Mr. Werner stated that he had no objections to the applicant’s proposal if all shoreline management regulations are met. Mr. Werner noted that the applicant’s proposal would not pose any limitations on his view of the lake. The audience was polled with Norman Stolle (applicant’s farther) and Dallas Glick (neighbor) speaking in favor of the applicant’s request. The applicant noted that an existing 8' by 10’ shed will be r^oved, the proposed structure would be a one and one half-story structure and the sewer systern ^iPbejJ) upgraded. The applicant noted that the property as currently developed does not tDrov(jJied4Nfem^fftn a reasonable use of their property. The board noted that variances should not be g(raVn^ftt^t result in the over improvement (development) of the lot beyond what it could support.' AfterC^' consideration, motion was made by Randall Mann, second by Cecil Femling am unanimously carried, to table the applicant’s request until the June 1, 2000 Board of Adjustment n^eting. The Board would , like measurements of the lot prepared by the Land and Resource Department, a review of the bluff — M*. area, a review of the proposed sewer upgrade and a review of the discussion the applicant has had withtheofflca, ^ ^ Margaret E. Sellin, Hawley, MN, requested a variance of 4’ from the required side lot line setback of^’ for the placement of a 20’ by 22’ addition to an existing structure 6’ from the lot line. The property is^^ described as Lots 9 and 10, Pelican Point, Pelican Lake in Dunn Township. The applicant’s son appeared along with the applicant. The applicant stated that the neighbors do not object to her request. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration, motion was made by Steve Schierer, second by David Holmgren and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested as no adequate hardship had been shown and other alternatives not requiring a variance are available to the applicant. It was noted that the applicant has a large lot with adequate room for development. Margaret E. Sellin - Denied as requested. Robert J. and Leanne Mercier- Denied as requested. Robert J. and Leanne Mercier, Jr., Barrow, Alaska, requested a variance to allow a portion of an existing 12’ by 32’ deck to be enclosed as a porch. This porch area would be 12’ by 20’ in size with the remaining 12’ by 12’ section of existing deck to be left as is. The present deck is located approximately 20 to 22’ from the waters edge. The property is described as part of Government Lot 2, Section 14 of Edna Township by Paul Lake. Dennis Harper, the proposed buyer, represented the applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration, motion was made by Steve Schierer, second by Rod Boyer and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested as the proposed development would be ahead of the building line, is in the shore impact zone and would obstruct vision from the neighboring properties. It was noted that a reasonable use can be obtained without the granting of a variance. ; P To the Ottertail County Board of Adjustment; We are applying for a variance for property that was purchased in 1987. It has a structure that was built in the 1950’s, it is not insulated nor reasonable for winter use. We are employed now in the area and would like to m^e our property suitable for year roimd residence. We would also like to make an addition that would be reasonable for our family of five. This would increase the value of our property as well as making the existing building into a more pleasing sight. As you can see by the attached drawings tlie existing building is 27 feet wide, and there is an 8’xlO’ shed. We are proposing to tear down the eyesore of a shed and add nine feet to tlie existing building. The current foundation would be lifted to add footings underneath. According to our contractor, this would provide a sturdy enough foundation to add a second story. We would also update our current sewer system The existing 12’ deck would be repla^'-d witi^ a narrower 10’ deck. ■1 The property has access to the road tluough an easement with my parents’ property, in turn they have an easement for lake access. The description of our property and my parents’ adjacent property reads 50 feet at the base(or lake) and tlien gradually widens to 60 feet at the road. We cannot increase the area of the property, but we would like to improve what we have. It is no longer reasonable for us to live in the small two bedroom cabin, even in the summer months. Because of our close and sentimental ties to the liistory of this pmlicular place we only have one option to continue hving here and that is to increase our building size. The property is very valuable to our family, but because of the easement situation with the road and lake, it would not be realistic situation for just anybody . We are asking that you consider a variance due to the uniqueness of our property. fv. r ■ ■ r- • ■ i ! ■k Sincerely, -------- Chuck and Diane Ross :i t rpi-\-1—-; •<-- --\-gri'd|s i eqdals jtiqhlQs;Scale:feet _^u^s estor r ”o T H-l 1-00 ■1. I -(.-1 -1--i-!-! ti;jS^/Mfur| ! --j j ^ ^ Please use this sheet for the required scale drying Of y6ur p\'OFio^alzbk^ijhfto]id6ludd bt^^ frontage, and setbacks-froth RWrlakeraideyardtkewage -3ystehij^tdb-e^bJm-and-^xiht\ng atmemres. I t : ■■* H^I— - f • ■ T-' I■' -H-1H T-j-; )■■ -f f-t'-j-j —[----------------------t7t'{--------r ■■ Required impervious surface coverage^ calculation (See definition in^fio^lq^ . 1. -,. ... I ,i. ... , , j 1.. - - r j : .......r ! i - - -f-f- ■ ' “:7i i- i Dall--lIi-h _lVaT5jL: hPfqiqqr qe, ! J X lOD!I i-J-------i._L — [-■|---' Total Impervious^ Surface Onsite (FT2) Area--I ::'-i.r. IL II : J_^—.--J 1 L."T ri;[" -1-1 • 4- —r- J -1. J-II!• -:±i"1-i-r I—LIUI Ii • H4 I -i-J—I {a._ -i :pitri 1t•J . ++-t iJ.4. I TU-iiti.4.• 1.■ I f4^/1L iI 4inI !4-i ±Ltr 2:!-•T i.^4 — T;:1:--i__-f-:.J..i_X.4_,i.i 4 L-tt 7 1i TI i I:BSHi++ rtz^iizz B -4 Vt '.'■J t m 55^i Ij rl1.4.f IfZiS.“ 3LIX. .L.1.1 \1i r/ n•r/4 t ■; 4 4•nII 4'r t ^±E7— L m±VAr dy4:-II +IVL die c:A^- .-4--1$4- 5 ~Y-. -i‘ i L -I -i H+3P| nter|_LwgusJFai Mil 0599 4 02^-f 4:::i±rt ^letof JUi Ml( onjco2«.ITSBK — ZL V - V. -.V ^ Ct- -i. 4-F-; 4 ■ HL.1^ '' )/Scale:grid(s) equals jnch(es) equals feel ■feet, or Dated Please use this sheet for the required scale drawing of your proposal. Be sure to include lot dimension, water frontage, and setbacks from RW, lake, sideyard, sewage system, top of bluff and existing structures. Required impervious surface coverage calculation (See definition in Shoreland Management Ordinance) Signature 4^5 f .Z.2%1092 X 100 =.%-f- Total Impervious Surface Onsite (FT2) Total L ot Area (Nk)----f AfV ■V' r- ;t \i Y(o^ ‘TS’ ( IV Z' « •' f ■ »t .'f vT ' •i-:L V'■V © -vJ®' >0;rop‘0'>\c?- )0 I r Ca Or bt ,• t Lf / .1 /6<c -.7' lo'y 3$ 'f/7t? c F i X Tv<)V v>to' I\______A. 50'BK — 0599 — 029 296.179 • Victof Lundeon Co, Pfimeri • Fergus Falls. MN • l-BOO-340-4870