Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29000990707000_Variances_11-05-2009Variances 2 Barcode 128 ll-5'ZCO'^ OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA I hereby certify that ooithis instrument #jLUbbO^-^ was fiied/recorded in this office for recjqrd on the day of 1 J[(0 at //'3C> WendyiL. Metcalf, County Reo^er 1066391 recording fee'^ well certified THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 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 DOApplication Fee imdACOMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number Accepted By / Date ijlxhS W&>~S"7(iW 2<S^‘6'2- St . PROPERTY OWNER DAYTIME PHONE MAILING ADDRESS LAKE NUMBER Slo LAKE NAME B»oW\g LAKE CLASS 30 TOWNSHIP NAME k___________________ E-911ADDRESS 2- (■ ^ A Ut--^ ____________LrvVj ■ fWO SGSI? TOWNSHIP \ j>'^ RANGESECTION PARCEL ^NUMBER K DOr^ Q “T O‘~7on V) LEGAL DESCRIPTION S»et^ \N^orVt^ Po./N^ UoV \l TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) structure Setback v^^tructure Size Sewage System Subdivision Cluster Misc. SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. iTo \d »juV\'-cVv O^i re p\ciC^nw-^-V Hvt port7c-v \fW-s\ ^ VK-€- pro^^Lt vj,t\ ^ q IS Se+WL, ^ Vn6 p.T^ "Hy foo^ ^hL I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. o4- '+kg, Ko/v\(_ *1^ p^opoS«2-<i \ l '-X I IS •fr I 'fv'o r<\0(V\ \ i iV tk-C Sur^ . t\ w p\at-g jirf I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. lolis/oj DATESIGNATURE^F PROPERTY OWNER / AGENT FOR OWNER APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) 00 lU ooA5w~Tw 76 , C3k Q sUc^c)Uj'''be.f'g /W-OSJC-; A J-, "Vo0 •! -H^ ctri^wf'N^ <^aac£t^a.A.4~a pro.A /\/>Jcm Ixe /?<r TimeDate Of Hearing Motion Timothy and Kathleen Deal - Approved the variance application as requested. (8:37 p.m.) After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, second by Paul Larson and unanimously carried, to approve the variance as stated in the application dated October 15, 2009 and as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application. It was noted that this variance had already been approved and that the only different from the previous approval is the adoption of the proper wording. lairman/Otter Tail County Board of^justment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management X Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) fl/U)ltu No Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR LR Official/Date bk 0407-001 329,512 - Victor Lundeen Company, Fergus Falls, Minnesota WEST BATTLE LAKE HATER ELEVATION ON FEBRUARY 2^, 200S - 1333.02 OHW - 1333.6 CLASSIFICATION - CD EXIST. STAIRS' LANCSCAPINC TIMBERNOTE: 5UNROOM ROOF PITCH INCREASE AND RECONSTRUCTION APPX. LOC. OF SILT FENCINc CONTR. TO MAINTAIN t INSF MPCA RECSJ SILT FENCE T< REMAIN UNTIL PRO..£CT IS COMPLETE AND ALL DISTUR SOILS HAVE BEEN STABILIZi APPROVED BY VARIANCE APRIL 200q NEH HELL IN PLACE REMOVED DECK tn£Q PROPOSED ADDITION lO'-o" 5IDEYARD SETBACK. COORD. TREES TO SO OR REMAIN H/OHNER LOT 12 OLD HELLfCAPPED;EXISTINC CAS TANK NEH PAVINC LOCATION EXISTINC SHED ELECT.REMOVED METER EXISTINC ASPHALT DRIVE, REDUCE AS TELE.NECESSARY TO POLES REMAIN UNDER 25% IMPERVIOUS AREA EXISTINC BENCHMARK PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 12 S'. F. = 2,624 S.F. -V9? S.F 7-V^3.F. = 3,929 S.F. HOUSE Sc GARAGE ENTRY Sc P,iT/*>S DRIVE Sc WALK TOTAL IMPERVIOUS PROPOSED SITE PLAN= 15,741 S.F.LOT SIZE 24.9%SCALE - I" = 20'-0"IMPERVIOUS % ® BAKER* HOGAN* HOUX“ ARCHITECTURE Sc PLANNING /A.I.A./P.C. I•• 2: O o mP.O BOX 185, 650 3RD AVENUE SE, SUITE #10. PERHAM, MINNESOTA 56573 (218) 346-450500 §o ziii0U! k) A CP OI ja A DEAL LAKEHOME REMODEL -i BATTLE LAKE. MINNESOTA Timothy and Kathleen Deal 23312 Garland Lane Battle Lake, MN 56515 (218) 630-5724 October 14, 2009 Members of the Board of Adjustment, In reference to the variance granted by this board and subsequent actions taken, we have assembled a packet with information. WHAT THIS PACKET CONTAINS 1) This letter - with timeline 2) Architect’s Letter 3) Original Site plan submitted for April meeting 4) Original Elevations submitted for April meeting of the existing house 5) Original Elevations submitted for April meeting of remodeled house 6) Updated Site Plan with changes 7) Updated Elevations of remodeled house HOW WE GOT HERE We approached the board on April 9, 2009 with the following request; “Requesting to replace the existing 9’ by 13’ portion of the home which extends out in front of the building line 9’. The proposed replacement project will be approximately 60’ back from the OHWL. Requesting a 15’ variance from the required 75’ OHWL setback. The proposed replacement will be in the same footprint. The existing pitch of the roof is 4/12 and will be replaced by a 10/12 pitch roof. The impervious surface coverage will not exceed 25%. Will be removing a portion of the driveway and the storage shed to maintain property compliance.” We were specifically advised by County employees to keep our request to only the portion of the house in front of the building line and to keep the request brief. Documents 3, 4, and 5 were submitted as part of this request. A variance was granted which read as follows; “After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion, seconded by Thomas Lee and unanimously carried, to approve the variance application as requested in the application dated March 12, 2009 and as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application with the condition that no more than 25% of the total eligible lot area can be covered with impervious.” OUR BUILDING INTENTIONS With the variance approved, we directed our architect to complete a builder’s set of plans so that we could submit the project to multiple builders for estimates. These plans, completed on June 11, describe in detail the scope of the work to be performed as well as what portions of the home are to remain during construction and are the same as the documents included in the variance application - only more detailed. Over the course of the next few weeks we met with four builders - giving each of them a set of plans. Each one independently came to the same conclusion, that with the house remodel calling for removal of the fireplace, all new siding and insulation, in­ floor heat utilizing a geo-thermal heating system, reconfiguration of windows, change in the interior floor plan to a more open plan, an addition to the garage area, and a change to a story and a half that required that 75% of the roof structure be removed and replaced, that only a small portion of the house would be original and it would make more sense both economically and structurally to bring the house down to the sub-floor - saving and utilizing the existing back-up heating system, the existing crawl space, the existing subfloor and floor joists. We resisted this suggestion when the first builder made it, as we felt much more of the house could be used. HABITAT ISSUE - PHONE CALLS MADE It was during this time that we visited with our neighbors and found out that they had donated their North point home to Habitat for Humanity a few years ago. We made contact with individuals from the Fergus chapter and they toured our home to see if it was suitable. Finding it suitable, they then contacted a house mover to get an estimate on the cost to move the house. It was at this time - July 20*^ - that I contacted the Land and Resource office to find out what the process would be to give the house to Habitat. I spoke to someone there that indicated that since there was a variance involved that we may need to go back before the Board of Adjustment if we were to give the house to Habitat to be moved off completely. I also asked her about the timing of the next meeting, as well as what other permits might be required from county departments including the highway department, if we were to move the structure. I also contacted Randall Mann at this time and questioned him about giving the home to Habitat. He said that he didn’t have our papenwork and the specifics in front of him, but he said I should look over the wording of the variance making sure we are complying with the conditions as written. He also suggested that I contact Land and Resource if there were additional questions. Shortly after that phone call we were informed by the movers that the house could be moved - but because of the size and layout of our lot and the proximity to the neighbor’s houses - it would entail the removal of every tree on the roadside - and also they could not guarantee that our new septic mound (installed in 2008) would not be damaged by the move. Faced with this information, we decided that we would not proceed in that direction. We did indicate to them that as part of our remodel much of the interior and exterior would be replaced and that we would donate as much as possible to them. MOLD - STRUCTURAL ISSUES We still were trying to decide how to proceed, when the last of the contractors that we had given plans to, came back to us with his bid and recommendations. It was during a walk-through of the house with him that he noted that the ceiling in the living room had changed. He said he had been in the house approximately five years before and had noted significant water damage in the cathedral ceiling of the living room. He remembered that there was a condensation problem that had caused mold to be visible in the interior of the house and required extensive repair. He noted that he did not do the repair and it was his understanding that the homeowner’s themselves had completed whatever work was done. This portion of the house - the roof on the north side of the property - represented the one portion of the roof that was not going to be removed - instead an overlay of the roof was going to be done to change the pitch to match the rest of the remodel. This discovery was coupled with two instances of water damage/mold that we had become aware of. The first instance was in the hallway/laundry room and involved flooring that was heaving up as well as signs of moisture in two interior walls. The second area was in the master bath. What we thought was isolated to a small area - we found was mold in both interior and exterior walls of the bathroom. These three instances helped to convince us that our remodel should include removal of all of the roof structure plus the walls - changing the walls from the current two by fours to two by sixes. We made that decision towards the end of August. SITE PERMIT - PLAN CHANGES I applied for a site permit on August 31 It was actually about a five day process as during the process of filling out the site permit - the question of distance from the house to the septic mound came up. We found out that the addition that we had planned and was shown on the elevations given to you at the April meeting would only be 19 feet away from the septic mound border - not the required 20 feet. We had to modify the roadside addition slightly, moving a proposed indentation associated with garage storage from the south side of the structure to the north side. The one other difference that you will note from the documents submitted to you in April, to the actual plan, has to do with the decks on the lakeside. The large two level deck comprising over 420 square feet is being replace by two smaller patios - comprising just under 400 square feet. As required, no portion of these patios will be higher than 36 inches. Documents 6 and 7 show these minor changes. In completing the site permit application, I circled the number marked “(2) Add’n to Dwelling” on the site permit and described the construction as existing porch reconstruction as approved by variance, garage addition, new roof and interior remodel of cabin. I have recently been informed by Land and Resource that this was incorrect and that I should have instead chosen replacement dwelling as a better description of the work to be completed. Although we still consider this project a remodel, we now understand that within the definitions of the work to be completed, we should have been described differently. As required by the variance and site permit, we are taking steps to comply with the 25% impervious requirement. We have removed the storage shed from the property, sized down the deck/patio space, removed a paver sidewalk that will be replaced with a much smaller version, and will be sizing down the driveway as required. INTENTIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME We have heard that it has been implied by some that our actions/intentions have been deliberately deceptive or misleading. We can assure you that this is not the case. At every step of this process, we have been honest and open with our intentions. Although some people deal with these issues and this process every day, we do not. Because of this, there has been some confusion on our part within the definitions and terms used in variances and site permits. But we have made every effort to learn, understand, and obey all of the rules that may apply in our situation and to ask questions of those with knowledge of the process whenever appropriate. We did not and would not attempt to deceive this Board or any other officials. We do not conduct ourselves that way. We have always taken great pride in the fact that in every aspects of our lives - be it in our farm business, our community involvement, or our personal relationships - we have always conducted ourselves in an honest and forthright manner. That is still the case. From our discussions with Land and Resource employees, it is our understanding that this Board has control over all decision having to do with the use of our property in front of the builder’s line. The request before the Board now, is the same request we made in April. Due to the depth of our lot and the constraints posed by the septic mound system, we are asking for permission to replace the portion of our home that sits nine feet in front of the builder’s line. In constructing the replacement in the same footprint, we wish to change the pitch of the roof which will in turn raise the top of the roof approximately 4.0 feet, increasing the volume of this area slightly. Although our original intent was to keep more of the house behind the builder’s line, that intention changed due to unforeseen circumstances as detailed above. At the April meeting we attended, the Board briefly discussed what would be happening behind the builder’s line - acknowledging that our home would change from a one story to a story and a half. During that discussion it was stated by members of the Board that what happens behind the builder’s line was not a concern of the board as it was behind the line. This is what was said by the board, this is what we heard. At no time before or after this were we told that the variance granted was dependent upon the walls of the house behind the building line remaining. The lakeside area approved by this board in April is an important part of our future home. From the beginning, this remodel was designed around the existing footprint of our home and this room. We can assure you that if we would have known that bringing the walls of the house down, could have put the approved variance in jeopardy, we never would have authorized it. The home, which you approved on the plans submitted in il, is the same home that was in the process of construction. WEST BATTLE LAKE WATER ELEVATION ON FEBRUARY 2<1, 2006 - 1333.02 OHW - 1333.6 OLA55IFIOATION - 6-D EXIST. STAIRS,/ LANPSOAPIN6 TIMBER LOT NEW WELL ELEC. CONDUIT PROPOSED ADDITIONFIRE BOX ^"^EYARd setback LOT 12 OLD WELLfCAPPED; EXISTING CAS TANK LOCATION EXI5TINC SHED TO BE ELECT. METER REMOVED EXI5TINC ASPHALT DRIVE TELE. POLES >05.00' MAIL BOX EXISTINC BENCHMARK ^^^AIVD Lane IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS S. V = 2,624 S.F. = 470 S.F = -“TTS S.F. HOUSE & GARAGE ENTRY &: DECKS DRIVE Sc WALK PROPOSED SITE PLAN = S<^^%S.F.TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 15,741 S.F.LOT SIZE 24.9%I" = 20'-0"IMPERVIOUS % 3 / ® Baker* Hogan* Houx > olOARCHITECTURE &: PLANNING /A.I.A./P.C.o CDomP.O BOX 185. 650 3RD AVENUE SE. SUITE #10. PERHAM, MINNESOTA 56573 (216) 346-4505CO oip*-:DEAL LAKEHOME REMODEL O T* -O ABATTLE LAKE, MINNESOTA > WEST BATTLE LAKE WATER ELEVATION ON FEBRUARY 2^, 2006 - 1333.02 OHW - 1333.6 CLASSIFICATION - CD ‘?‘7.65* EXIST. STAIRS. LANDSOAPIN6 TIMBER NEW WELL ELEC. CONDUIT PROPOSED ADDITION BOXIO'-o« ^tback ^I^EYARd eetback LOT 12 OLD HELUCAPPED)EXISTING CAS TANK LOCATION I EXISTING SHED TO BEIELECT.REMOVED METER EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE TELE. >33POLES MAIL BOX EXISTINC BENCHMARK IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS S. f = 2,624 S.F. = 470 S.F = ^~ns S.F. SrAvfci t (lETAiNiNfe HOUSE & GARAGE ENTRY & DECKS DRIVE & WALK PROPOSED SITE PLAN = 3<ll?S.F.TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 15,741 S.F.LOT SIZE 24.9%IMPERVIOUS %- I" = 20'-0"/Y 3 h^h'i @ BAKER* HOGAN* HOUX g ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING /A.I.A./P.C. .i ii ir- §P.O BOX IBS, 650 3RD AVENUE SE. SUITE #10, PERHAM, MINNESOTA 56573 (216) 346-4S0500 SSsS® ■■s?S® =: .SiDEAL LAKEHOME REMODEL -4 ABATTLE LAKE, MINNESOTA