Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18000990296000_Variances_12-03-2008Variances 2 Barcode 128 \zl05l200fe ^ ■ ■ OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA1049144 1 hereby certify this instrument #_—--------------- was filed/recorded in this office for record on the. S------ ( 2008 at/2. / ‘=T an^^l v/CoJb^ ^recordinq f^»^ well certifuate 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 Application Fee ^ *30(9-OP Receipt Number Accepted By / Date COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK /^//s, /p9A^ SZ>fS3y DAYTIME PHONEPROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS LAKE NUMBER 6ifLAKE NAME LAKE CLASS 37^ 77/ S s-^sr/s- /Ml/s-'TOWNSHIP RANGE TOWNSHIP NAMESECTION PARCEL NUMBER E-911 ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION 7 7?D * .//4C TR/ T7^&C7-/A/ /S-/3/-^D ■4j:>d T2> ^o7~ // /vor To S£^ <sPl/7^ Doc -^/pC7j.O/ TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) Misc.Subdivision ClusterStructure Setback Structure Size Sewage System SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. 7vyp07 ^//H7.pl- 7S■ I' frpoo 07/p/^//y?C /, /%?, ^ '/li -/ypos i^y// M Ip f/oc. OOP 7^0 pppfl? /p7^ l/7e^ C7/6//h^ / 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 &ARI5(nG THIS MATTER.lANAi I^E^OF^CfPERTY OWNBfW AGENT FOR OWNER DATESIGNATI APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) ’ f TimeDate Of Hearing Motion Linda and Loren Bailey - Approved ordinary high water levei setback request and deny side iot line request. (8:00 p.m.) After discussion and consideration, Steve Schierer made a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of approximately 10’ from the required shore impact zone setback of 50’, to approve a variance of 35’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 75’ and to deny the side lot line variance as requested for the placement of a dwelling/additions, not exceeding two-stories in height, approximately 40’ from the ordinary high water level as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application and at least 10’ from the side lot line. It should be noted that the variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for the proposed development. It should also be noted that the variance as approved will secure for the applicants the same rights enjoyed by others in this immediate area. airman/otter Tail County of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management X Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No 'v Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR L R Official/Date bk 0407-001 329.512 - Victor Lundeen Company. Fergus Falls. Minnesota ■•I V I !(;; \5 •i M,U.40. I iI i Irom A *isVilp whence I't. i I i i :l:■1-es If.:s>- I I •i!» Qool Lio'HiI, Plo-Hecl 4,/o iior,1-UtiplaHed l3S<i.ci-cst ScjVI- f.'I.i-c!\ :V. ■ < C/oO ^ 4 Crco^^Lc/.^( 2,0 <tc^Gs4?■ ■I-U/s/fvla.He<J 34.7S'^<.f4^s\; "ilv:II1f i 5c<xVe V"='o°' : ' • tiroM > i^onU m evi\s K I OCXejlKJAu Pwt I1 yt:I ■i I .' vr:' -•y; •I lirrfbv certify tbot tbis survey, plnn, rir report , , prepnrrrl by me or linclcr niy cfirect super- ,1:' 'V vision ('n»' tl'int 1 !'.n\ a duly rqjistcred Land Surveyor under .'atvs'ot ilic St.itc of Minne- y* ‘’■*■ . NoiteLj j WAS ;7V/.»W) paid an:i ,> eni<-V(>a' fhj!^!?:i^dap ''Of~h^(f^V I; ;. '•■■■;; f.: . ,'d; f '■ -WI Dme !•y.'. •: .'i''bU 'thekBoAPiD df ; Coiiw; iIi.<\ .. 1 /y?/:*I:i • ? W'‘ ''..................Goftn Eii.sif V' ‘ •< ■ •: .>:iypKet»l)5f'citrlll> m. i r*. ' >'^rh fi iKiyi f*'nI ....J ri-\; ' •o W CO N o- • • •. • •:Jn^ -C.. oj ;•■••/ 00_ •,••••\•.c-I \.cq—33’\ NO oo ^y C4cnCn IU | sWiy exit;,,Sion 'I of the SE'ly line ; =?! of Lot/: • \ SCO o oCT>a\ O', 00 ®®.SdI \1 Lot N / ^ )N - \/ . \ ■’^coO(J"' '. i ■• I ’. I 1 !i1*‘;!fU „i1-i i 11tiII A . ‘II i!51 r t isiI K .. .K 't'f1}4 iI)i(T:Ii I4 ii!I-r-«-l!i i.\L4^'-l ;!I ,!i!,iM ;............ i r-f-iiX:,L JT;t\■\i...1i ■i !Atru4 C>^uiE- 3.S411';i...........4; : : ...,.; : I......,...4 I 1 I 7I i\•J-i 4 i-Ii ;<1/r i[1;.1.i A/!i 'VT -i-^ cb Z.6*23.^'?'tI t I.>1^{_"1 i ■ irI. aup o ^ ■| Srt’O'iiu.v^}NI.1 JV'1 t'?I ;:Ii';I «i ■; f!:^ StDK?. U|;I nBi ^4. S\‘a4 i I-i !;i \1i i i Li ■tv I _ (p‘ 4 I }I/i(p‘ -!Ii i].ii I -S,J I ■;!i ;O ■Rl' P s4ioJ^gt^>a^e: +4©,1,.;i !•!1-...,.I ;JLU3'/ l5S-P> \*; f '1.4 1» .........;L4D'r"j- (ULtsioe^^'^T^^^i I-79.1A*; ; “ i 'iB'e is.m- 1 I I'4 - 4-[;[;;1I !r I 5 !■i_{ \iI; ; .A i ood Business Forms (800) 443-1004 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION WORKSHEET: List of Onsite (Existing and Proposed) Impervious Surfaces (must be shown on scale drawing): 17^4-Ft2Structure(s): Ft2Deck(s): \ho Ft2Driveway(s); ^QQ Ft2Patio(s): Ft2Sidewalk(s); 4o Ft2Stairway(s); \o Ft2Retaining Wall(s): Ft2Landscaping: (Plastic Barrier) Other:Ft2 22-00 Ft2TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Ft2LOT AREA: X100 =.% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOTOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT AREA % G Regarding; Loren and Linda Bailey Variance Request Lot 11 Rosenquist Beach-Eo'^g^ Lake Dear Board of Adjustment Members: We are writing in support of denial of the variance requested by Loren and Linda Bailey (applicants). November 23, 2CX)8 oOttertail County Board of Adjustment The views herein are those of Connie Prunty (owner-37605 S. Eagle Lake Trail) and her husband Pat Prunty). We are the first cabin to the north of the applicants and are separated by a bare lot. 1. The variance is substantiai-40% from the shore impact zone, 47% from the ordinary high water level and 40% from the north lot line setback. 2. The variance could have an adverse impact on government services-the applicants and their extended families frequently park multiple vehicles on the bare lot immediately to the north. If this lot is not available for parking in the future and the variance is granted there will be even less parking on the applicants property and they may then park on the road which is narrow (it is as commonly referred to as a cart path as often as it is referred to as a road by local residents). Such road parking also would have an adverse impact on other vehicle traffic including pumper, gas and garbage trucks. 3. The variance it granted could set precedence- others in this immediate neighborhood would be entitled to similar variances. Consistent with the applicants' lot, several lots in the immediate neighborhood are of similar size and are not of sufficient size to qualify for initial construction of a dwelling except they are currently grandfathered in. 4. The applicants created the need for the variance and there is no hardship involved-at all times during which the applicants have owned the property they have had multiple children all of child bearing age. The property is frequented by the applicants and their adult children and their growing number of offspring. 5. The variance will secure for the applicants greater right or rights than those enjoyed by others in the immediate area-most neighboring properties are currently utilized by less families than the applicants and their extended families. If granted, it could encourage others to turn single family dwellings into dwellings that encourage multi-family usage. Without the variance applicants currently have reasonable use of the property. 6. Granting of the variance Is contrary to the public interest and detrimental to other properties in the area-making the dwelling larger encourages the applicants and their extended families to utilize it more and have additional personal property. Currently the applicants utilize the neighboring bare lot to park (as discussed above), store boats and trailers on, have playground equipment on apd^portion of their dog kennel on. Secondly, if due to additional bCw<^g, applicants, their extended families and/or guests begin to park on the side of the narrow road it could present safety and significant road maintenance and construction issues. Finally, we support the intention of the shoreline ordinance and respectfully request you to deny the applicants request. The ordinance was put in place to protect the Otter Tail lake resources and unless there is a particular hardship that needs to be remedied we do not support granting variance requests which dilute the effectiveness of the ordinance. Respectfully submitted. 'VI (PPat and Connie Prunty %%November 26, 2008 Dear Board of Adjustment Members: Unfortunately we can not make your December meeting where you are going to consider the variance request by Lauren and Linda Bailey on their Lot 11 Rosenquist Beach Eagle Lake Property. We do not support the variance request. We own the property 3 lots to the north and share a common road which is very narrow. Currently, the Baileys and children and families use the bare lot to the immediate north of them to park vehicles and have various other personal property infringing on the lot. If the lot is not available to them and if they build the addition to their cabin they will have less bare land for their numerous vehicles and extensive personal property. The result could be that they will park on the side of the narrow road. This could cause safety and access issues for fire trucks, ambulances, and other vehicles that need to use the road. The ordinance was put in place to avoid overcrowding and allow enjoyment of Otter Tail County's extensive lake resources. Currently the Baileys frequently have members of several related families utilize the property that is intended to be used primarily by a single family. Granting the variance request will likely encourage further multi-family usage of this and other neighboring properties. The lot is small by today's standards and the variance request is substantial. They are requesting variance of 3 requirements that include distance from the shore impact zone and setbacks from the high water level and side lot setbacks. There is no hardship that creates the need for the variance. If the Baileys find the property to be too small for their needs they should purchase other larger property rather than get a variance to turn a single family cabin into a multiple family cabin or house. Sincerely, Jeff and Ruth Gallagher Variance Board Ottertail County Fergus Falls, MN Dear Sirs/Ma’ams: This letter is in regard to the building variance being requested by Loren Bailey for a two story cabin on Eagle Lake. Being a property owner on the same beach as the Baileys, I am opposed to such a variance. The 10 foot buffer zone should be adhered to on both his south lot line and the road line. Building a two story house that close to the lot line will infringe on the comfort zone of the other property owner. Swirling wind damage, leave buildup, snow accumulation and rain drainage from the roof are all concerns, too. Being that close to the road line could affect emergency vehicle access to cabins that are on the north side of the Baileys. I understand that a person should be allowed to build the type of residence that they desire on their own property. However, I believe there is enough space on the property in question that the property owners can adhere to the current building regulations in Eagle Lake township and Ottertail County. Sincerely, Bev Peterson, property owner Rosenquist Beach on Eagle Lake Ottertail County December 3, 2008 Page # 2 Alan W. Pettit-Denied. (6:54 p.m.) Alan W. Pettit, part of Jackson and McKee’s Addition and part of Government Lot 1, Section 23 of Pine Lake Township, requested the following: We have an existing,deck. We are requesting a variance of approximately 18’ from the ordinary high water level to build a three season porch over the existing deck and a small covered walk way on to the existing dwelling. The portion of the dwelling where the new additions will be attached is ahead of the building line. The proposed additions will be approximately 57’ to the ordinary high water level. Jeff Pettit 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, Michael Harris made a motion, second by Steve Schierer and carried with Paul Larson voting no to deny the variance as requested noting that the variance as requested is a substantial variation from the requirement of the zoning ordinance, that there is another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance and the proposed development is contrary to the public interest in that it would establish precedence and potentially restrict view from the adjacent property. Ann and Timothy Schmidt - Approved the variance application as requested with a condition. (7:20 p.m.) Ann and Timothy Schmidt, part of Government Lot 3, Section 20 of Girard Township by West Battle Lake, requested the following: We are proposing for future development these two lots (survey on file with the County Auditor’s office). Lot 2 will be accessed from an existing access easement (Document Number 897230). This is the same way the lot is accessed now. Lot 2 would not have public road frontage. Lot 1 would be accessed from Beauty Shore Trail. We are requesting a variance from minimum road standards. Brad Nyberg, Surveyor, appeared with the applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with Bill Weitzel providing general information regarding the area and with Diana Johnson expressing concerns with the variance as requested. An email from Diana Johnson in opposition.to the variance as requested was read for the record. A letter from Kingsley D. Holman in support of the email written by Diane Johnson was read for the record. Letters from Keith and Elizabeth Keller, Richard and Laura Miller, Sara Soucy and Jack and Bev Bernard in opposition to the variance as requested was read for the record. After discussion and consideration, Paul Larson made a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to approve access to proposed Lot 2 from the existing access easement as described in the variance application dated November 7, 2008 and as depicted on the registered surveyor’s drawing submitted with the variance application with the condition that the existing access easement serving proposed Lot 2 cannot be connected to Beauty Shore Trail. In other words there can be no road constructed across proposed Lots 1 and 2 that would connect the access easement as shown on the registered surveyor’s drawing dated November 7, 2008 with Beauty Shore Trail. Linda and Loren Bailey - Approved ordinary high water level setback request and deny side lot line request. (8:00 p.m.) Linda and Loren Bailey, Lot 11 Rosenquist Beach, Eagle Lake in Eagle Lake Township, requested the following: variance request of approximately: 10’ from the 50’ shore impact zone; 35’ from the ordinary high water level setback of 75’; 4’ from the 10’ north lot line setback. Planned 1, 1 and TA story additions will not be closer to the lake nor to the north lot line than existing cabin. The audience was polled with Grant.Johnson speaking against the variance as requested and with Mark Carlson expressing concerns with the proposed development. Letters from Pat and Connie Prunty, Jeff and Ruth Gallagher and Bev Peterson in opposition to the variance as requested was read for the record. After discussion and consideration, Steve Schierer made a motion, second by Michael Harris and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of approximately 10’ from the required shore impact zone setback of 50’, to approve a variance of 35’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 75’ and to deny the side lot line variance as requested for the placement of a dwelling/additions, not exceeding two-stories in height, approximately 40’ from the ordinary high water level as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application and at least 10’ from the side lot line. It should be noted that the variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for the proposed development. It should also be noted that the variance as approved will secure for the applicants the same rights enjoyed by others in this immediate area.