Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17000990658000_Variances_04-10-2003M'lO-2003 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this Instrument # . was filed/recorded in this office for record on the ) to day of \ fif] 2003 at y:^6anrybn^ . Metcalf^ Coupty F^orddf^ ^Oepaty 9256G0 aWendy by: r i,j-Q- LQcjM ‘^corolng fee well certificate THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE received FEB 0 4 2003 rece^jed FEB 2 7 2003 COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL COURTHOUSE, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 {218) 739-2271 Ext. 225 Otter Tail County’s Website: www.co.ottertail.mn.us WND& RESOURCE lands. RESOURCE MM! DAYTIME PHON^:?/ 7 ) jH^/ MAILING ADDRESS2? X'A''/)Z}4-yty/h^^L TTA-. LAKE NUMBER SECTION PARCELNUMBER / 7^ 0^ 6^jr.^AAr^ Application Fee COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK Receipt Number _ Accepted By / Date 0"'i"T7!>/y ZPROPERTY OWNER LAKE NAME TOWNSHIP 7 RANGE TOWNSHIP NAME _______________ E-911 ADDRESS 727A^ kZXl AAA' 77Y H /LAKE CLASS J~> LEGAL DESCRIPTION y TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) i.''''^ructure SizeStructure Setback ___ ___Sewage System____ Subdivision___ ____ ____» j4- _________ SPECIFY VARIANCE REQUESTED^'^ AAf a J'^r 04a7<^ C A' 7=^7^^T/^/~ JU~Al^A <H f /yrA>^^ ^7^ 77^ A4/^ Cluster Misc. Wa 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. 7^Signature of property owner /0-/>O2->i DATE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING (Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) * . »2)iinn f ni‘0 (^i'ooo ctLujl. ^ 5 U5^-00f /dCL^ (/'6w? d.(t^(^66 '- 0’0’i O’ip^[pCl ’^f^eckcr C ^O’ 0^ 0(pO V' - o3--^d dO /^rr\ .Date Of Hearing Time Motion Jim and Tom Mueller - Denied. (7:20 p.m.) Motion was made by Steve Schierer, second by Mark Steuart and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested as no adequate hardship unique to the property has been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance as requested and noting that there is adequate room to place the proposed structure 10’ from the side lot line. It should be noted that the Board of Adjustment did express concern over the amount of impervious surfaces and did questions whether the maximum allowable coverage would be exceeded by the addition of the proposed garage. tter Tail County Board of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management _______Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No k/ju/p.? LR Offlcial/Date Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant And the MN DNR BK-0402-001 309,424 - Victor Lundeen Company, Fergus Falls, Minnesota I w.grjd(s) equals feet, or Jnch(9S) equals feetScale: r 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, lot lines, sewage system, top of bluff, existing structures and all imper­ vious surface. Required impervious surface coverage calculation (See definition in Shoreland Management Ordinance) * L>^X 100 =% Total Impervious Surface Onsite (FT2) Total Lot Area (FT2) U'-< lot ^-4^ Tivomp^! LOT I ^8' kiuLfifidey Rofto pemoir Uixtss, rtUJ 5'(^5c\ A V 30' ro'jsp:RBC" VED FEB V 7 2003 so' LAND ft t'.ESOURCE 10 \ fcech fpprrre-'S cf^ucvLPkfxPii hoP$tS^ fr?ticH •^oO &ud.0r 5\mwffL<S efhr hPU5£ VlLWBTWnS 570 m^£ PRf}fC6^ 3^6 ;w'—><:-----X4-'----^ csyr<^&£ /7'-> St3^'f34- 33iOID3 T 3dC>V 30A )18‘14>'MS(ai4'n1^mio s ■3^'4•i'■V r T/i^rs c:>A3 A S4>-^ fr> TtrS t4^£ebBST^ s Hoo6^ I Aao'rtiis IS tPL'i (5 Rcoirn SktTcH PF- TMB SePTIC PfSTB/h itJ dBu^rrpu 70 STnpcri/Pi^s £>aj rUFT f^PPjB^TY J^9^ic ‘Ji Ipump'' A ^1 I IIppoposeo I ax'!sI4 >wII I I M74j <—iS' /PiT'A. 30'wrvi 7 Siemoe- SHtO ■O'(O' vitrili] t-ieun I__V.V DatedSignature BK — 0500 — 029 304.678 • Victor Lundeen Co.. Printers • Fergus Falls. MN • 1-800-3464870 t 7^m m< ma easier vehicle maneuvering. As an added note, there is no road right of way staked out as requested. As far as we know there is no road right of way as many years ago Fair Hills Resort built the existing road and entry from HWY 20 to alter the entry road that used to come in across the south edge of their golf course. Most of the road is built on Fair Hills property. Also, it would not have any effect on the location of the proposed garage. This may be superfluous but is included as an added explanation. We have considered the following: A 20’ X 23’ garage with an east-facing door built with the current 1-foot setback with walls parallel to the walls of the existing structure. This would have blocked light to our neighbor’s guesthouse windows. Also requesting a 1-foot setback continuance would probably be frowned upon. 1. Same as above but with the requested 6 foot setback. This would protrude 4 feet further into the yard than the existing structure blocking the view of the yard from the house and reducing the usable recreational area making it difficult if not impossible to play the above mentioned games. It would also make temporary vehicle parking and maneuvering much more difficult. 2. We did reduce the size to the minimum we require to store our two boats (18’ X 22’) and placed the door to the north for the reasons stated in the variance request paragraph. We thank you for your kind consideration of this request and hope for your favorable consideration. Jim & Tom Mueller 24378 Killamey Road Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 218-532-7306 2625-E. Kessler Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46260 September 1,2003 Mr. Randy Mann Ottertail County Board of Adjustments Ottertail County Courthouse Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Gentlemen; We would like to request a rdiearing of our case from the April 10, 2003 meeting of the board at which our application for variance was denied. From the information we received about the meeting and after listening to the audiotape of the meeting we feel that there were some misunderstandings about the application that need to be addressed. After listening to the tape of the meeting it was implied that the diagram which accompanied our application was incorrect. We rechecked all the measurements and found no major errors in any of the listed dimensions. There was discussion as to the impervious surface exceeding the allowable 25%. This is not correct. There was also discussion as to added concrete/asphalt for a driveway from the existing drive to the proposed garage. This was not shown on the diagram and there is no intention to add a driveway. The existing drive was installed strictly to control erosion. You expressed concern about a fire hazard with the closeness of the proposed garage to our neighbors existing building. I have dealt with the Indianapolis, fN zoning board of adjustmait and the variance was granted with the provision that two hour 5/8” flame-retardant sheet rock be installed on the inside wall facing the neighbor’s property. This can be done in this case also. As to the hardship issue, the board indicated it was an inconvenience and that the proposed garage could be built further into the yard to comply with the 10’ setback. We consider this a hardship as this robs us of part of the only open space where grandchildren and guests can set up games such as volleyball, badminton and croquet and have sufficient room to play. Regarding the statement on the tape of the meeting that the listed dimensions for the patio were incorrect, they were checked and found to be basically accurate. We did make an error in calculating the total square feet of the patio by 240 square feet. Taking this into account, recalculating the impervious surface coverage goes from 22.6% to 24.4% which is still within limits of code. tiiFor the above reasons a rdiearing of our original variance request is sought for your September 13 meeting while we are still at the lake to respond to any questions or concerns you may have. ,espectMlyr Jim & Tom Mueller April lu, ^uuj Page # 4 Steve Nelson - Approved as requested. (7:12 p.m.) Steve Nelson Et. AL, part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 9 of Perham Township, requested a variance to subdivide, by metes and bounds description, an existing 5-acre parcel into two tracts. One tract would be 3.5 acres and the other tract would be 1.5 acres. A letter from the City of Perham advising the applicant of the need to comply with the City of Perham’s airport zoning ordinance was read for the record. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration, motion was made by Cecil Femling, second by Paul Larson and earned with Rod Boyer voting no, to approve a variance to subdivide, by metes and bounds description, an existing 5 acre parcel into two tracts as identified on the registered surveyor’s drawing, which was submit with the applicant’s variance application. Jim and Tom Mueller - Denied. (7:20 p.m.) Jim and Tom Mueller, Lot 46, Minnie H. Barry’s Addition to Killarney Beach, Pelican Lake in Dunn Township, requested the following; We are requesting a side (west) setback of 6’ rather than 10’ so that the east and west walls of.the proposed 18’ by 22’ garage will continue the same line as the existing guest house part of the structure. The proposed 18’ by 22’ garage would have a north-facing door. This would preserve our view of the yard and as much green space as possible. The steep hill in back and the location of the septic system necessitate construction in the proposed area. It also makes for continued easy entry to the back yard and easier vehicle maneuvering. Paul Horvick represented the applicants 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 Mark Steuart and unanimously carried, to deny the variance as requested as no adequate hardship unique to the property has been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance as requested and noting that there is adequate room to place the proposed structure 10’ from the side lot line. It should be noted that the Board of Adjustment did express concern over the amount of impervious surfaces and did questions whether the maximum allowable coverage would be exceeded by the addition of the proposed garage. Mary A. Smith - Approved as requested. (7:28 p.m.) Mary A. Smith, Lot 8, Kimber Beach, Blanche Lake in Girard Township, requested a variance of 4’ from the required west side lot line setback of 10’ for the enclosure of an existing deck and for an 1T by 29.4’ deck extension each being located 6’ from the lot line. Rick Bladow 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 approve a variance of 4’ from the required west side lot line setback of 10’ for the enclosure of an existing deck and for an 1T by 29.4’deck extension each being located 6’ from the lot line. It was noted that the applicant’s proposed project will be no closer to the side lot line than the present structure and that the proposed development does not obstruct the view from the neighboring properties.