Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorthern Lights Resort_14000250197001_Variances_06-14-2001883685 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA 1 hereby certify that gy3685 this instrument #--------------------- was filed/recorded in this officefor record on the / ^_day of 2001 atWendyT3^^^^^Recorder by;orecording fee well certificate M.6 THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL COURTHOUSE, FERGUS FALLS, WIN 56537 (218) 739-2271 *** COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK*** Application Fee Receipt Number /-i/ke- re/!PROPERTY OWNER DAYTIME PHON ________________ ^.ckjji !U^ S6-576- _____LAKE CLASS AJ ^ t3>jiad. L.<xL^ 35387 Kjarihe/r\6^Mi !rCLi ! ^ADDRESS LAKE NUMBER LAKE NAME /3<r VOSECTIONTOWNSHIPRANGE TOWNSHIP NAME PARCEL NUMBER FIRE / LAKE I.D. NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION &L^i dom TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) s/structure Setback Structure Size Sewage System Subdivision Cluster Misc. SPECIFY VARIANCE REQUESTED ojibuiAMLJ. 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 5-14-01 SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER DATE RECEIVED MAY 1 6 2001 APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing) LAND & RESOURCE l>eaci irij<c jcj o /^C> -Ooo - ao / /v /^7- dO/ 33 5 ctuj? (pd\u / / / 15d?J(/ Mr ^<7^0 >Accepted By Land & Resource '-t:' & R Official/Date / Y. c^oa /Date Of Hearing Time Motion / Chairman/Otter Tail County Bo^rd^f Adjustment Permi^) required from Land & Resource Management Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant And the MN DNR bk 0198-001 291.306 • Victor Lundoeri Co, Pfinters • Fergus Falls. Minnesota Mike and Cheryl Harris - Approved as requested. Motion was made by David Holmgren, second by Frank Lachowitzer and unanimously carried, to approve the following as described and depicted in the application: “1. Enlarge Cabin #1 (a 3 bedroom) by 200sf. The addition would not exceed 10 ft long and 20 ft in width. This addition would require a variance of 69 ft from the set back of 200 ft for a total of 131 ft from the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the existing structure is set back 8T from the top of the bluff and 141 ft from the ordinary high water level. In addition, the roofline would be redesigned to encompass the addition. No impact would be noted on any adjoining properties for the line of sight blockage. With the addition on Cabin #1, it would not be any closer to the lake than other cabins next to it and will well exceed the 50 ft buffer requirement from the rear and side lot lines. The area of addition would be on the East side of the Cabin. The Cabin is located on the property immediately below a bluff, with wooded area on two sides of it. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to the current standards expected by the tourists in today’s society, although there will be no increase in people capacity or bedrooms. 2. Enlarge Cabin #5 (a 1 bedroom) by 241 sf. The dimensions would be an increase of T on the lakeside going East and 12’ on the backside going East with 23’ on the East side going North to connect all walls. This addition would require a variance of 117’ from the 200-foot setback. In addition, the roofline would be redone to encompass the entire cabin and look aesthetic from the lake. There would be no impact on buffer requirements from side or back lot lines. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to current standards expected in today’s tourist society. 3. Replace roofs, as needed, on existing cabins and in certain circumstances, realigning the roofline to better weather the snow and ice during the winter months, negating premature replacement in the future. The roofs, in many cases, are approaching 20 years in age. The realignment of rooflines will not enlarge the use capacity of any cabin, but will do much in making better aesthetics when viewed from the lake. 4. We request an expanded timeframe to complete these projects. The addition for Cabin #1 would commence in the fall of 2001 and be completed by spring 2002. The addition to Cabin #5 and the roof replacements would be completed over the course of two to seven years.” It was noted that none of the proposed development would be any closer to the ordinary high water level than the existing development, the proposed development is needed to service the resort customers and the Planning Commission will be doing additional review of the applicants’ proposed development. "June 14, 2001 ^ Page 2 Jon L Dreyer - Approved as modified. A Jon L. Dreyer, Montevideo, MN, requested a variance of 59’from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the replacement of an existing 14' by 60’ mobile home with a 16’ by 70’ mobile home 4 V - from the ordinary high water level and a variance of 6' from the required side lot line setback of 10’, a variance of 47’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ and a variance of 10’ from the required road right-of-way setback of 20’ for the replacement of an 8’ by 8’ storage shed with a 14’ by 26' storage building located 4’ from the south lot line, 53’ from the ordinary high water level and 10’ from the road right-of-way. The property is described as Lots 8 and 9, Comstock Beach, East Battle Lake in Girard Township. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration and discussion, motion was made by Steve Schierer, second by Frank Lachowitzer and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 50’ from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the replacement of an existing ^ - 14’ by 60’ mobile home with a 16’ by 70’ mobile home 50’ from the ordinary high water level and at least 10’ , from the side lot line. After additional discussion and consideration, motion was made by Mark Steuart,. ■ ,, second by Steve Schierer and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 50’-from the required ordinary high water level setback of 100’ for the placement of a 16’ by 20’ storage building 50’ from the ordinary high water level and at least 10’ from the side lot line. The applicant noted that no variance from the road right-of- way is required as the concerned road has been vacated. Hardship is a substandard lot of record. Lyle Rosendw - Approved as requested. Lyle Rosenow, Henning, MN, requested a variance of 100’ from the required 200’ lot width requirement for the development of an existing 2.5 acre metes and bounds parcel having a lot width of 100’. The, property is described as part of Government Lot 5, Section 22, aka Lot C of the Unrecorded Plat of Round Lake Acres, Round Lake in Rush Lake Township. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration and discussion, motion was made by Steve Schierer, second by David Holmgren ■ and carried with Frank Lachowitzer voting no, to declared a substandard back lot, having a width of 100’, a “ residential buildable lot. It was noted that this lot appears to have adequate area for development and should not require any additional variance in the future. Hardship is a post 1971 back lot which was a standard loL • when developed, but because of a 1992 ordinance change was classified as a non-buildable substandard back lot. Mike and Cheryl Harris - Approved as requested. r. Mike and Cheryl Harris, Richville, MN, requested the following: “1. Enlarge Cabin #1 (a 3 bedroom) by 200sf.' The addition would not exceed 10 ft long and 20 ft in width. This addition would require a variance of 69 ft ' from the set back of 200 ft for a total of 131 ft from the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the ' ■ existing structure is set back 81’ from the top of the bluff and 141 ft froni the ordinary high water level. In addition, the roofline would be redesigned to encompass the addition. No impact would be noted on any adjoining properties for the line of sight blockage. With the addition on Cabin #1, it would not be any closer to - the lake than other cabins next to it and will well exceed the 50 ft buffer requirement from the rear and sidelot lines. The area of addition would be on the East side of the Cabin. The Cabin is located on the property immediately below a bluff, with wooded area on two sides of it. There is a need to upgrade this cabin.to bring . it to the current standards expected by the tourists in today’s society, although there will be no increase in people capacity or bedrooms. 2. Enlarge Cabin #5 (a 1 bedroom) by 241 sf. The dimensions would be an increase of 7’ on the lakeside going East and 12’ on the backside going East with 23’ on the East side going North to connect all walls. This addition would require a variance of 117’ from the 200-foot setback. In addition, the roofline would be redone to encompass the entire cabin and look aesthetic from the lake. There, - would be no impact on buffer requirements from side or back lot lines. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to current standards expected in today’s tourist society. 3. Replace roofs, as needed, on existing ; cabins and in certain circumstances, realigning the roofline to better weather the snow and ice during the winter months, negating premature replacement in the future. f ' « • f^une 14,2001 Page 3 (Harris - Continued) The roofs, in many cases, are approaching 20 years in age. The realignment of rooflines will not enlarge the use capacity of any cabin, but will do much in making better aesthetics when viewed from the lake. 4. We request an expanded timeframe to complete these projects. The addition for Cabin #1 would commence in c the fall of 2001 and be completed by spring 2002. The addition to Cabin #5 and the roof replacements wouldV - be completed over the course of two to seven years.” The property is described as part of Government Lot 9, Section 25 of Dead Lake Township by Dead Lake. The audience was polled with Hillary Barry and Duane Donley speaking for the request. A letter from Victor Sonnenberg, Duane Bohne and Hillary Barry, Dead Lake Town Board members, in support of the variance as requested was read for the record. After consideration and discussion, motion was made by David Holmgren, second by Frank Lachowitzer and unanimously carried, to approve the following as described and depicted in the application: “1. Enlarge Cabin #1 (a 3 bedroom) by 200sf. The addition would not exceed 10 ft long and 20 ft in width. This addition would require a variance of 69 ft from the set back of 200 ft for a total of .131 ft from.the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the existing structure is set back 8T from the top of the bluff and 141 ft from the ordinary high water level. In addition, the roofline would be redesigned to encompass the addition; No impact would be noted on any adjoining properties for the line of sight blockage. With the addition on Cabin #1, it would not be any closer to the lake than other cabins next to it and will well exceed the 50 ft buffer requirement from the rear and side lot lines. The area of addition would be on the East side of the Cabin. The " Cabin is located on the property immediately below a bluff, with wooded area on two sides of it. There is a' need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to the current standards expected by the tourists in today’s society, . ^ although there will be no increase in people capacity or bedrooms. 2. Enlarge Cabin #5 (a 1 bedroom) by ' 241 sf. The dimensions would be an increase of 7’ on the lakeside going East and 12’ on the backside going East with 23’ on the East side going North to connect all walls. This addition would require a variance of 117’ from the 200-foot setback. In addition, the roofline would be redone to encompass the entire cabin and look aesthetic from the lake. There would be no impact on buffer requirements from side or back lot lines. There., is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to curr,ent standards expected in today’s tourist society. 3; Replace roofs, as needed, on existing cabins and in certain circumstances, realigning the roofline to better weather the snow and ice during the winter months, negating premature replacement in the future. The roofs, in many . '. cases, are approaching 20 years in age. The realignment of rooflines will not enlarge the use capacity of any ' , cabin, but will do much in making better aesthetics when viewed from the lake. 4. We request an expanded timeframe to complete these projects. The addition for Cabin #1 would commence in the fall of 2001 and be ' completed by spring 2002. The addition to Cabin #5 and the roof replacements would be completed over the / course of two to seven years.” . , It was noted that none of the proposed development would be any closer to the ordinary high water level than the existing development, the proposed development is needed to service the resort customers and the Planning Commission will be doing additional reyiew of the applicants’ proposed development. Keith and Linda Sellner - Approved as requested. Keith and Linda Sellner, Dalton, MN, requested a variance to have a substandard non-buildable back lot classified as a buildable back lot. The property is described as Lot 4, Block 1, Hill and Vale Acres, South Ten Mile Lake in Tumuji Township. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the request. After consideration and discussion, motion was made by Steve Schierer, second by David Holmgren and unanimously carried, to approve changing the classification of Lot 4, Block 1, Hill and Vale Acres from a substandard non-buildable back lot to a buildable back lot. Hardship is a post 1971 back lot which was a standard lot when developed, but because of a 1992 ordinance change was classified as a non-buildable substandard back lot. 06/12/01 13:13 FAX 2187583478 FSB DENT DEAP LAKE TOWNSHIP OFFICE Deni, Minneeele S0S26 i- June 12.2001 Wayne Stein Otter Tail County Auditor 121 West Junius Ave Fergus Falls, MN 56537 RE:. Application for a variance filed by Mike and Cheryl Harris to make general improvements on their resort located on Dead Uake- Dear Members or the Variance Board; The Dead Lake Town Board views the changes to be made at the Northern Lights Resort as necessary improvements that wiil enhance the vaiue of the property, as weil as encourage additionai tourism to the area. The resort is In a convenient location for traveiers and the coritinued development of this site would benefit the County, as well as the Harris's when the work is completed. This Board is not opposed to granting the requested variances. Respectfully, DEAD LAKE TOWN BOARD Victor Sonnenberg Duane Bohne Hilary Barry Cc; Land & Resource Management OfTice ‘y * Varigi\ce Request by Mike and Cheryl Harris: 1. Enlarge Cabin #1 (a 3 bedroom) by 200sf. The addition would not exceed 10 ft long and 20 ft in width. This addition would require a variance of 69 ft from the set back of 200 ft for a total of 131 ft from the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the existing structure is set back 81 ft from the top of the bluff and 141 ft from the ordinary high water level. In addition, the roofline would be redesigned to encompass the addition. No impact would be noted on any adjoining properties for line of sight blockage. With the addition on Cabin #1, it would not be any closer to the lake than other cabins next to it and will well exceed the 50 ft buffer requirement from the rear and side lot lines. The area of addition would be on the East side of the Cabin. The Cabin is located on the property immediately below a bluff, with wooded area on two sides of it. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to the current standards expected by the tourists in today’s society, although there will be no increase in people capacity or bedrooms. 2. Enlarge Cabin #5 (a 1 bedroom) by 241sf. The dimensions would be an increase of 7’ on the lakeside going East and 12’ on the backside going East with 23’ on the East side going North to connect all walls. This addition would require a variance of 117’ from the 200 foot setback. In addition, the roofline would be redone to encompass the entire cabin and look aesthetic from the lake. There would be no impact on buffer requirements from side or back lot lines. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to current standards expected in today’s tourist society. 3. Replace roofs, as needed, on existing cabins and in certain circumstances, realigning the roofline to better weather the snow and ice during the winter months, negating premature replacement in the future. The roofs, in many cases, are approaching 20 years in age. The realignment of rooflines will not enlarge the use capacity of any cabin, but will do much in making better aesthetics when viewed from the lake. 4. We request an expanded timeframe to complete these projects. The addition for Cabin #1 would commence in the fall of 2001 and be completed by spring 2002. The addition to Cabin #5 and the roof replacements would be completed over the course of two to seven years. RECEIVED MAY 1 6 2001 LAND & RESOURCE the following: “1. Enlarge Cabin #1 (a 3 bedroom) by 200sf. The addition would not exceed 10 ft long and 20 ft in width. This addition would require a variance of 69 ft from the set back of 200 ft for a total of 131 ft from the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the existing structure is set back 8T from the top of the bluff and 141 ft from the ordinary high water level. In addition, the roofline would be redesigned to encompass'the addition. No impact would be noted on any adjoining properties for the line of sight blockage. With the addition on Cabin #1, it would not be any closer to the lake than other cabins next to it and will well exceed the 50 ft buffer requirement from the rear and side lot lines. The area of addition would be on the East side of the Cabin. The Cabin is located on the property immediately below a bluff, with wooded area on two sides of it. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to the current standards expected by the tourists in today’s society, although there will be no increase in people capacity or bedrooms. 2. Enlarge Cabin #5 (a 1 bedroom) by 241 sf. The dimensions would be an increase of 7’ on the lakeside going East and 12’ on the backside going East with 23’ on the East side going North to connect all walls. This addition would require a variance of 117’ from the 200 foot setback. In addition, the roofline would be redone to encompass the entire cabin and look aesthetic from the lake. There would be no impact on buffer requirements from side or back lot lines. There is a need to upgrade this cabin to bring it to current standards expected in today’s tourist society. 3. Replace roofs, as needed, on existing cabins and in certain circumstances, realigning the roofline to better weather the snow and ice during the winter , months, negating premature replacement in the future. The roofs, in many cases, are approaching 20 years in age. The realignment of rooflines will not enlarge the use capacity of any cabin, but will do much in making better aesthetics when viewed from the lake. 4. We request an expanded timeframe to complete these projects. The addition for Cabin #1 would commence in the fall of 2001 and be completed by spring 2002. The addition to Cabin #5 and the roof replacements would be completed over the course of two to seven years.” 8'f •V -H)Iqrj feSas, ---^ >UliXlSTlNG UOR/ve ju fcu^U-. V.(v-<-'’-JL s , O d'lwj' 0*^ 96.71 5=^-^ »ClEANOUTJ. o o SEPTIC1C-5 1 C-6 99.91C-7C-8 <iu<J I—«- y~ y, h SPIKE IN TREE98.91 CLEANOUTS ELEV. tOO.OOASSUMED.97.(194.91 ■‘i--V>«-A j \\ 3/ \FISH cleanDRAIN FIELD ELEV. 105.41 i EAiT V Oti5nw'> I HOMEi O cleanout GROUND ELEV. 112.6 I OiL>nfc>'i GARAGE OVER head power LINES propo5>ie.c^ dixiairs ^Ala.r^n^enV pfopCiSitA 0>f IToc,r_j received +0llA-i^ d(0^€S+may 1 6 2001 WND& RESOURCE N 89°47'l l" W 4nR Ko nrr'N 89® 47 ' I I " w 4 M 48 DEED