HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 May 1, 2017 Item No. ______
SANDI RAINES VARIANCE
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to deny the Sandi Raines variance application
and adopt the findings of fact for denial.
Overview
Sandi Raines has applied for a variance to allow her to keep a deck pergola and to increase the
impervious surface area on her property located at 12245 – 175th Street. A variance within the
Shoreland Overlay District must meet all of the criteria listed in Sections 11-6-5 and 11-102-23 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Raines received approval of a conditional use permit on November 16, 2015 to expand the non-
conforming home by allowing the construction of a deck on the east side of the house provided the
deck met setback requirements. Building Inspections staff discovered a pergola had been constructed
on the deck in violation of the building permit issued for the deck and in violation of what was allowed
by the approved conditional use permit. The setback violation pertains to approximately 12 feet of the
north end of the pergola and the pergola posts that encroach into the setback from the Orchard Lake
Ordinary High Water Level. Staff has been working with Ms. Raines since February 2, 2015 to gain
compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements for numerous non-conformities on this property
after receiving a complaint from a neighbor about parking on the grass and a fence encroachment onto
the property to the east of the Raines property.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 20, 2017 to consider the variance
application. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance
because the application does not meet the variance criteria outlined in Section 11-6-5 the Zoning
Ordinance. There was no public comment at the public hearing.
Primary Issues to Consider
What are the implications if the Sandi Raines variance is approved?
Please reference Page 2 for Response to Primary Issues to Consider.
Supporting Information
• Response to Primary Issues to Consider
• Findings of fact for denial
• April 20, 2017draft Planning Commission meeting minutes
• April 14, 2017 planning report
• Material submitted by the applicant at the public hearing
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y☐ N☐ Source:
Related Documents: (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Design that Connects the Community
Report Completed by: Frank Dempsey, AICP, Associate Planner
City Council Memo
Raines Variance
Page 2 of 2
Response to Primary Issues to Consider
The variance application does not meet all seven criteria required for approval by Section 11-6-5
of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the
requirements for eliminating non-conformities stated in Sections 11-15-7 and 11-102-15 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Please reference the findings of fact included in the City Council packet.
Approval of the variance application will establish a precedent reversing consistent enforcement
and property owner compliance with the Shoreland Overlay District regulations for lakeshore
properties since adoption of the shoreland regulations in 1978.
1
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SANDI RAINES VARIANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
On April 20, 2017 the Lakeville Planning Commission met at it’s regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application of Sandi Raines for a variance to a deck structure setback from the
Orchard Lake Ordinary High Water Level and for impervious surface area on property located at
12245 – 175th Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The applicant was present and the Planning
Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The City Council
hereby adopts the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located in Planning District No. 1 of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan which
guides the property for low density residential land uses.
2. The property is zoned RS-1, Single Family Residential District and Shoreland Overlay
District.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 8, and the West Quarter of Lot 9, Block 4, Lyndale Lakes Club 2nd Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the
Register of Deeds, Dakota County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of Club Beach Lyndale Lakes Club 2nd Addition lying between the West line
of the East three-quarters of Lot 9 and the West line of Lot 8, Block 4, Lyndale Lakes
Club 2nd Addition, extended Northerly to the shore of Orchard Lake, according to the
recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office or the Register of Deeds,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of Club Beach, Lyndale Lakes Club #1, according to the recorded plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Dakota County,
Minnesota, lying between the East and West line of Lot 8, Block 4, prod North to
Lake Shore.
2
4. Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that certain criteria be met in
consideration of a variance request. The criteria and our findings regarding them are:
a) That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan requires strict enforcement of land use and zoning
regulations to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The single family home
without the deck/pergola encroachment and the parking strips would be a reasonable
use of the property.
b) That the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Finding: The pergola structure is set back 38 feet to the OHWL. A minimum 50 foot
setback is required. The further intensification of the building area within the
OHWL setback is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant’s narrative addressing the variance criteria does not
demonstrate compliance with this criteria.
c) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
not created by the landowner.
Finding: The pergola structure was not proposed nor approved with the conditional
use permit approved by the City Council on November 16, 2015. The pergola and
pergola posts were installed without issuance of a building permit. The plight of the
landowner was created by the landowner.
d) That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively for economic considerations.
Finding: The applicant’s narrative describes the reason for the pergola is for
aesthetic and economic value considerations, which are not recognized as
consideration for a variance as specified by the criteria.
e) That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
Finding: Allowing the encroachment to remain would be in conflict with shoreland
development policy to remove non-conformities on lakeshore properties.
3
f) That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the
practical difficulty.
Finding: Only that portion of the pergola located within 50 feet of the OHWL would
have to be removed. It would be up to the property owner to keep or remove the
remaining pergola structure that meets the setback requirement.
g) Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this section
for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located.
Finding: The single family residential use is an allowed use of the property subject to
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
5. The planning report dated April 14, 2017 and prepared by Associate Planner, Frank
Dempsey is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The City Council hereby denies the variance application.
DATED: May 1, 2017
LAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL
BY: __________________________
Douglas P. Anderson, Mayor
BY: __________________________
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, April 20, 2017 Page 3
• The Planning Commission likes the orientation of the proposed accessory
building and appreciated that Mr. Dempsey provided an updated list of CUP
requests for accessory buildings that have been approved in the past.
• Mr. Dempsey stated that the original farm buildings will be removed in Phase
Three of the Berres Ridge development. Mr. Dempsey confirmed that the City
prefers to see these types of buildings removed when the land use changes
from farming to residential.
Motion was made by Drotning, seconded by Einck to recommend to City Council
approval of the Richard Berres conditional use permit to allow the construction of a
detached accessory building exceeding the maximum allowable floor area and
maximum building height in the RS-3, Single Family Residential District located at
19848 Highview Avenue subject to the following stipulations, and adoption of the
Findings of Fact dated April 20, 2017:
1. The combination of Parcels #22-02100-53-011 and #22-02100-51-013 shall occur
prior to issuance of a building permit for the new accessory building.
2. The detached accessory building shall be constructed in the location identified on
the certificate of survey dated March 29, 2017.
3. The detached accessory building shall be constructed with materials noted on the
approved conditional use permit plans including residential grade siding and roof
materials. Total building height shall not exceed 18 feet, as defined by the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The detached accessory building shall be kept, used and maintained in a manner
that is compatible with the existing single family home on the property and shall
not present a hazard to the public health, safety and general welfare.
5. A building permit must be approved by the City prior to construction of the new
detached accessory building.
6. No sanitary sewer service shall be provided to the detached accessory building
and the detached accessory building shall not be used as a dwelling.
7. No home occupation or other commercial use shall occur in any accessory building
on the property. The accessory building shall not be used for the operation of any
commercial business or storage of commercial materials or equipment.
8. The detached accessory building shall be removed from the property when the
subject property is subdivided into additional residential lots.
Ayes: Kelvie, Einck, Lillehei, Swenson, Bakewicz, Kaluza, Drotning
Nays: 0
6. Sandi Raines
Chair Swenson opened the public hearing to consider the application of Sandi Raines
for a variance for a deck structure setback from the Orchard Lake Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL) and for total impervious surface area on the property located at 12245
– 175th Street.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, April 20, 2017 Page 4
Sandi Raines presented an overview of her request. The Planning Commission
accepted into the records a petition in favor of her being allowed to keep the porch
posts and trellis and a handout that Ms. Raines presented. She indicated that she
removed the parking strips.
Commissioner Lillehei asked Ms. Raines if she is amending her variance request to
not include the parking strips (impervious surface area). She responded that she is
no longer including the parking strips in her variance request.
Associate Planner Frank Dempsey presented the planning report. Mr. Dempsey
reviewed Ms. Raines’ previously approved conditional use permit and her stated
reasons for the variance request. He pointed out the non-conformities with the subject
property which include lot area, lot width, impervious surface area, and building
setback. Mr. Dempsey indicated that construction of the pergola and support posts
within the OHWL minimum setback and installation of paver bricks for parking were
completed by Ms. Raines without City approval.
Mr. Dempsey stated that Ms. Raines met with the Planning Commission at their March
16, 2017 work session to get their feedback on her variance request. The Planning
Commission concluded after her presentation that her request did not meet the
variance criteria and explained to her that if she updated her survey to show the total
impervious surface area of the property and if the total impervious surface area was
not more than 36.1%, which was approved with her 2015 CUP, she would be allowed
to keep one paver strip. As she stated, Ms. Raines has since removed both parking
strips.
Mr. Dempsey reviewed the variance criteria that is listed in his April 14, 2017 planning
report.
Mr. Dempsey stated staff’s review of the variance request concludes that the applicant
has reasonable use of the deck approved with the original CUP, which did not include
the pergola and pergola support structures. He identified options, such as a
retractable awning, that staff has offered to Ms. Raines that would be in compliance
with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Planning staff concludes that a variance is not
justified because the request does not meet the variance criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends that the variance application be denied. Findings of Fact
have been provided to support the denial.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public for comment.
There were no comments from the audience.
Motion was made by Kelvie, seconded by Einck to close the public hearing at
6:33 p.m.
Voice vote was taken on the motion. Ayes – unanimous
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, April 20, 2017 Page 5
Chair Swenson asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion
points included:
• The Planning Commissioners agreed that this was reviewed at their work
session and nothing has changed since then, except that Ms. Raines has
removed the parking strips. They specifically made reference to #3 of the
seven criteria for variances which states: “That the plight of the landowner is
due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.”
Because Ms. Raines did not comply with the CUP that was granted to her and
this plight was created by the landowner, they felt they could not support the
variance request.
• Chair Swenson stressed that the City very much encourages new residents to
contact the City to find out what they can and cannot do on the property prior
to either purchasing the property or constructing anything on the property.
Motion was made by Kaluza, seconded by Drotning to recommend to City Council
denial of the Raines variance application for a deck structure setback from the Orchard
Lake Ordinary High Water Level on property located at 12245 – 175th Street, and
adoption of the Findings of Fact for denial dated April 20, 2017.
Ayes: Einck, Lillehei, Swenson, Bakewicz, Kaluza, Drotning, Kelvie
Nays: 0
7. City of Lakeville
Chair Swenson opened the public hearing to consider amendments to various
chapters of Title 11 (the Zoning Ordinance) of the Lakeville City Code.
Planning Consultant Daniel Licht presented the planning report. Mr. Licht stated that
the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance included in the April 13, 2017 planning
report were discussed at a Planning Commission work session and a City Council
work session held on March 2, 2017 and March 27, 2017 respectively. Mr. Licht
reviewed the amendments, which include industrial building exterior materials, non-
conforming unsewered lots, single family detached accessory buildings, off-street
parking requirements for convenience food uses, model home permits, and the
keeping of animals.
Mr. Licht stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment as presented.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public for comment.
Daniel Callahan, 15715 Judicial Road
Mr. Callahan had sent an e-mail to Planning Department staff to be included in
tonight’s discussion. He feels the proposed amendment to the non-conforming
unsewered lots section of the Zoning Ordinance will undo Zoning Ordinance
City of Lakeville
Planning Department
M e morandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Frank Dempsey, AICP, Associate Planner
Date: April 14, 2017
Subject: Packet Material for the April 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item: Raines Variance 12245– 175th Street
Application Action Deadline: May 25, 2017
BACKGROUND
Sandi Raines has applied for a variance to allow her to keep a deck pergola and support posts at
her single family home located at 12245 – 175th Street. Ms. Raines purchased the house and
property in October 2013. Ms. Raines received conditional use permit approval to expand the
home with the construction of a deck and retaining wall on the east side of the house in 2015.
The application for a variance submitted in 2015 was withdrawn by Ms. Raines after staff
provided advice on how the deck could be constructed without requiring the variance by
constructing a retaining wall next to the proposed new deck. Staff worked with Ms. Raines to
modify her deck plans so only a conditional use permit would be required, not a variance. The
City Council approved the conditional use permit on November 16, 2015.
The plans approved with the conditional use permit did not include the pergola and support posts
and would have required a variance since any structure thirty inches above grade is subject to the
minimum building setback requirements. The variance is required only for that portion of the
pergola encroaching into the 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water Level of Orchard Lake.
The building permit issued for the deck construction included a note that no roof structure is
allowed with the construction of the deck. The applicant has refused to modify the deck by
removing the pergola and support posts and is now requesting a variance from the setback
requirements to the Orchard Lake Ordinary High Water Level. The variance is required to allow
the pergola and posts on the northerly 12 feet of the deck to remain within the required 50 foot
setback.
EXHIBITS
A. Aerial Photo Map
B. Applicant Narrative (4 Pages)
C. Survey Sketch
D. Deck Approved With CUP 2015 (2 Pages)
E. Conditional Use Permit Approved 2015
F. Applicant Photos (7 Pages)
G. Statement from Mr. Goetze
H. Resident email in response to the public hearing notice
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Approval of the conditional use permit in 2015 included removal of concrete impervious surface
areas on the property to reduce the overall impervious surface area closer to the maximum 25%
allowed by ordinance. Two strips of paver bricks were installed on the west side of the front
yard directly onto 175th Street shortly before the conditional use permit public hearing in 2015.
Parking is only allowed on the driveway leading to the garage. Parking in the front yard is not
allowed. Furthermore, the paver brick strips are considered an increase in the non-conforming
impervious surface area. The applicant has refused previous orders to remove the paver bricks
and now requests a variance to allow them to remain. Staff has been working with Ms. Raines to
remove the parking strips since February 2, 2015 since a neighborhood complaint was submitted
that the pavers were increasing impervious surface area and being as an off-street parking space
in violation of Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Each property on the south side of Orchard Lake along 175th Street has unique non-conforming
conditions that require careful management to ensure that the Shoreland Overlay District
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met. The subject property was previously approved
for a variance in 1988 to allow construction of a garage with an 18 foot setback to the front
(street ) property line. The Raines property has a number of non-conforming conditions that
result in very few development options, including expansion of the house or other new structures.
These non-conformities include the following:
• The lot area is 5,293 square feet (only 26.4 % of the required 20,000 square feet)
• The lot width is 50 feet (only 50% of the required 100 feet)
• The impervious surface area is at or more than 36.1% (25% is allowed)
• The building setback to the OHWL is 38 feet (50 feet is required with averaging); 1.82
feet to the west side lot line (10 feet is required) and 11.8 feet to the front lot line (30 feet
is required)
The house was constructed in 1957. A 546 square foot garage was constructed in 1984 after the
approval of a variance to the front yard setback. The house and garage addition were constructed
prior to the 75 foot OHWL setback requirement and the maximum impervious surface area
requirement of 25%. The total impervious surface area approved with the conditional use permit
in 2015 was 36.1%. The Zoning Ordinance requires that zoning non-conformities be eliminated
or reduced to more closely comply with ordinance requirements.
2
The survey submitted with the current variance application indicates certain non-conforming
conditions. A review of the property file also indicates the following work being completed
without building permit approval since the applicant purchased the property:
1. Construction of the pergola and support posts within the OHWL minimum setback.
2. Installation of paver bricks for parking, which also resulted in increased total impervious
area allowed by the approved conditional use permit.
An expansion of a home that does not meet setback requirements requires approval of a
conditional use permit provided the addition meets minimum setback requirements. A variance
is required if minimum setback requirements are not met. Ms. Raines withdrew the variance
application following consultation with staff about how her deck could be constructed to avoid
the variance process. The approval of the conditional use permit did not include the pergola
structure or it’s encroachment into the OHWL setback.
Ms. Raines met informally with the Planning Commission on March 16, 2017 to get the Planning
Commission’s feedback on her request for a variance to allow the deck pergola structure and the
parking strips to remain. After reviewing the information provided by the applicant, including
the applicant’s narrative addressing the seven required variance criteria and the summary
memorandum and materials provided by staff, the Planning Commission indicated to the
applicant the request did not meet the variance criteria. If she wished to keep not more than one
parking strip in the front yard or to keep the expanded driveway, Ms. Raines was instructed to
update the survey to show the total impervious surface area of the property. If the impervious
surface area was not more than 36.1%, she would be allowed to keep one paver strip. An
updated survey has not been submitted.
Ms. Raines’ written narrative with her application outlines what transpired on the property after
her conditional use permit approval in 2015. The narrative also attempts to address the seven
variance criteria required by Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance as the request pertains to
the practical difficulty test.
Staff’s review of the variance criteria is as follows:
1. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan requires strict enforcement of land use and zoning regulations
to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Use of the property as a single family home
without the deck/pergola encroachment and the additional parking strips would be a
reasonable use of the property.
2. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this title.
The pergola structure is set back 38 feet to the OHWL. A minimum of 50 feet is required.
The further intensification of the building area in the OHWL setback is not in harmony or
within the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s narrative
addressing the variance criteria does not demonstrate compliance with this criteria.
3
3. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
The pergola structure was not proposed nor approved with the conditional use permit
approved by the City Council on November 16, 2015. The pergola and pergola posts
were installed without issuance of a building permit. The plight of the landowner was
created by the landowner.
4. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations.
The applicant’s narrative describes the reason for the pergola is for aesthetic and
economic value considerations, which are not recognized as consideration for a
variance as specified by this criteria.
5. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
in which the parcel of land is located.
Allowing the encroachment to remain would be in conflict with shoreland development
policy to remove non-conformities on lakeshore properties over time.
6. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical
difficulty.
Only that portion of the pergola located within 50 feet of the OHWL would have to be
removed. It would be up to the property owner to keep or remove the remaining pergola
structure.
7. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this title for
property in the zone where the affected person's land is located
The single family residential use is an allowed use of the property.
Section 11-102-23 of the Shoreland Overlay District requires that a variance meet six additional
criteria. No variance shall be granted where it is determined that the variance will have a
tendency to:
A. Result in the placement of an artificial obstruction which will restrict the passage of storm
and flood water in such a manner as to increase the height of flooding, except
obstructions approved by the watershed districts in conjunction with sound floodplain
management.
The pergola and support posts in the 50 foot setback would not be located in the
floodplain and would not create an artificial obstruction restricting the passage of storm
and flood water or increase the height of flooding.
B. Result in incompatible land uses or which would be detrimental to the protection of
surface and ground water supplies.
4
While the single family home and deck are compatible with adjacent single family uses,
the pergola and support posts encroach 12 feet into the 50 foot OHWL minimum setback.
The pergola and support posts do not impact water supplies.
C. Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the city or which will
increase or cause damage to life or property.
The pergola and support posts located north of the 50 foot OHWL setback are not
consistent with the planning objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for properties
within environmental protection areas.
Most of the homes along this side of 175th Street do not meet the OHWL setback of 75 feet
to the lake, due to the shallow depth of the lots on the south side of Orchard Lake, and
have used the setback averaging to the OHWL as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
D. Be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land uses compatible with the
preservation of the natural landforms, vegetation and the marshes and wetlands within the
city.
The proposed variance would intensify the amount of building area visible from the lake
which could be considered detrimental to the preservation of the natural landform of
Orchard Lake.
E. No permit or variance shall be issued unless the applicant has submitted a shoreland
impact plan as required and set forth in this chapter. In granting any variance, the council
may attach such conditions as they deem necessary to ensure compliance with the
purpose and intent of this chapter.
No grading is proposed that would require additional erosion control measures.
F. The criteria established by section 11-6-5 (variances) of this title are met.
Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment (City
Council) shall not approve any variance request (major or minor) unless the Board of
Adjustment finds failure to grant the variance will result in practical difficulties.
“Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Aesthetic conditions or
economic value or investment alone does not constitute practical difficulties.
Department of Natural Resources. As required by the Zoning Ordinance, staff provided the
DNR with a copy of the public hearing notice and the variance plans. The DNR offered no
response to the public hearing notice.
5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff’s review of the Raines variance request concludes that the applicant has reasonable use of
the deck approved with the original conditional use permit without the pergola and pergola
support structures.
Ms. Raines requested available options and staff offered the following suggestions, 1) remove the
portion (approximately the north 12 feet) of the pergola and support posts that encroach into the
OHWL setback, 2) use a retractable awning or deck umbrellas since an awning and umbrellas are
not considered building structures.
Planning Department staff concludes that a variance would not be justified due to the variance
criteria listed in Sections 11-6-5 and 11-102-23 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that
the variance application be denied.
Finding of fact are attached.
6
RAINES 12245 - 175TH STREET
Property InformationDakota County
February 9, 2017
0 110 22055 ft
0 30 6015 m
1:1,200
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
J
J
e
Receipt:# 408662 754085 S
v COND $4600 `
Return to
CITI IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIIYOFLAKEVILLEI IIII
20195 HOLYOKE AVE Recorded on: 11/23/2015 3:13 PM
By LAS, Deputy
LAKEVILLE MN 55044 Cert # 157938
Office of the Registrar of Titles
Dakota County, Minnesota
Joel T Beckman, Registrar of Titles
Reserved for Dak
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-jLk
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Lakeville hereby
grants a conditional use permit for Sandi Raines to allow the expansion of a legal non-
conforming single family home in Shoreland Overlay District of Orchard Lake located at
12245-17
5th
2245-175th Street.
2. Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Lakeville,
Dakota County, Minnesota:
Lot 8, Block 4, Lyndale Lakes Club 1St Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in
the office of the Register of Deeds, Dakota County, Minnesota.
bo
AND
h
That part of Club Beach Lyndale Lakes Club 1St Addition lying between the East and West line of
Lot 8, Block 4, Lyndale Lakes Club 1St Addition, extended Northerly to the shore of Orchard Lake,
according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of Club Beach, Lyndale Lakes Club 2"d Addition lying between the West line of the
East three quarters of Lot 9 and the West line of Lot 8, Block 4, Lyndale Lakes Club 2"d Addition
n extended Northerly to the Shore of Orchard Lake, according to the recorded plat thereof on file
p and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Lot 8 and the West one quarter of Lot 9, B lock 4, Lyndale Lakes Club 2nd Addition, Dakota
County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of
the Register of Deeds, in and for said County.
3. Conditions. This conditional use permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
a) The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan and building
plans approved with the conditional use permit for all construction within 5o feet of the
Orchard Lake Ordinary High Water Level of 977.6 feet.
EXHIBIT E
b) The concrete impervious surface area below the proposed new walkway from the
driveway to the main door shall be removed. The deck shall be constructed to allow
water to pass through to a pervious surface below.
c) The concrete sidewalk north of the house shall be removed to further reduce overall
impervious surface area on the property.
d) Construction activities shall not commence prior to issuance of a building permit.
e) The patio door as identified on the survey shall be removed no later than December
31, 2015 after approval of a building permit or plans for the placement of fill and the
construction of retaining walls shall be submitted by the applicant in order to comply
with setback requirements for the proposed deck and to allow the associated patio
door. Construction activities associated with this option shall be substantially
completed no later than June 1, 2016.
f) All disturbed soils shall be restored and established with groundcover immediately
after work in that area is completed as soon as practical as dictated by the growing
season and plating dates.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke this conditional use permit following a public
hearing for violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this conditional use permit the allowed use has
not been completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse.
6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
DATED: November 16, 2015
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
BY:
M Little, ayor
BY: G
Charlene Friedges, City - k
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 16th day of November 2015,
by Matt Little, Mayor and by Charlene Friedges, City Clerk of the City of Lakeville, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its
City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
3
X;
Notary lic
PENNY D. BREVIO
Notary Pubflc • mbnsaota
W Commmmon Wrsa Jan. 31, 2020
SEAL)
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
From:William Jenison
To:Dempsey, Frank; Sandi
Subject:Sandi Raines" deck and pergola
Date:Sunday, April 9, 2017 7:49:34 PM
Greetings Frank,
We received the notice of Sandi's hearing scheduled for 4-20 and while we can't be there in
person, we wanted to apprise you of our support for what Sandi has done with the deck and
pergola on the east side of her home, which as you know, faces the west side of our property.
We regard it as pleasing to the eye and during nice weather they use it frequently, which
contributes to a neighborly atmosphere. So please count us among the supporters.
Thanks and best regards,
Bill and Darlene Jenison
12235 175th St W
612-868-2000
EXHIBIT H