The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ Packet; 1-13-20 THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North (651) 747-3900 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday January 13, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. December 9,2019 4. Public Hearings a. VARIANCES-Accessory Building(Location and Size): (10092 Stillwater Lane). b. REZONING AND VARIANCES: (Stillwater Boulevard—Pat Kinney) The City will be considering: a.A Variance for minimum lot size to build a single-family home. b.A variance for the minimum area for septic system. c.Rezoning: A change to the zoning map for part of the site from RE (residential estate) to RS (rural single family). C. REZONING: The City will be considering a zoning map amendment for several small vacant properties. The proposed zoning map change would be from RE(residential estate)to RS(rural single-family)and would include the vacant parcels to the north of the properties located 8282,8308, 8364,8428 and 8488 Stillwater Boulevard. d. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW and COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Applewood Pointe Senior Housing. (Southeast corner of Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point Boulevard). e. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS: The City of Lake Elmo is proposing several amendments to the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. These changes include: 1. Expanding the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) to include the existing Heritage Farms 44-lot subdivision located near Manning Avenue and south of 301 Street. 2. A change the land use designation of this area from RAD (rural area development) to V-LDR(village low density). 3. Updates to the Wastewater Services and Facilities plan to include the 44 additional housing units. 5. New Business a. 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan b. Election of Officers—Chairperson and Vice Chairperson 6. Communications/Updates a. City Council Update 12-17-19 Meeting—Stillwater Schools Bus Terminal CUP Revision(tabled) 01-07-20 Meeting—Stillwater Schools Bus Terminal CUP Revision,Lake Elmo Senior Living(391 Street) 2 b. Staff Updates 1. JAZB Public Hearing-Thursday 1-23-2020, 5-8 PM, Oak-Land Middle School c. Upcoming PC Meetings: 1. January 27,2020 2. February 10,2020 7. Adjourn ***Note:Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability.Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations. TI It: CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2019 Commissioner Weeks called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Cadenhead, Hartley, Holtz, Risner, Steil and Weeks COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Roberts, City Planner Prchal Approve Agenda: M/S/P: Cadenhead/Hartley move to approve the agenda as presented, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Approve Minutes: M/S/P: Hartley/Risner move to approve the November 13, 2019 minutes, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearings Conditional Use Permit Amendment Prchal presented that the 834 School District is requesting an amendment to the CUP for their school bus terminal. They want to amend Condition #9 of the approved CUP from "the property shall be connected to City Sewer and Water prior to operation of the bus terminal"to "[t]he School District may operate its bus terminal at the property using the well and septic system (septic tank and temporary toilets) either until the School District connects to City sewer and water or until December 31, 2020, whichever comes first. The School District agrees to connect to City sewer and water within 30 days after it becomes available."Staff is recommending denial of the amendment to the CUP for the transportation center at 11530 Hudson Blvd N. Holtz asked about the sprinkler requirement, if it can operate on well water, if there is an alternative fire hookup tank that could assist. Staff said that the school district could answer those questions. Holtz also asked about the City revoking a CUP. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-19 Weeks opened the Public Hearing. Kristen Hoheisel — Executive Director of Finance and Operations for District 834 — 1875 Greeley St S— she is also a resident at 5802 Lily Ave. She explained the system they are using is the one that was in place when they purchased the building she also read a narrative about the fire suppression to address Commission member questions. Added heat and smoke detection in all maintenance bays and offices that will alert with horns and strobes and is monitored continually by Summit Fire. The original maintenance bays have a hook up where a pumper truck can connect to the building to extinguish the fire. She went on to explain that the School District is looking to extend the CUP since they have met all the requirements they could and have spent$2 million on the property. The developer has to provide the water and sewer to the property so the School District may make the connection since it runs along other properties within the overall development. Cadenhead asked if there is a time line. Hoheisel answered that there is cautious optimism and that the developer is currently working with the City Administrator and City Council to get a 429 improvement project or something worked out. Holtz pointed out that the location is not far from the original bus location and that it located in the most heavily populated and growth area for the district. Holtz asked if the Planning Commission denied the extension and the City Council revoked the CUP what would the impact be to the district and the students. Hoheisel answered that if a location could be found to store the buses, every route would need to be altered to allow additional time for travel. A new location would bring additional costs to invest in and in additional drive time for the buses. She explained that since it is winter also, that can lead to many delays already. She explained this was a long term investment in the site. She explained the site is larger than the previous site, to house more buses and employees. She also stated that they will be looking to establish a new contract with a bus service and having a facility helps with the negotiation process and reduces costs. Weeks closed the Public Hearing. Terry Emmerson —2204 Legion Lane Cir N —developer. Explained that he is working on getting easements and property owners to cooperate on services. He explained that he could provide smaller service lines that could service the property but not continue toward the future developments to the east. The City wants a 24 inch mainline sewer down and extend toward Manning. Nick Dragisich - Baker Tilley St. Paul — representing Emerson spoke and answered questions. Has established that the City will obtain the easements across private property for the utilities. He explained the most recent setback is the relocation of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-19 gas line. He said that the development is a benefit to the City, additional time is needed to complete the items. Discussions about waiting to doing it correctly by obtaining the easements and running the larger sewer line M/S/P: Holtz/Cadenhead move to approve the request for an amendment to Condition #9 of the CUP. The Planning Commission is recommending that "the School District may operate its bus terminal at the property using the well and septic system (septic tank and temporary toilets) until the School District connects to City sewer and water or until December 31, 2020, whichever comes first.". Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Planned Unit Development— Final Plan Review Roberts presented that the City has received a request from Frisbee Properties LLC for the approval of the final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan for a 60 unit rental senior (ages 55 plus) housing development to be known has Lake Elmo Senior Living. This development is proposed for a 5 acre parcel on the north side of 3911 Street North, just to the east of Arbor Glen Senior Living facility. On October 16, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the preliminary PUD plans and recommended approval of the preliminary PUD plans, subject to conditions. On November 5, 2019, the City Council approved the preliminary PUD plans with 20 amenity points for increased density, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Cadenhead asked about the connection to utilities and repair of roadway. Roberts explained that there is a stub to the property and the driveway entrance would be the only area needing repair. Hartley pointed out that the language of the code seems to penalize properties for adding additional trees and landscaping. Weeks asked what changes have been made. Roberts stated that it is mainly tweeks to meet Engineering and Watershed requirements. Holtz mentioned that it is now clear they will be retaining the large trees at the rear of the property which had been a concern to residents. Weeks opened the Public Hearing. No one from the public spoke. The applicant— Matt Frisbee stated things are moving along as hoped and expected. He said he hopes to get started end of March or beginning of April and wrap up most of construction within a year, with final patio homes within 18 months. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-19 Weeks closed the Public Hearing. M/S/P: Cadenhead/Steil move to recommend approval of the request for approval of the final PUD Plan as requested by Matt Frisbee (Ayers Associates) for PID# 13.029.21.22.0013 for the project to be known as Lake Elmo Senior Living located on the north side of 39t" Street North, east of Arbor Glen, subject to recommended findings and conditions of approval as listed in the staff report, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Minor Subdivision — DPS Lake Elmo Roberts reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a minor subdivision request from Continental 483 Fund (Continental Development) and Alan Dale (the property owner) to divide approximately 69 acres of land into four separate development parcels. The proposed minor subdivision would facilitate the transfer of separate parcels to developers before the recording of their respective final plats. This includes the site (proposed Outlot D) for the construction of the Springs Apartments to be located on the northeast corner of Hudson Boulevard and Julia Avenue North. Staff is recommending approval of the minor subdivision, subject to conditions. Hartley asked how the City obtains Julia Avenue in this approval. Roberts explained that there are already utilities and the City has easements for those they will also dedicate street easements. When the Springs purchases the property and wants to develop, they will need to Final Plat and establish a lot and block, at that time there will be a Right-of- Way platted and when Pulte develops, they will plat their Right-of-Way for Julia and 5tn Street. Weeks opened the Public Hearing. No one from the public spoke. Weeks close the M/S/P: Hartley/ Holtz move to recommend approval of the proposed DPS Lake Elmo minor subdivision that will subdivide the property between Hudson Boulevard and 5tn Street north into four development parcels, subject to the applicant/owner dedicating to the City a 100-foot-wide street easement for future Julia Avenue and removing Outlot E from the subdivision. Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. New Business Driveway Ordinance Code Amendment Prchal presented that the City reviewed Code Language pertaining to driveway curb cuts in 2018. During that review it was determined if a lot was able to meet specific conditions then a second cub cut could be allowed. One of the main limiting factors to this is the road classification. Additional access would not be allowed for lots that face a collector or arterial roadway. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-19 Cadenhead suggested that the language is simplified. Hartley pointed out that the way it is written it would still restrict some properties. M/S/P: Holtz/Hartley move to recommend approval of the proposed changes, amending "...properties addressed to a road that is..." to "...properties having access to a road that is... Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Staff and Commission Updates At the November 19, 2019 meeting City Council adopted all the changes the Subdivision Ordinance except the sketch plan review they changed that to require a staff review of the sketch plan review. Roberts said there will be no meeting on December 23rd and that the City is looking for new Planning Commission members. There is one current vacancy and at least one other member that will not be reapplying. Everyone thanked Hartley for his service. Hartley thanked everyone for their service as well. Meeting adjourned at 8:44 pm Respectfully submitted, Tanya Nuss Permit Technician Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 12-9-19 1 THE CITY OF STAFF REPORT LAKE ELMO DATE: 1/13/20 REGULAR ITEM$:4—PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests for 10092 Stillwater Lane. REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director BACKGROUND: The City has received variance requests from applicant Dan Grunder, for the property located at 10092 Stillwater Lane. The request is for a variance from the City Code requirement which does not allow an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principle building. The Applicant may also need a variance for the size of the building. The proposed building would meet the allowed size but there is a lean-to attached to the north side of the building that would increase it over the allowed size limit. Staff met with the resident and discussed with them the requirements of the code and how it will apply to the property. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: The Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, review the requests, and make a recommendation(s) on the requested variances. REVIEW/ANALYSIS: PID 14.029.21.32.0010 Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family zone as Rural Single Family. Surrounding Land Use/ Single family homes. Zoning: History: The property has been used as a single family dwelling. Deadline for Action: Application Complete— 12/6/2019 60 Day Deadline—2/4/2020 120 Day Deadline—N/A Applicable Regulations: • Article V-Zoning Administration and Enforcement • Article XI—Rural Districts 2 PROPOSED VARIANCES Variance Requests. The applicant is requesting to build an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principle structure. Furthermore,they are also requesting to build a structure that is larger than what is allowed for the zoning district. Standard Required Proposed Setback from the Front Property Line. 30 ft. 222.1 ft. Location 154.406 C. Or The shed will be closer to the The Principle Structure front lot line. Structure Size 1,750 sqft. 1,290 sgft Structure Location 154.406 Table 9-3 516 sgft. Lean-to (1,806sgft. total) Location of Shed: 154.406 C. Structure Location, Rural Districts. No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot. The applicant would like to place the structure slightly closer to the front lot line than the home for several reasons. If the shed was located in the rear yard there would be several issues in accessing the building as well as flooding, which is stated in the applicants narrative. Access to the rear of the property from the east side could cause interference with a power line(s) and access to the rear from the west would require new fill and grading to create a grade that is reasonable for vehicular access. East Access •• _ x a Z. When variance requests are submitted to the City, Staff reviews them with bit of skepticism to ensure that there Rough Shed Location is a sense of reason, if recommending approval. Giving the property a cursory look there doesn't appear to be much of a leg to stand on when it comes to a . recommending/granting approval. There is a perfectly graded rear yard that is flat and has no vegetative obstructions. Although the power lines to the east and required grading to the west presented additional ' ; "hardships"that does not necessarily appear significant enough on their own. Although the yard in the rear is a perfect location for a shed it is misleading. During rain - events the rear yard becomes flooded,which does present a hardship for the property. 3 • 1 1 1 1 The 's 4 �~• i l A•' applicant would like to locate the shed closer to the front lot line than the home because the rear yard becomes extremely saturated during rain events,beyond that a large number of trees would be required for clearing(given the location they would place it)and they would be building into a hill side. The currently proposed location is relatively flat and would not require tree clearing or excessive fill to prepare the pad. Structure Size: Table 9-3:Accessory Buildings,Rural Zoning Districts The rural section of the City Zoning code has a table Maximum Structure No.of which outlines the maximum size that an accessory Lot Size Sizea(square feet) Permitted Bldgs building can be. The size allowance is determined by under 1 acre 1,200 1 the size of the property. In this instance the property 1—1.99 acres 1,500 1 consists of 4.74 acres which,based off of table 9-2 2—4.99 acres 1,750 1 offers a maximum size of 1,750 sqft. The applicant is requesting a 1,290 sqft. building with a 516 sqft. 5—9.99 acres 2,000 2 lean-to with a total footprint of 1,806 which is 56 10—14.99 acres 2,500 2b sqft. over the maximum allowed building size. 15—19.99 acres 3,000 2b 20—39.99 acres 4,000 ?b 40+acres Unregulated, 'Un e,ulate& AGENCY REVIEW There have not been any comments submitted from other agencies or departments. Neighboring Comments—Comments from neighboring properties have all been supportive. 4 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant's request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties— "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance,means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. FINDINGS: • Variance for Size of Structure: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the structure, strict enforcement of the City's zoning regulation will not cause practical difficulties and the applicant. Understanding this standard is discretionary the request for an additional 56 sgft. is not an unreasonable request when discussing a 1,750 sqft. requirement. This request would only be 3.1% larger than the required code but unique circumstances do not appear to be present. • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location o structure strict enforcement of the City's zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The request can be considered reasonable when all factors are considered as a whole. The eastern access will have difficulty contending with overhead utility lines, western access would require filling and grading to create a slope that is reasonable for access, and placement of a shed in the rear yard that becomes excessively saturated and would put it at risk of flooding. 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. FINDINGS: • Variance for Size of Structure: With respect to the proposed variance relating to the size of the structure. the plight of the Applicant is not unique and has been caused by the applicant. When considering the request for a larger shed there does not appear to be a unique circumstance. It is not practical to assume there would be a burden applied if the shed was required to meet the required size. • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the plight of the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. Considering that more grading, tree removal, and water all pose an issue in the rear yard,placement slightly closer to the front lot line appears to be reasonable. With the applicant being unable to have reasonable control of where flooding may or may not occur on the property the situation does appear to be unique. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. FINDINGS: • Variance for Size of Structure: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the structure, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There is sufficient screening to the property and it is difficult to believe that and additional 56 sgft. would be reasonably noticed. • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location o the structure, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The 5 majority of homes in the area do not appear to have accessory buildings. With that said it is expected to be incredibly difficult to reasonably notice the building and claiming that its impact would be negative is a stretch. 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. FINDINGS. • Variance for Size of Structure: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the structure, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The structures size would not be of such that it would begin to shade neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair airflow. Furthermore, the size of the structure would not cause an increase of traffic or congestion of traffic. • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The location of the structure would not shade the neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair airflow. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit. 2. If approved this variance approval is valid for 1 year and would expire on XXX. (date set after council approval) 3. The shed must be reduced to 1,750 sgft. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact on the City. OPTIONS: The Commission may: • Recommend approval of the proposed variances,with recommended findings and conditions. • Amend the recommended findings and conditions and recommend approval of the variances, • Move to recommend denial of all variances, citing findings for denial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval with the following motion: "Move to recommend approval of the variance request for the location of an accessory building and recommend denial for the size of the proposed accessory building for the property at 10092 Stillwater Lane." ATTACHMENTS: 1) Narrative 2) Survey 3) Additional Pictures 4) Neighboring Comments 5) Site Map Grundner Residence: Variance Application 10092 Stillwater Lane North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 2 Written Statements a. A list of all current property owners: 1. Michelle Grundner 2. Daniel Grundner b. A listing of the following site data: 1. Parcel Identification Number: 14.029.21.32.0010 2. Parcel Size: 4.7 acres, 206,608 sq ft 3. Existing Use of Land and Current Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) c. State Provisions of Lake Elmo City Code: 154.406 C d. Specific written description and how it varies from Lake Elmo Code Lake Elmo Code says that any outbuildings need to be equal or behind the main residence. We are building a pole barn that we would like to vary from the code to put it slightly in front of the main residence. e. Narrative regarding any pre-application discussion with staff: We, as the homeowners, reached out to Ben Prchal to consider the variance from code. He advised to complete the variance paperwork to consider the request to submit the variance. We have reached out on a number of occasions to seek clarity of the requirements of the variance as we move forward. f. Explain why the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Placing the pole barn behind the home, would impose on drainage issues that we have longstanding. The power line that runs through the property on the east side would have to be lowered/buried or raised in order to gain access to the pole barn. The west side of the property is heavily treed with steep topography. g. Explain why the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The house sits near the back of the property not leaving a lot of room space for a yard or another structure. h. Justify that the granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The location we are seeking variance for is flat and open not in view of any/all neighbors including traffic through Sunfish Lake Park making it an ideal location for installation. By putting behind the main residence, it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The pole barn colors will be close to matching the same colors of the main residence. Legal Description The West 385.00 feet of the NW 1/4 of the SW%of section 14,Township 29N,Range 21 W,Village of Lake Elmo, Washington County,Minnesota,lying North of the centerline of Stillwater Lane North,(formerly Minn.HWY 212),excepting CERTIFICATE O F SURVEY therefrom the following described tract;Commencing at the NW corner of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 14,Township 29N,Range 21 W,Washington County,Minnesota,thence South along the West line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 454.1 SCALE 1" = 40' feet;thence East parallel with the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 33.0 feet to the point of beginning of said exception tract thence continuing East,parallel with said North line of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 180.00 feet;thence South parallel with said West line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 160.00 feet;thence East parallel with the North line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 92.00 feet;thence South parallel with said West line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 255.6 feet to its intersection with the centerline of Stillwater Lane No.(formerly Minn.HWY 212)for 293 feet,more or less,to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 33.00 feet easterly from said West line of NW 1/4 of the SW1/4;thence North parallel with said West line of said NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 for 525.2 feet to the point of beginning.Containing 5.4 acres,more or less,subject to the right-of-way of Stillwater Lane North(formerly Minn.HWY 212),and together with an easement for roadway purposes over and across the West 33.0 feet of the above described 5.4 acre tract. LOT AREA:206,608 SQ.FT. EXISTING HOUSE AREA:2,2955Q.FT. PORCH AREA:27 5Q.FT. 1 1 /— / It EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY AREA: ,01 O SQ.FT. I 1 EAST�.INE�F THESE 06 FFT OF jHE NW EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AREA: 10,6915Q.FT. I 1 THES I/ S�C./14/TWP.�9N,RG1.11W EXISTING STILLWATER LANE N.AREA: 1,0375Q.FT. / �\ \X ------�'/ EXISTING SIDEWALK AREA:3 3 SQ.FT. // Fp iF g P m N00° 616"E 83S:a1 / —— \ FD IP 1 OPEN SPACE SPACE AREA: I85,941 5Q.FT. \\ m ml PROPOSED SHED AREA: 1,200 5Q.FT. 3 I I GAR FLOOR 952.92 I NJ EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY Z 140.8 _ — — \ 8 I l a \ o 'I / /' °1 \ S00°06'16"W 256.68 \ ; y / 1 ®®o o GAR 9� FLOG / / ® / o —___ \ `\ \ \ / ' /i' lL \ /9 950 \ y / 4p\\ \ ,�\ F9 1 _ 172. If 1�I 1 s / \\\... _ / / ,a \ N \\\ " es'c9 I-A S00°06'1 '�W 160.00EEUNp / 60 CD CD iLu ') / / // // // —9Gc v t o 1 \\ LEGEND zN 000.o DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION (000.0)DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION 000.0 DENOTES AS BUILT ELEVATION $D9° 6]6" 4 .1 / T II� F DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE // / / / / \ /// / H / • DE NOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND __�—� // /' / / \\ / / /o POINT OFGINNI G 1 \ \\ \ O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET M �— ■ DENOTES WOOD HUB --_ / / 5UNF15HIPARKACCE55 ROAD DENOTES NAIL — — — / — — —/ L L — — _ — — 0® DENOTES EXISTING UTILITY BOX W T LINE OF THE NW 114 OF THE 5W DENOTES EXISTING POWER POLE _�' `a o� -°'AB' DENOTES EXISTING LIGHT POLE // �p �,�/ 5EC.\I 14,TWP.29N,RGE.2 1 W—/ i a'p sss\ \ / ® DENOTES EXISTING STORM MANHOLE a \1 \\ \\ m 19ti 00 DENOTES EXISTING CATCH BASIN 0 DENOTES EXISTING F.E.S. DENOTES EXISTING HYDRANT ® DENOTES EXISTING SERVICE OR CLEANOUT DE NOTES EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE DENOTES EXISTING CONSERVATION POST OR WET LAND BUFFER POST 8'TREE DENOTES EXISTING TREE oo" ---71 DENOTES EXISTING RETAINING WALL 0 DENOTES PROPOSED RETAINING WALL /YYYI. DENOTES EXISTING TREELINE -----D- DENOTES EXISTING FENCE 1.No specific soils investigation has been performed on this lot by the surveyor.The suitability of the soils to support the specific house is not the responsibility of the surveyor. 2.No title information was provided for this survey.This survey does not purport to show all easements of record. 3.See architectural plans for final building dimensions. "NSULTINc ENGINEERS, I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a tract as shown and PROJECT NO. 16990.00 ROBE PLANNERS and LAND SORVN(952)432-3� described hereon. As prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly PREPARED FOR. ADDRESS: ENGINEERING licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10092 STILLWATER LANE, COMPRNY, INC. �,1aaa�P P � 11-7-2019 DAN GRUNDER LAKE ELMO,MN oa 1—:aem 11,s,E.za uaNshuc.NN sssm RN RUSSELL P. DAMLO Minn. Reg. No. 19086 Date �. . may• � �;. '� un kip • t w�• .'s►r l ' ♦ Y`S n°r: a Z it 1 " . 'r •�•r _ l 't 4 Y`S I ,♦ d-f�l ' �, i �� .. �- � / ter' � -� y r , �..y �' 1 1 - i,�' t l tell- Ye .61 Av JP fit IN AL a OIL 96 ot • � , Y ' r + , ' 1. . , ,♦ 1. ` 1� \ y�:. �� K 1 f , � 1 �� 1 I - � i•�.j _ "-+ ; - *�T;�'1i -_L' i °#.y�,.r�' 1:� i' � � - . � '•'kr i -• _. _ ,�' ,• t _+, - •w{ , j r. . •i . y ' f '� t +�. � •. •��• - -- �v4�=�• � ._i mow. _ _ � �� ...� � ,. t /,t'1 �` ^ �_ _ •, ��.� � �,y� 'J� _ � ''-�-�:• + : .` • r-' �R` i�<`sue t• ter„ � � � •� � !,� r '1• ,� ,ram �• t� 1 w w �, ��-� •' ~ ' • o► •� li 'I `•t �7"wL �w� !• , t�sty t •mow , � � •/�` � • � � , � J• l Ar r o. 1 - 1•t�. j ins �►• _ - •'"" f �+ • • ' N41 `. r _ .'a- •ref Y �}if'• :!1 ! ,Ia-� � ^ r-) +"�•• •W..1�, ti• 14 �Q �; V`� J'1•'� ,�'�y!!\'.: _P' t 1.�. 'w `- , I J `'�.i-�av♦`�" >? '�-1;.� j%.' r ♦. . '•♦ .�. ' jv•� j' '� ~ 5�.'3't.i'-t •-i .} � � `•'. ,:.��f 1�' ' 1 i • - [' ,'� z ;:r _ f y, _ ,+•:.1.� 'i L ,� r �''S• i+. :.ti• ��`�-•{ '. h+' .i. t:�•.. s �• 'a r � ,iy,. +f. I -y - �' ♦ ' 'A• .Y' (' tr�1,• til �f .•,. .ti• 1 _,?''.'�,. '�,,•i� S\�• G.~'2 I T•••. fir. •.,�j�{/>,v.7�.<��•_ �, �� f..{.r< •.71 � ,� �• 1•j. '1� �v.w 1�_L f» , `, t 'n _ •� •C� �T�'y. :•= 1- i l rF �+ •w'rT �,,, •mil' J �l '1•' _ 4a 1 f ty ='�`?, '^ -•''� •- .1- Zi 1i�..��ppE Y .na ..j,:'a� '1( ti, _♦ �,", L'sv„_!y`.. 5^ -�..�.-..r 4, /'•a�.',�t` �1 ] - tJ?I - - -` �7 ♦• •� :- ! '�.i, Yfi�:.C� t -_J•i.. _ .t:ti�-.�.� .►,•..,a - ? n`a .?,. •.♦ ,.Ay l...Jr-. ♦' t� •,q' '�1 Yli , • 1 ,� LA; .•', - .r '; •� -^ .1 '4"� ) ,�;�•: �� c,D .`."✓'p.t.. •_ - '.� i. •� ',Y.9.1_ .1 �.,.f•�I�i1-� '�'�� •a.- �, 1 A•_� A 1 �-r. •. 4 :r -r ��r,�'i\t ?' "�y;`. mac:,t,- - ��j� �►r.. ,TV-- •I`��yal 'k' _ it r1''1i i� ♦♦GG i =� f ri/w f,. -__ .1�i• .o i 4 �• f_ R -G+:7 -T-�T�-•t'.M•. �. I i-i .) ♦ t,• �"�n' 1 _ • ''Z j'..� , ,,,►- r 1 ...-ay f•. .I' �i' • - •'� .� r �: .J,. + ,p�$1 I.' l.i`f ;1t`i i,'a!Z�� <F..`• 1IIj-w ;_ -ir;••„ - �� 'v a tL. .r .''** '�_ _ •a. -•.'r/ /r�_W�' J ! 'i ^ r .� _I Z �M� T�I V , _ ♦:Di: r t. .,Z •, I !y ..•ArA' � lam. y t T Q �• I'+• Ii.• j ♦ 1r'i' .wjr, .t� t_�. � _♦•` -.Y` ,f.y:�' T. .M`Ai� . L`� F. i. .� _1" I'-• .� � '!�. tl--v' - '� ••�is�'.I -!• w �'�' �a'.�t.rA '�.�� / •A-..,5\-•"^ ..•♦.. - - •-a 1 ice•. '�i'V -f, • �. `�, _ C. _ 2 L 1. f �•�� [I• � v ;'LI. _ / '_ F w _ ..c' '•C♦T.t. ic,•.» -�'♦ • _ ''� .�., - . t" 'a ..• ,<\ ,• *iEi!-' s� ♦ -i,.- r+:` 1- •., \ 1�'� � - '�_ V' �R � f _ "! - ,� � - t1/ '� pp .•,0 ,i�' 'tb:.•�;t' � _� ,.ji�_ �.� -1 r"tii-• I' 1 1`T♦ ,1 - :\. r �s,,� - � 1 �i• - ! � •f � g ..'- '�' , / - �, .-�_ " `' +.': �� ti' •,► � _ Kati �, ',,. � -. f- �'' _ :l._-' .�_r..' r•IP*,. :� _.� ..,�., •s Wes.,., _ � �r_ • � � � {{ �•, ! � _a / _ :.' ,1J• _Ty, J1 •} _-.T'1t'"•AP - ,.E• �a}� - -_ `� k � w� �a�.�J/{.J/r��. 1•.� ,� ., -r l• �. _ _y!�`` Jy - - - `{4�1-?�•'�� Y l J _L�a •I T n -,�r4,�t� . 'Y /.•� S 1• 1,' r'r" r.:a. s•.. �'. '.' Si ' jr' 1•, - ��' :•a 1'-'"_.', - - `A�t•rM �� tJ �. t : _ r'Gti Et . .'�` � ] p ••.'�{-'.:' ( � •�. �. � `I. 1� :Y' `1 �Ib C '> 1 •♦ 4. .) !♦^1- U• K .A, eI , ?�. " tea.' f �. �2 3ilk• 1 s' 1 `• a .ti I .� �t .1 - .: .♦ ..\ 'dlC+I, _ ,Y i- Cffvr -• fir Lip •<. �. ` • .Q.. \ S - - rV - _ - �.� T.' •�-� _ It+ Y .•. =i- 1 -It .'C♦ r:• .�-•tom }q-� �'�_�'..♦_ 1 +t- � �.} �l`i•f� � ..c - ''�'' `♦ . N ..,• lr'T'''� ;C+f-- !4- a"ti- - :l' ; -�.. 't � - -�'�/ ''1. '/ •S`Y � �. • _ r _ t`.f'. ''-� _ •., � J..�t, - �� _� •T ..• Hwy�} -�`IVO'�I� .J1w�'� - to i - •4-r• ,- .��,� � �, Y•' •. a.\. 'V,�:1 • _ -�. , .J F% ;aV1 i•1� .�i..V-,r��'.•�.}+ :► ,`♦I ' 7�c'y� �Ytz �'.CS t it ► L .A- <!►� _ K. ', 2��• � t . ♦ r �'' .1� 1. S!y _��.. .�i . �.a M � y ''7- •t ��\. .,,- � • !�1 �y- _- '�R ';'a• 1 t•• Y] . � ' ` � �y. �.., P Ji] .� J '►. / �'\. - . , _ C-; I ,�.T, a. .; _ . ..�' '�=a� ,i,�' ,r4- •� Y "S � �ra - \ y t w ♦ ♦' �.1•j a'• •:'_I �_ ♦ ` .�•Q ,�. �l'.�' 1. ..R � � ''` ��.\tx� �'� �•, w' �'1 r� •,t .VI r, 11 I 1 .Z �.♦r, /� I - _• _ ..1'YV� a 1� SSt 1. ..�•.�.(-� '�i'4•�, F- ;-, '• �\ -r!I• jl'•�-\ ,''\� ..\'' �' v I}/ -•.\• ,. ',. 1 1 f' 1 'j` •••� _ 'i'-"• ^:-t -��. _ .1-. - _ s _ _ _r rLi ! �,, '�, �t�'� .�1 1'pj'`-'*f .1.. `�- i �_ •c ''1- ��(,y '�' '4• I 1, l./y �' '� ��., �l � �.t 4 j .-f1-1..• v ,ice .-.-. v - �/'r �:'+r��_ - �� :. 1 -♦ ;�a�-•, \�'1 _�..: i' - ♦��`. ` \+'•.,�r,t' 'a l�' _ � �a.-1 1J. a - _ s r _ _ _ -ti S- T s�,.._�- ` ?-n''r ,r, .ati:- - �{.' - - '�.. 1. ':r-,��' .. tit L,'h` �y(. �•, •i 'r. _✓• ♦.i C; 9 d ! - _ _ � �Z• � •:L- _ � � fit.. ti �i••'!. - -,,. 1 �,1� � 9 r -�i'� •1. t�^ - - •C�.+'� ,1 � _ �_ _.� _ •f _ Z- tt- - 1 ,:,,.I Y'�j 1_ `t.:�• '1' r` f i f'.,. 'f,lF .T��t- 4 \ �`' 1 t �� -, .+- .•♦' - - � ` _ *J 7�. _ � _.I�IIY�. _ �•} 1 � � 7:1 i._._VW ^ _ _ � _ �,�,�'I'_.2�.��•4- - ,�!";ti' `_� a-_ram J '4 1�. '♦ f yye�t.. •l�•• '� ` �'f '[, i.�.•, ��E Ja*+��,} ,. -r• !_ a_.�• - _ .< A.. ► «- ' -J-_ �1'Ti.N _••i►. .s.w 1 - _• 7 - 1 ,,r.�. _ `.•�♦ 'i.�•t�..•�;�, �'•�►a,, f -r.,�_•�� 1 .s� .� t w 1 • :� r•-2 a'S~ _ '�` ► • /� •,\ C' ;a ♦ `/• � _•��- -,� --�. '- `�. �1 ,�,�;- • N- • � a: . _ __ ��s:.•T��. �' _ �':` t '` ; �;} \'-- tit,, ,. .iF;: gRli P, 'r-�••�� .;�� • `,� - a ..� t_ '/r.�-•.� - - . s\^ 1�1,+ `. - -_':T- —1snr-.,�• _ r-.e _ .�" - A - - •.i, '• ��lr,"{•i; ti~�' .J•.�. $��•r ',w,\:`' ` i"'' 1 ~� -!�� ^, \] � �'• �• 1 �./f. __ - ..�i ` - - - .,, - �''' • ��,� _.A-,� s4....ry � �. % � i •1 •�_ �1 r' :r � i- __~ _ 1+_ - ' "i�T ,+. - `.. ��.r i�.� •'••'_. _y ',11 �= �J�3 t�'•, .� �`'{ai_,y ,�' � - f -7 . - • ._ if --. � • •w �f ,` . `, - -_ -/ �_J 1' ��`�`L• ' _ 4 _ _ - a s •�I `{�.T,�L .l�"�':`ti 1 ox, ♦ �` t;f+,. + ` /yti-• c. or -' •'� '�'� . - l"` `�y4-7is r ~� P` - _ y '�- Gt;.r ► T t;.�' a• n '` .1.1 1 .;: :e ,. t ` �-i - , �• ;' b ^• a, y' � r\ •: ` �\. `` >- mot► ♦ t L "� �''-.i J �` �f; .��'�'' ✓ -- r a •.► +.�/' ♦ '�i �'r L' �' - r ♦- �?r F - r - _.�(`yv'♦ - - •�- -w ' �'G. - �,c•• L t {s ♦ '• t�—�/Ily��y ~ r.t• - - - _ -. - .. _ — _ _.•��i�ll . '., � ► ,�r�. 1,-i '- /a� 1� JN .-�, �•- _ 1. _ _ �_ '-�. �.�;�/� `1� - �4> ,t •� .,.,a„ ► L. l� - .� � _ / _ � -•IJi-F7 S.-., Y.J•'�t:- : ... ,.M J - _ - ,� � ��" ✓ -, _ jVV _ .• - ti-� �•,. `- - _ _ Fi- tic• 1.� T��- }1 t!i let 1•" ♦ � � _ �•'�� _ _ _ _ �E -.-�- `• ,� ' = 1: - �� a _ r •� �" �• r t� i� _ Tw' �_ '� •.3r, •h 2 -Y? `- '. 1\ 'j'S: 6._.SS ..+4a� �l.�►. � �.�, I t 1...� 49 ♦y - •_ '- t ��{ r�y� - •�S -I 'ti tti.lI f•'S,: r , � `. •`j tr .. Ji:_'".'�r !•. �r t:_` '!T}� � kt _. - _ - ��- J ► , _ � _ r `7„"'^• f `� •'� e�_ - ` '' :ri-:t ♦ �ti' i'y /'�_ .,.'� Opp �:7C' ��► a .y• ts.} }i:r-Y J j - . , I ;•r_ ` Z �' 'na ��• 9 r a O / ` i ♦ ♦` r" , ' •, ♦ is i♦ 401 4L SO NL qQ4Au 406* VL 4t - �j \iK' �r _AN.' `♦r.Atl '-Zs1� �� ♦� � i. ` _ ..;_ _�` .r ,ter ; w .. _ - t7-• T •-R • `r• t i rI . ' J l' �• ft , s•�\. S r _.!• �� -'� r. •� i 1 �j� r. -'••�: I - _ ',/ ♦c •\�. S SS - + I•' •Jy r,. - _.nr 1� _� -.�F. . -'_ �' r/. r • tr t- _I `` y `�, , [V �^• ` , _ C'``--V 'l�V`�' i /+ e: i. ,, 1 J - ` . r` 4''er ,' ./' ' . • ; r y ; . Nix , . y:-r_ Z. -3�; i,T f.,,+ - �� s. •> ;:f7/• a r f 'r r - :% - •, t;'�� - , ' ( •;t i T:- .:: s:`, 'V "`�\T - -.ic;� ,f et•-i t - - .. a -' :. - �Irs/► "•r • w . `' r 3, • r } T - �' •!. -t -J f 4 - • -\ r- L • - - !` _ - _'J� _ `�- t .. �`i �' _ J'. _ �. -T' T / I Y` .rt �� 4 •I/ �� .1� _ � �. • - r•• ` t♦ r r �i ♦ -' '1j•�`�ri�,'. � `,r � _ _ r,`_ • r• - •r �. - I�j•.t). r� J!t./ r /i ' _ i • � �. . �. �, ♦A -- is ti _ •--. r f - [�� j, /'�� t r ~_ �. l 1 a � � •� .` /. �i-� ` C jr11i• . `~ r4� ,�• �,,� lye. h r / .417 � •' �_ - ' .y w •-�t•• -r'' AT_ �•, •+- 'r 1r. 4r�,1r -y�r„�!F' - -♦t� / Of v •,.~ 1 ` 1' '�• ' � � �y, ,.• r,�- ,j 1�{��,j- r 1. ._''-r'..� t ♦ •'• � .i'♦�r •,9►N r'r .:_ � -' .��, Zia I.••�.5 ' -�j' •,� �. � I / :,•.� �, � �c I [ �" ` ^__ 17 • .Mu' - - r -A Y �.LfY T, .4- Y. •� , ` .. r r0 w,l T� T . 1 1�. _ f. l-�/ +, ram^ ♦ 5. �� I- �a' ' � • - - .�_ , J1�, - •. I ~� '�r. �„/" r. •„ ��'! � ti,a � � � �'�' -:'��.-��..1 pia �Jj,• .fl �� + ... _z` ."i �,.,,� Qa+.. '•� . - _. ."` ' �• r rr � r r {�•x `4 '' N l r ,: ~ � r« ` - y1 `�r J Q ��_ y.A 1 , j- r 17 c t �� r �� t {; 4- �IK ` yi i *: �1. ��? rj► I'►�' A! "`- *.4.40 a` �' r T r- 4 , .;a.. - - • ` .1'. E,yr `�, ,`�: , 2 I ,` �'�• ..�� {I � .Tr ,� yy r ,.� r,•r ,.� leis+ � � _- •-',tl �r."► ,r✓ �'` y1)• �' r �� ,� . � ' _f ,� �� i, !� tl�- q _ r 's�•~ 1 i,l . * _'�' ,- �+.,� /�J/_ 1 ' ,r / � � ,• �'�` 1' � � 1�''• - ♦. �• . ,�i1 S: • �,- .. /. -�ji�I� �+ \ /_�� • -� -•� ~h.' "( '�t�,� -�'1r i .r.!^ , I► 7T' • - �/' 1 - �� J r. �� . ,, ♦ - .... ♦.:� r,1' 1 , J- f'i•IL� '�'• . �7• i� -, .� • _ w ` w r '., * ! . r, [ ."t � � _ I •r iL• �.�� J - ct'r� f`.+�p.r• -r`•_ / ,A�. b y -� � r � •'` t y '� ' �• �1 - ;. '� •� _ t / `'\ ew% _ 1 �. `' _ 'J'S >a{Q��rf►. ;F � .1` '/� -,1� 1�;/� .. .-- {- � 33 - - r-� - �t_�V� * VA v r rho ,.r ! _ _ - ♦ ITT • ; • .'-"T ilr.J'/\��)_: _ 1 _ ,r _ -i _ ��• I r9� - Jti. _ . r'fR •'-. - �� .i r \I �'!� �r'.r 7� r/' � - 7 `'f1�n f" � • X�y.� � i i. �r ,�'}�r r?( if- ♦ 4 .. � �,. �T T .1 .. �{� ,� _ •1, '): r - _ - � .r _ v �' � ,' ��.��, � �t '6• " ,-i''t�=�.„77..`LIr � �� / ,I•Ir,.1 1 .� �// � �'S/Sr;" . �'�"��TT{{`11„r ry,. 1� -�;,IT � I M� -r2' , - I 1rI �'fr t / ./I si;/ �` �'%l !e' er 110 I • � ,� _ / - ; � �,II� ` rw �'I �r' T'� .r'..�,.-�� ter( `�► y>'• i. Awn � � !�• ��:� � �• �s f 1 r•'�� - r�i A_ - _'�`r' YT'�T":�I�`li\<�� - :w�...f••;;l�V. �,�r- - r- ` / -� .'./ T ��r l! L� -� ,�+ � ��v r1('�_ .�. y.r`, 1�--•��r � Tic-. • �. -� r4: r r � - - '�,` �i�i/yr+', r�'S JyZ `'r �.C^rV � a� ;':� � ��I�_•�;r�4''��•:�'«i_ TiCt(� i. S t - 1 � r � +� .� . _ i , ' , rt �'♦ '•� �•r �jxi. �.�, •%ly: 1 rl,i 7 ,. •'1r�1• `•J~icl I ♦t '�. '� .. t 1 / `.f, :rl _ i• •l I '1Z '� t ' 1 '_, r � � _ ) - ` �` - , !�, - .,�' y i rr /r y. •* �, � � i.. ; A :' r l "� •,\. '•51• 1. /. I �1 k, '1 3 I' Ii�. r�r. `' / ( ' _.r` ' J ./ �`�VPI 34 ov .1 1 l 1i•1' +' ,r, -+• { .1 ,f-. �♦ ', r. `IT, -�•r11 i v �, �- I%„ ,• 'j ylr�• l r ! f"_� t, �.. .�. .7� t �(,,� 1 ., •,, ;� 1� i� � ., � ,'r� •�` t ,1 '� � 11,. .1 r. I� r•d � _ _ i, / i Ka 'r' i . ,T .4. ',r I � �'.. �t` 1�/ i, �1 'I � • �' � �'I 'I '�• I'�h \. r .• � - - rr�:r.a.'j• r •� ►' ,, `�/X 1� J - 'rr "r�/ '�j �j`6 �:' 1 7. �' 1/ f ,`I h ,f t,• ,I (` S' y. 1 � •� . .�. ,i 4 T - r f;/► ►Z 1 0 � r f/:.' lA'r r h. 1� ''�, _ I� � 1 ', �, / I`r tl J, 1 � i 1' I 1 - 1 . �'�'i 14 • `� r �- i Ir: � '.I�' ft t -•y "'j , � '11.' Y, ''fI.7�.� f � / r' y'1 \r r r 1 l r \ _ - 1. 1 1 t f, ,\, ,./�:�, i �� •�'�) �� I;' �, � 'j117\ ( 'I7.[ r' hl / ,1t r �1 r i�" ,/ ,•''�{ft �' 1' i'1 'I,i':��- .l i r' ,{ r �,, f;�].' t I ,l � ��(01 ' �. iF 1 � i %Yr` �� 11jI.YJ�Jj 1•�/. ! �� I y r' - � n C'r"} .,��.-tI�' - ''•S(.� - , G .tf r• , .. a�i- kl•. 1"LL:" l., l T. � � � ,, : .r � ��r�C',1 I� � �I �I , F� .� 1 � , I �• r )r 111 •, �, ,t f h r •'� ;� r•ri. i ',r' -1 r'. - i L �i`� �� / _•�/t •�, , j 1. T 1�f. � .4,J/JT 1••��.-1�'r fY\ 'j �,: s •_r ) ( 1 .ti��r '�i r '•I '1'1 1 r• '�I�. ? ``1.1� / , '} r t 4� _ . - Z' y YkI .r; �• •�` � .' rM'�� • l rt S �� I ri� ! �/:� '( ' �. I t: .1 I .• �' / �r '1 •� , � �1r•ti.� �• f , ,,/, r .lu y � 1 M. � ,�. .r � � � �, r�•p� r�' '`� ►•- •` I 4i! � r r � � I � r 1.,1 /! i f� �w ,I r r � _ i � 1. �.. J,V �l I I�'r •' �r� \` lj i � :.� � / � �� tr.��• R+i ,I\ `'t /-F� ; ( .� rl .� {• ., � - 7 ,�i/ ' /�I'y I ,r. 4 �:l � i 11 / ( �• I ,r �� J' �A '/ � `41' �•.;., fh -i!"!t- ;-t {. 'lr• •i/ ' �1'"�, .�' ,�, �1 j , ) ?• ��: •1 / � 1� r'ti �y'' '� r�. � 1 ) , , i j � 1 1 « ' r1' •� �• - /�• ` I 'I a ./ .. /Yr './ 1� y " �;r � t4 �I< / �' - r 1 I ,a ,>/ � l� 1, -1 s • - _ 1 ;a'� .s .�.L _ �'��I r� ' � l •� � ``.,� '., t :• � i 1 �� l tt 1• �� h r' i '1 'I � c �r � -�.' - h� - .' •,./�'-1 r1' ,'y�'�:�/ -�, ',,; r t� I /� ~ /�► Jt'� i � rl � ��. �� -� . , ` F •'„ +1 Ic � ,�•;l f ' I , 1 ,!1 � •1, � � � - '� 1 t,{ '�� _ - _- - 4 4l 1107 „i _1{ ! ►t i Y t 1! f . h r l �•' ,�� (fir j I 1 ' 1 \, j' �) ; L i ► 1 i I �' �i 7•Jr.. •'I'" ,/ _ , f-hll r ,�1•/ r 1 . � I� ', 1 1 ;� 1 I, 1 i 1" �' .ry • r 1 - `�a � .S,• - � w t I• 1/' / 1 � 1' •�(, �'' j '� ' Z�/� � �, .t �1 '�' _1 1 � ,1'. t t i_.: .. � 1♦ ' � �•1 //yy''` 'i ., +1 i / `rl rli ,J ,, , I F i:' ~'�K ` --1 � J 1 r :`' �- '• � 4 /. :.- %• „ ri. �•j'! }- .i �f, .� ��• -1' /Pj ' .r r1 , 1 I 1•� •r r / `r. ` I 1 '� 1 l .\ � r '• I, / / , �. _ \*. v- ,�.• ,��>, -,1 �'- r l � t'f' .� � �r 1 l 1 /' ,f1lj " f Y «� r '` I 1 ff J■ I �� 'I'� �'- � � � t � ' +Q / �f� \\ L 1� 4 � ��, ^ .� � �` 1� \ r . I. ►. / r r / •1 (� l�qqr'1� `?r �f • 1��''«, ,_ r /�. ✓ ' 'f /"'•'rl.�'�Y� ,r 1 I t ) ) h � f, J i' �' ;��• r1 •yt`, 1 •/ i' � t• ^_t �, .1�b / J �~I• � - � r � rJ f Q j' / �!' r / . � I L !� � A 1!' l � - �� ♦r � ` •1 • � .1 r t•I - ' ,� r,.�, ,• 1 r.•L • I �` i r :r v I .� � r. l' 'F' # ih• � � r I/ r\ r � %, I � Y � �'r 7 1 r � 1 /�' � '�. � � �� ' \i i � Ir•!��' � � - r � Y 1 ! r •, �l'' ` ,r� ,/ �i � I (' i. 1 �� ' 'w'� � ' �`1; ♦ a � 1 1, i � ti 1 � \ /� .� �' '7I' _\ rG�lk ? • l �' i � • �j IZ n - • J� "�' � '• r,•�' .7,� i f :� �� ( �. � i' r1 1'-1� ` A ,l/• .I r`• ) 1 ,1 _ � )�1 � 'r •I. � ` r �- y / � � • � ��.;' _- . �- • +l• _ r • '' T 1� �� r V ,r�i' ^ � t 7 1 r I i r, .< i I. ! i�• � , t '' • I �' c! ' '1' Ic �ri�' •.(• �• �r• �J �I� 1 ,� r �w _ \,' I \ '�' \ � - J► ?� � 1 i 1* .1� A. � .0 1r�t y � r •j I. . J /,.�y�1 � �f I' � r 1 P' /' > dt 1 -1. . '1 � �, y „r �� ); , .• S1 ♦ ) - lrl rr �� I , ��' r h .� � • •�' I' :T 7 � . ijr 1 I ♦ , - ., '� � - `. ,. ', � � Si, , '( 1- � '�� •�` , �} •�`h- I�, `�a. .ly/ I::ar.r�� _ lv' I •Z�, �J 7� .� f/;I1� tL / r�Jl J/1 �/` (/r •�' 1r 1 ,l ` r •i t � b 1 ` - _� II �. 2.r ��t �\J �/ - i / 1 1 I' � '� \ 1•h 4 �'1 1 ! •'. . •tt f. . ' .. , r �� 1 •. ,C, r t '�//.I i�_ � .. t •.� '/17.1 �'r. .f -'�'i\4 .�'L�. r"iL�� / �r -, "••� J/' yl l '�.'��:�" •� -1 'Al .. •� \ •, r - ,,.� .i f 1 1.��i '1.� � I f r ,. . �, \'r1 .• �.'i !. �, ♦. Ben Prchal From: Miriam Bergmark <mjbergmark@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 10:48 AM To: Ben Prchal Subject: Variance Request for 10092 Stillwater Lane N Caution:This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. January 6, 2020 To: Mr. Ben Prchal, City Planner RE: Variance Request for 10092 Stillwater Lane N, Lake Elmo We live at 10032 Stillwater Lane in Lake Elmo. We have spoken with our neighbor Dan Grunder regarding his planned project for an accessory building on his property. We agree with his plans and do not believe there will be any negative impact to our property if the variance is granted. We support his request for the variance. Thank you, Miriam J. Bergmark David Duepner 1 Washington County, MN 3554 3560 3691 3572 3548 3584 359 LVIN Cr z Im i i 353 3520 0 a c� a Y 3508 3490 a J N ;: 3464 LL z N E EL 10092 3440 10120 1017 10240 STILL ATER BLVD N 14 m N A-1 7G �2 January 7, 2020 1:4,000 0 187.5 375 750 ft 0 55 110 220 m 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. Ben Prchal From: Sharon Lentsch <slentsch@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 9:24 AM To: Ben Prchal Subject: Dan Grunder - Pole Barn Variance Request Caution:This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Dear Ben, I understand there is going to be a hearing regarding the variance request by Dan Grunder at 10092 Stillwater Ln, Lake Elmo. I will be out of town, but just wanted to let you know that I don't have any issues with the pole barn being up front. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sharon Lentsch 3536 Kelvin Ct. N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-338-2568 1 Ben Prchal From: STEVE KALLEVANG <STEVEKALLEVANG@msn.com> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 5:44 PM To: Ben Prchal Subject: Fw: Variance Request for 10092 Stillwater Lane N Caution: This email originated outside our organization;please use caution. Ben: I received your letter dated Dec 30, 2019 regarding the variance the Grunder's have requested for their proposed shed. My wife and I live next door to the Grunders on their east at 10120 Stillwater Lane N. My wife and I have no objections, no concerns with the variance request to build a shed in the location the Grunders are requesting. In fact I think the location they're requesting is an ideal location given the topography of their lot and their house location within the lot. I'm not planning on attending the Jan 13 Planning Meeting, but if you'd like to discuss the variance request more with me, please feel free to contact me at 651-336-4515. Best Regards, Steve and Linda Kallevang, 10120 Stillwater Lane N. 1 1 THE CITY OF STAFF REPORT LAKE ELMO DATE: 1/13/20 REGULAR ITEM#: 4—PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Variance and Zoning Amendment Requests for 8340 Stillwater Boulevard. REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director BACKGROUND: The City has received variance requests from applicant Patrick Kinney,for the property located at 8340 Stillwater Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City Code requirement(s)for maximum allowed impervious surface,minimum lot size, and minimum septic size requirement. This request is unique because there are two lots which are relevant to the request which stem from two different developments,which are also zoned differently. One zoned as Rural Single Family(RS)and the other as Residential Estate(RE). The record is blurry as to why the lots were placed with each other yet not combined while also allowing different zoning to remain. During this review the City will also be considering a zoning map amendment for the neighboring properties,which have the same"issue." ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: The Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, review, and make a recommendation(s) on the requested variance(s) and re-zoning. In addition, City Staff is asking the Planning Commission to comment on an additional zoning map amendment, separate from the variance requests. REVIEW/ANALYSIS: PID 16.029.21.34.0008 & 16.029.21.34.0015 Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family zone as Rural Single Family/Residential Estate. Surrounding Land Use/ Single family homes. Zoning: History: The property has been vacant. Deadline for Action: Application Complete— 12/2/2019 60 Day Deadline— 1/30/2020 120 Day Deadline—N/A Applicable Regulations: • Article V-Zoning Administration and Enforcement • Article VI—Non-Conforming Uses,Buildings, and Structures • Article IV—Additional Regulations and Modifications • Article XI—Rural Districts • Article XVII—Shoreland Management Overlay District 2 PROPOSED VARIANCES Details. The property(lot I on the survey)was platted with the Beau Haven Development in 1961. The approval for that development allowed lots to range around .45 acres. The smaller parcels to the north were added later in 1994 with the Eagle Point Creek Development. Staff speculates that the smaller parcels exist because of a variance given during the approval of Eagle Point for"lot ratio"citing"topographical hardships." Nonetheless, it is clear to Staff that there were different expectations for developments in 1961. With the property in question being substandard in size and never having been built on,the need for a variance is triggered regarding lot size. Furthermore,the City expects to see two distinct locations for a septic drainfields for properties that are not able to connect to City sewer. There are two separate drainfeilds indicated on the survey but they fall short of the sizing requirement. Variance Requests.The applicant is requesting to build a vacant lot that is not capable of meeting the required septic size of 20,000 sqft. and a variance is also required because the lot does not meet the current lot size requirement for the RS zoning district (south parcel) or RE zoning district(north parcel). There are provisions in the City Code to allow properties that are not capable of meeting the code to build without a variance (154.08 A. listed below). However,this property does not meet the qualifiers to meet that provision. The"primary parcel"(lot I on survey)is a platted lot. However,the rear lot(outlot G, lot 2)is setup as an outlot. Because of this they cannot be combined and used as one lot,unless the outlot becomes platted. But the Owner can combined them for tax purposes. To explain further,they will be combined for taxing purposes but there will be an artificial line separating the"buildable"area from the outlot. Combining the parcels would create a lot that is .69 acres in size. The RS (Rural Single Family) district requires a 1.5 acre minimum. Slightly correlated to the lot size is the required septic area. The City code requires 20,000 sqft. for a primary and secondary drain field. If the drainfield aspect of the code were to be fully enforced the primary/secondary drainfield would take up 65% of the useable land between the two parcels. Standard Required 0 Proposed Minimum Lot Size Requirement 1.5 acres .41 acres (lot]) 154.402 table 9-2 .28 acres (lot 2, outlot) 69 Combined Acrea e Drainfield Area Requirement 20,000 sqft. 8,600 sqft. 154.404 B. 154.080 A.Additions and Expectations to Minimum Area,Height, and Other Requirements. "...Any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes,provided the area and width of the lot are within 60%of the minimum requirements of this chapter;provided, all setback requirements of this chapter must be maintained; and provided, it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage treatment systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling..." Continued. "...Any I-acre lot which was of record before October 16, 1979 may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes... Because the combined of acreage will only equate to 46%of what is required the property will not qualify for meeting the exemption in the code. The lot is also less than 1-acres and cannot qualify as a buildable lot even though it was platted before 1979. Assuming a septic permit can be obtained(Obtained from Washington County) all other code requirements appear to be met. ' �.�� _ 3 Zoning and Lot Requirements: The City Code states in section 154.080 C. parcels that are contiguous to each other, substandard in size, which are under the same ownership must be combined. This would be an ideal time to enforce this code provision. Currently the southern parcel is zoned as RS while the northern parcel is zoned as RE. Staff believes both parcels should be zoned as RS. This opinion is further supported by a variance that was granted in 2004 for 8384 Stillwater Blvd. This property required a variance for the location of a garage and as a cNo condition of that approval the City required"That there be a 3036 tax parcel consolidation of Outlot E with Lot S of Beau- Haven. " Staff did not find records indicating when the oo CO consolidation for 8464 or 8404 Stillwater Blvd took place. CO w N `r N 00 O Summary of Code Requirements: • The northern lot(Outlot E) must be rezoned to RS 2965 • The properties, Lot 7 and Outlot E must be 2960 combined for taxing purposes. • Two variances are required o Approval for lot size variance is required for lot 1 as depicted on the survey. o Approval of septic are not meeting the 20,000 sqft. is required. Previous Variance Requests: In 2002 Pat Kinney requested approval from the City for the same property to have it considered buildable. Based on previous reports and the outline of the resolution it appears that some aspects of the code are similar while others have changed. At that time the City voted to deny the request based on the following findings (Resolution 2002-068 attached); - The Kinney Property(given its location, size, prior ownership by an adjacent property owner, and lack of public sanitary sewer)was and can be used in a reasonable manner as part of one or more adjacent parcels,just as it had been used prior to the acquisition of the Kinney Property by Patrick Kinney. - The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances created by the previous owner of the property and by the applicant, and is not due to the unique circumstances of the property. - The variance, if granted, may not change the character of the neighborhood, but a final determination on this point cannot be made without a complete set of plans demonstrating that a single family dwelling can be constructed in compliance with all other zoning and flood plain regulations. - The applicant has not proven an undue hardship. Staff believes that the findings are very weak and not very well put together. In fact, one finding explicitly states that the plight of the owner is due to the previous owner. That alone is contradictory when citing findings for a variance. Further stating that the request may not change the neighborhood, City Staff cannot deny a building permit on design alone. If the applicant was not requesting a variance from setbacks or impervious surface then it would be out of bounds for Staff to suggest that the home would change the character of the locality. Based on what Staff understands the lot/sub-division was created for a single family home(s), the construction of said home would be in line with that intent. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for the average resident to fully comprehend what it means to prepare a narrative that would support them for Variance approval. Staff believes it is their responsibility to assist residents on their way through the process but still make a responsible recommendation to the elected. 4 Re-Zoning of Neighboring Parcels: To clean up the zoning map Staff believes it would be appropriate for the City to rezone parcels 16.029.21.34.0017, 16.029.21.34.0016, 16.029.21.34.0014, 16.029.21.34.0011, 16.029.21.34.0009 from Residential Estate(RE)to Rural Single Family(RS). Addressing the issue now would eliminate the burden for the existing owners or future owners from needing to request a zoning map amendment. The proposed re-zoning is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. CREEK ESTATES . CRE il.',I n o1lAp I c CyUr�r, i N uoll OT f y 4 ewa 5 7 earn 404 4 eua gEA�_NA�EN AREANOTGEOCO�EO 8282 9 8.n AGENCY REVIEW Washington County Planning Dept. -Washington County did respond with some historical information on the two plats but did not ask the City to apply any conditions of approval. City of Lake Elmo Engineer-The City engineer memo has been attached for review. Most of the comments are pertaining to the septic system and Planning Staff is recommending the comments as conditions of approval. MN DNR—The DNR has provided a response to the proposal and stated that the properties should be combined. 8364 Stillwater Blvd. N.—The property owner provided an email to City Staff stating that they are not in favor of the request and stated that they had opposed similar request in the past(2002). Further stating that additional property owners were not in favor. (Email and additional information attached). RECOMMENDED FINDINGS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant's request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties "Practical difficulties"as used in connection with the granting of a variance,means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. FINDINGS: • Variance for Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, strict enforcement of the City's zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant. The applicant is requesting to use the property in a reasonable manner, as it was originally intended. With that said, the idea to build a new home on this lot falls in line with the existing neighborhood but a hardship is now created simply because of a lapse in time, which is now only applicable to this lot within the sub-division. There is not a request to further reduce the size of the lot, instead the lot would become further conforming due to the required tax identification consolation. The request is reasonable and the criteria is met. 5 • Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the septic area, strict enforcement of the City's zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. A request for a single family home is a reasonable request. Furthermore, it has been proven, by the construction of homes on the other lots in the development that septic systems are capable of functioning on a lot of this size. With Washington County being the permitting authority if a system can be established and is capable offunctioning properly the request becomes reasonable. The criteria is met. 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. FINDINGS: • Variance for Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance relating to the size of the lot, the plight of the property is unique and has not been caused by the Applicant. The Applicant did not have hand in influencing the development of the lot nor were they involved when determining the minimum lot size for the RS zoning district. The issue only appears to exist because the property failed to develop years after the approval for the development, which is not the fault of the existing property owner. Because of this the existing owner and future owners would be required to obtain a variance to build. • Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the septic area, the plight of the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. The requirement of the property to achieve 20,000 sgft. of septic area is a large request when considering that the required septic area would take up 65.7%of the property area. Furthermore, if the property is capable of achieving a septic permit from Washington County, the permitting authority, the 20,000 sgft. requirement appears arbitrary. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. FINDINGS: • Variance for Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The request to build on the lot is not out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. The lot size(s) will be no smaller or larger than they were in 1961 and 1994. The applicant is also not seeking a variance relating to setbacks or impervious surface. With Staff being unable to deny a permit strictly based on design the home would not conflict with this criteria, since no additional variances are requested. • Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the area of the septic area, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There is no way to visually assess the property and come to the conclusion that the septic field requirement has or has not been satisfied. The criteria has been met. 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. FINDINGS. • Variance for Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The lot itself has not changed, only the code has. • Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the septic area, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The required size of the septic area has no bearing on any of the required metrics that are required for evaluation. 6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall receive and provide to the City an approved septic permit from Washington County as well as the soil survey used to receive approval. 2. Lot grading revisions shall be required prior to issuing a building permit. The City is asking for a defined drainage swale along the westerly property line to direct water to the rear of the lot. 3. The applicant shall combine Lot 7 of Beau-Haven and Outlot G of Eagle Point Creek Estates to achieve one tax identification number,prior to the City issuing a building permit. 4. Unless future code amendments state otherwise, Outlot G cannot be built on, with the exception of the septic system,prior to it being formally platted. S. The applicant shall submit to the City a building permit for the new home. Which will include a revised grading plan/survey that meets the requirements of the City Code and approving Conditions. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact on the City. OPTIONS: The Commission may: • Recommend approval of the proposed variances, subject to recommended findings and conditions of approval. • Amend the recommended findings and conditions and recommend approval of the variances, subject to the newly outlined findings and conditions of approval. • Move to recommend denial of all variances, citing findings for denial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval with the following motions: "Move to recommend approval of the requested variances to reduce the minimum lot size and minimum septic area required for the Rural Single Family Zoning District,for the property at 8340 Stillwater Boulevard." "Move to recommend approval for the rezoning of the parcels 16.029.21.34.0017, 16.029.21.34.0016, 16.029.21.34.0014, 16.029.21.34.0011, 16.029.21.34.0009 from Residential Estate(RE)to Rural Single Family (RS)." ATTACHMENTS: 1) Narrative 2) Survey 3) Neighboring Comments 4) Resolution 2002-068 5) Beau-Haven Plat 6) Eagle Point Creek Estates 7) FEMA MAP Variance Request for Lot 7 and Lot 6 Beau Haven 2. a PJK Realty Inc, Patrick Kinney Attached Document B See attached tax statements. Zoned Residential C. Minimum lot size d. I am applying for a variance to build a single family lot just as my surrounding 8 neighbors have when this lot was platted. Lake Elmo changed its ordinances on Lot size after this lot had been platted thus deeming this lot non conforming. I am not asking for anything different than my neighboring homes other than the ability to build a single family home. e. I have had discussion's with Mr Roberts concerning this application and have attached all the pertinent information regarding moving forward with my request. f. At this present time I cannot build anything on this lot,which again when it was platted was the intent. Therefore not granting a variance would deem this lot basically worthless. g. The plight of the landowner in this case was created by the City changing its lot size requirements after this subdivision was platted, before the landowner had a chance to build a home. In my opinion this should have been grandfathered in and not required the variance process in which I am going through. h. Granting a variance would not alter the neighborhood in any way, only adding another conforming single family home to this subdivision. 1 / � CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY e DENOTES PROPOSED SILT FENCE 1 / `� DENOTES POWER POLE DENOTES OVERHEAD WIRE —for- Pat Kinney <96x DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATIONS / ,-- DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE NOTES Q;2 DENOTES BORING BY BRIAN HUMPAL DATED 6125119 (651-493-2682) / - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 1-30-08. it DENOTES OLD BORING BY EKLIN SOIL TESTING — Bearings shown are on an assumed datum. Benchmark in MnDOT Station— MICHAEL MN163. —'— - - — DEMOTES SETBACK LINE Elevation = 919.43, NGVD datum 1929. Curb shots are taken at the top and back of curb. - --- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS - OHWL is defined as the top of bank of the channell. Setbacks for for drainfield is 75 feet and -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS OHO h setback for septic tanks is 100 feet from OHWL. No wetlands observed on the site by EG Rud &Sons on 1-30-08. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions li--QENOTES DRAINFIELD AREA, '1� 16'10Ci� and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision =---------- AREA AS 7NQWN IS 8600 Sf �I upon receipt of a current title commitment or on attorney's title opinion. - Due to field work being completed during the winter season there may be improvements in addition to those shown that were not visible due to snow and ice conditions characteristic of Minnesota winters. - Existing zoning is RS and RE. - Lot area is 30,403 sq. ft. (0.69f Acres) - Borings shown from prior septic design by Eklin Soil Testing per location and report doted 4-27-01. New borings from Brain Humpal dated 6-25-19 are shown from report dated 0 . 7-19-19. Shaded area denotes a 8600sf drainfield per said plan, area accounts for the 0 \v primary and secondary drainfield systems. / /OG - Of "bluff•'exists on the site. Lot rises 25 it above the e slope of the creek with a slope grade GRAPHIC SCALE Of 10.87. Ordinance reads that "An area with an average slope of less than 18�over a �L\ distance of 50'or more shall not be considered part of a bluff ;�7_\ Q g•i r - Proposed house pad as shown is for design purposes only. Actual proposed home for building ` permit may vary. ` �'/ 933.11.\eo=rn'AE g3A /i / '�I n IN FEET) q TOPBAHK \ \\/� `� 1 i Oh 30 ft. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ANK , / .: Parcel 1 a ( - ) 9 y) >GEs"94 T— PIN 16.029.21.34.0008 Area-17,883sf Zoned RS Residential Single Family) S8T°,z8'',45"W \'`\ f\` 125.66.' 1J2'IG _ ------- 93))J +93�2b 94B.P3 —— —— ——— I ErvD PpIJzs2 -93 OJ 940.52' Lot 7, except the Southerly 7 feet thereof, ___------ --- -R g +939t N oE••. `" I BEAU HAVEN, Washington County, Minnesota, ----------T----- +93z69 'Jz ¢ l5 E\ GE _ .�H4�. according to the recorded plat thereof. I cE \\,' .','.(j1N`�-rl., : \ :INSTALL SILT � 1 mot\'•. FENCE - O� a Pareel2 PIN#16.029.21.34.0015 (Area=12,520sf, Zoned (RE) Residential Estates) Ou tlot G, EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES, I o° % R 'o»�E9n s/ef I �, i*9M Washington County, Minnesota, according I '( .2 9Ps.z60 r,/82+9 J9 \\ \ EJ 1 to the recorded plat thereof. I iv p ce 9066 u'?, . OE' / TOTAL AREA OF PARCELS 1 &2 = 30,403 sf(0.698 ACRES) L P>6p t _-- OE PROPERTY ZONING & VARIANCE REQUEST + —84 0e O,° II —'I 9 71 A P25 J 36 TOE)49\ 1 O 9 0 1 CE 67 T. EXISTING ZONING IS RS and RE. REZONE THE RE PARCEL TO RS AND 1 +r'"� f 5t �, I COMBINE AS ONE PARCEL. II .,..2y, II eH2O�'.....t '+GEz6aiOP,�o°__� N PT ":;°""� II q ey ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE: LOT SIZE MINIMUM IS 1.5 ACRES. LOT 1 II niovpin5r 12_-iP -- 111za � i 1 WIDTH MINIMUM IS 125 FEET. BUILDING SETBACKS ARE 30'FRONT, 50' I— �e e FRONT ARTERIAL, 10'SIDES, 40'REAR. MINIMUM OF 1 ACRE OF LAND I ___---�Or, I SUITABLE FOR DRAINFIELDS. I - PP 1 �'� ce� al o �` H VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE MINIMUM OF 0.698 ACRES. ---- VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR MINIMUM SEPTIC OF 8600 SF. - II L..--I �- co 1-� ¶ IT SI ', W szaJ II , I s , O� 'ER"" PROPOSED HOUSE PAD ELEIATIONS °o I +° tD o3n _1 tNORTH sneco luse (9.0'BASEMENT WALLS,' WALKOUT) I R I` i i ( i j -,�pLkoui FL=95251J:' r�osz e-21 SECOR"• I TOP OF BLOCK= 961.2 I I 1. HOVSpAp�ti L�I Iii-R• cneco 1:' / / {QOPOSED GARAGE FLOOR = 960.8 11 Extstln9 I I i i I / / �40 �2g00 fj - I e62i6 H• I TOP KNEEWALL = 955.7 HSECO LOWEST FLOOR - 9525 I House 1 I I 1I:1 952 s3 _\ secoR 94e fia I ,I E(GpRFt=q6o 8) \ cneboR"' TOP OF FOOTING= 9522 s4s a9 I1t� 5 952.15 ARCOR" h6 I ' � 963 I I hereby certify that this survey, plan I r!sEGOR•" ...9 N I �: 1 II , I:' - I --. -- I- -__- or report was prepared by me or under -- ---- -- —`t" I my direct supervision and that I ams9.75 a duly Registered Land Surveyor under w t/he w�s�fof t State of Minnesota. DRAWN BY..DWO doe No: 1s-867 oAre n/04/1s CHECK BY:DWO SCANNED❑ FNDIP"33 — 1 = ' DANIEL W. OBERMILLER ✓l FoFs1 - Date: 11104119 License No. 25341 3 / +954.80 95J.93 — N0. DATE DESCRIPTION BY 949 46 I To 955 30 I 9.54 TOE.. -+ 95092 10' _12_5 6 E - -- �« 9509syyfio- ,G - �+p 5`y 31 s R/WMON { =�o-� 58�° : CBBC" BB933 L !-953 0 5 — — es RUB SONSP INC. 9518 R.W "• 3.3% B --.— 955.01 . BC' 53.J3 #EIST.111Professional Land Surveyors __ ------- www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 GOL4Nt�' gtATE AID - 5864 ---------_ EDIf.. Tel.(651)361-8200 Fax(651)361-8701 S:\rud\CAD\19proj\19e67\01699-2019wa.dW9 11/4/2019 100s:00 AM CST Marie and John Duffert 8264 Stillwater Boulevard Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 marieduffert@comcast.net John.Duffert@state.mn.us (651)493-4408 January 6, 2020 ADDRESS THIS AS REQUIRED BY NOTICE OF HEARING Dear Members of the Lake Elmo City Council and Planning Commission: We are writing to voice our strong objections to PJK Realty's request for a variance allowing it to build a home on a substandard lot located at Beau Haven Lot 7, Lot G Eagle Point Creek Estates; 16.029.21.24.0008/16.029.21.34.0015. This matter is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at your meeting on January 13, 2020. We own a home at 8364 Stillwater Blvd N, which is located immediately to the east of PJK Realty's substandard lot. We have owned and lived in our home since 2001. There are clear reasons why a variance should not be granted in this case, and these are explained in Paragraph II below. But, before getting into those specifics, we think it is important to first disclose facts that the City found relevant in previously denying PJK Realty's similar variance request in 2002 and to explain why those facts were important in 2002, continue to be important today, and support a wholesale denial of this new variance request without further inquiry. I. The Relevant Facts and Analysis Omitted from the Variance Request Support a Denial. This lot was held as vacant land for many years, but previous property owners failed to pay real estate taxes and in 1994 Washington County sold the vacant lot for back taxes to Scott and Kimberly Beaver, the then owners of the residence immediately to its west (Lot 8 with an address of 8308 Stillwater Blvd.). The Beavers purchased the lot for a relatively small price and the vacant lot enlarged and enhanced the value of their residential lot. County records reflect that in August, 2001, they sold the two lots to separate buyers: Lot 8 was sold on August 23, 2001, and Lot 7 was sold to PJK Realty on August 10, 2001. Clearly, a greater price could be extracted by dividing lots among different purchasers in this manner. The sellers and purchasers were aware (or should have been aware) of the zoning restrictions, which have been in place for years. Page 1 of 5 The size of the Beavers' residential lot and their tax forfeited vacant lot each was less than the required 1.5 acres under Lake Elmo's ordinance enacted in 1997. When the ordinance became effective, the Beavers' vacant lot and and their contiguous residential lot merged together into one lot under the mandatory provisions of Paragraph C of Section 154.080 of Lake Elmo's zoning ordinance.' Also, according to the specific mandate of that ordinance, the vacant lot could not thereafter be considered a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development. Neither could it be split or subdivided without City approval under the provisions of paragraphs G and D of Section 154.080, respectively. We pointed out much of the ownership history to the City of Lake Elmo when PJK Realty requested a variance for this substandard lot in 2002. See attached copies of correspondence. We also pointed out that the property had merged and that the Minnesota Court of Appeals had affirmed the validity and enforceability of merger ordinances. Recognizing that the two properties had merged, the City Council denied PJK Realty's 2002 request for a variance. Now, PKJ Realty again asks the City to grant a variance for the same reasons set forth in its 2002 request but does not acknowledge the merger or otherwise provide the City with this relevant historical information. In light of the merger and the inability of PJK Realty's lot to be treated as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale and development under the zoning ordinance and other applicable law, the 2002 variance request was properly denied and was not appealed. The law and the relevant facts have not changed since 2002, and we respectfully ask the City to again deny the variance request and to instruct PJK Realty that the merger ordinance prohibits the construction of any future residence on this property. II. Even if Construction Were Not Prohibited by the Merger, PJK Realty's Substandard Lot Would Not Qualify for a Variance. As noted above, the lot cannot be developed at all under the merger ordinance and other applicable law, but even without regard to that controlling ordinance and law, this lot does not qualify for a variance. A landowner cannot build on a substandard lot in Lake Elmo unless (a) the nonconforming use is grandfathered under Lake Elmo's zoning ordinance; or (b)the property qualifies for a variance. Neither exception applies here. A. The Nonconforming Use is Not Grandfathered Under Lake Elmo's Zoning Ordinance. ' "C. Contiguous Parcels. If, in a group of 2 or more contiguous lots or parcels of land owned or controlled by the same person, any individual lot or parcel does not meet the full width or area requirements of this chapter, the individual lot or parcel cannot be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development, but must be combined with adjacent lots or parcels under the same ownership so that the combination will equal 1 or more parcels of land, each meeting the full lot width and area requirements of this chapter." Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 154.080, Paragraph C. Page 2 of 5 Grandfathering is a specifically authorized type of variance under Zoning Ordinance Section 154.080,2 which allows a landowner to build a single-family dwelling on an existing substandard lot. But that applies only if the area of the lot is within 60% of the minimum lot size requirements, or 0.90 acres in this case (60%of 1.5-acre minimum requirement for property without sanitary sewer). At 0.66 acres, PJK Realty's lot simply does not qualify. PJK Realty's request for a variance is simply a request to apply this grandfathering provision to its nonconforming lot. The only reasons PJK Realty cites in support of its request are the very same reasons behind the intent of the grandfathering ordinance. Recast as such, the lot does not qualify for a variance because it is too small, and PJK Realty's request should be denied. B. The Property Also Does Not Qualify for a Variance. Even if PJK Realty's request is not denied as a recast grandfathering argument it still should be denied because it cannot meet the requirements of a general variance. Lake Elmo's Zoning ordinance allows the City to grant a variance only if (a) strict enforcement of the zoning code would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property; and then (b) only when a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.' A variance should be denied because neither of these requirements can be met. 2 "Existing Lot. An existing lot is a lot or parcel of land in a residential district which was of record as a separate lot or parcel in the office of the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, on or before the effective date of this chapter. Any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes, provided the area and width of the lot are within 60% of the minimum requirements of this chapter; provided, all setback requirements of this chapter must be maintained; and provided, it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage treatment systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling. Any 1-acre lot which was of record before October 16, 1979 may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes regardless of ownership of adjacent parcels, provided the lot meets all other requirements of this chapter." ' § 154.109 VARIANCES. A. In General. The Board of Adjustment shall have the power to grant variances to the provisions of this chapter under the following procedures and standards. 1. A request for a variance from the literal provisions of this chapter may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. All requests for variances shall be reviewed in accordance with the required findings listed in §154.109.F. Page 3 of 5 a. A Variance Cannot Be Granted Because the Practical Difficulties Standard Cannot Be Met. The variance cannot be granted because to do so the City must find that there are "unique circumstances," and, as defined by Lake Elmo's zoning requirements, this simply cannot be met. Under this requirement, "[tjhe problem for the landowner/applicant which the proposed variance is intended to correct must be due to circumstances that are unique to the property in question and that were not created by the landowner/applicant." Paragraph F2 of Code Section 154.109. There are no "unique circumstances" here because PJK Realty created its own problem. PJK Realty complains that "the plight of the landowner in this case was created by the City changing its lot size requirements after this subdivision was platted, before the landowner had a chance to build a home." To the contrary, PJK Realty's "plight" was caused by its own purchase of a substandard lot in direct violation of Lake Elmo's zoning ordinances, long after the current minimum lot size was implemented. PJK Realty, a real estate professional with real estate knowledge and skills, purchased this lot from a contiguous homeowner in an area well known to have 1.5 acre size limits for lots without sanitary sewer, without first getting any required permits. In short, PJK Realty purchased the lot with full knowledge that it needed a variance and with no good faith reason to believe the construction of a residence on the lot would be legal. PJK Realty argues that if a variance is not granted, the property would be rendered practically worthless. This argument is flawed because there was no economically viable use when PJK Realty purchased the property (other than to enhance the value of adjoining lots), and the denial of PJK Realty's variance request will not change that. In fact, a variance would add value to the property that did not exist when PJK Realty purchased it. In addition, there are no "unique circumstances" here. Many lots become nonconforming due to an increase in minimum lot requirements, so much so that Lake Elmo's zoning ordinance includes a grandfather provision to specifically address this common situation. In addition, other surrounding property owners, including ourselves, own two or more separate lots. If variance requests such as this are granted, why would other Lake Elmo property owners not be encouraged to also seek variances by selling off non-confirming slivers of property? Why would they then not sell one lot while retaining or separately selling another? This is simply not a unique circumstance and the rules should apply to all of us, including PJK Realty. The circumstance was created by the landowner and it is not unique. A variance should be denied for this reason alone. b. A Variance Also Cannot Be Granted Because it Would Not Be In Keeping With the Spirit and Intent of the Ordinance. Page 4 of 5 Numerous Lake Elmo ordinances reflect a spirit and intent that is contrary to PJK Realty's variance request. For example, the grandfathering ordinance discussed above addresses lots that become noncompliant when zoning laws are changed to increase minimum lots sizes. The relief granted by that ordinance reflects the spirit and intent of Lake Elmo's ordinances and specifically indicates an intent to limit relief to lots that equal or exceed 60% of the increased minimum lot size. As noted above, the only reasons PKJ Realty cites in support its request for a variance are the very same reasons behind the grandfather ordinance; thus, the intent behind the ordinance's area limitations cannot be disregarded. In addition, by (a) requiring a merger of contiguous substandard lots; (b) prohibiting construction on separate properties that have previously been merged; (c) preventing the division of lots to create a nonconforming lot; and (d) requiring subdivision approval of the division of any lot, Lake Elmo's zoning ordinances seek to bring properties in compliance with minimum lot sizes and curtail building on substandard lots. A variance in this situation would be contrary to the intent and spirit of Lake Elmo's zoning ordinances as demonstrated by all of these provisions. Further, when we purchased our property in 2001, we relied on the zoning protections knowing that minimum lot requirements were 1.5 acres and that Lot 7 and Lot 8 cannot legally be split. We purchased our home in Lake Elmo in large part because of the open space in the neighborhood and Lake Elmo's historical sensitivity to these and similar issues. The construction of a house on a sliver of neighboring land will not fit into the neighborhood and will negatively affect our privacy, views, and enjoyment of our property. The ordinance was intended to address these issues, and a variance would not be in keeping with its intent and spirit. In summary, we believe that the City should again confirm that the substandard lot was previously merged with the contiguous property to its west and does not qualify for a variance or any residential construction permit, but that if a variance is considered, it should be denied because there are no unique circumstances as required by the ordinance and under all of the facts here a variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinances. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, John and Marie Duffert Page 5 of 5 FOCUSENGINEERING, inc. MEMORANDUM Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin,P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Date: January 2, 2020 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285 To: Ben Prchal, City Planner Re: 8305-8364 Stillwater Boulevard From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer Rural Residential Lot Variances A variance request was received to build a new home on combined existing parcels, including parcel 16.029.21.34.0008 and parcel 16.029.21.34.0015. The Rural Residential Lot is part of an existing plat at an unaddressed property between 8308 Stillwater Blvd. and 8364 Stillwater Blvd. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for its zoning district and the reserved septic areas, primary and secondary do not meet the required 20,000 SF. Engineering has the following review comments: 1. The survey proposes a 4,300 SF area to be reserved for the primary septic system and a 4,300 SF area to be reserved for the secondary septic system for a combined area of 8,600 SF. The City code requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet of land to be dedicated for septic system use and suitable for that use. 2. The septic treatment systems for this property fall under the jurisdiction and review of Washington County. Recommendations: 1. The applicant should be required to submit a proposed septic system design for the property, including sizing for primary and secondary systems and for the specified home to be constructed on the property (e.g. number of bedrooms, etc.). A county approved septic system design should be submitted for the city files. The design should verify that the 8,600 SF of area is sufficient to provide both a primary and secondary system, or additional area must be identified and reserved as needed for the approved design. 2. The applicant should be required to submit to the City documentation that the proposed septic system areas are suitable for its intended use. The documentation must be based on detailed soil surveys and field inspections by the designer and should not be based on general assumptions. 3. Additional variances to the septic system design should not be permitted without further city review. 4. Lot grading revisions are required to create a more defined drainage swale along the westerly property line. Drainage should not be allowed toward to west onto the neighboring property, but rather must flow along the property line to the rear of the lot. PAGE 1 of 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 A RESOLUTION DENTING PATRICK KINNET/P..I. REALITY, INC. REQUEST FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE ZONING VARIANCE A. WHEREAS, Patrick Kinney represents that he and/or his.company, PJK Realty, Inc., is the record fee owner of the following described parcels (both herein the "Kinney Property"): I. Lot 7, Beau Haven which is zoned R-I and contains approximately 19,000 square feet; and 2. Outlot G, Eagle Point Creek Estates which is zoned RE and contains approximately 11,4000 square feet. B. WHEREAS, Kinney has applied to the City of the Lake Elmo for a minimum lot size variance so that a residential dwelling could be constructed on the Kinney Property; and C. WHEREAS, it appears that Outlot G, Eagle Point Creek Estates should have been rezoned from RE to R-1 in 1995; and D. WHEREAS, the minimum lot size requirements for property located in the R-I zone are less restrictive than the minimum lot size requirements of property located in the RE zone; and E. WHEREAS, the City Planner has indicated that the City should treat the Kinney Property as if it were all zoned R-1 fog purposes of reviewing this variance application thereby applying the less restrictive lot size standard to all of the Kinney Property; and F. WHEREAS, the Kinney Property is not served by municipal sanitary sewer; and G. WHEREAS, the City's development regulations indicate that: I. For property which is not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot size in an R-1 zone is I and �/a acres (300.07 Subd. 4 C.2). 2. Substandard lots will be considered buildable if the area and width of the substandard lot are at least 60% of the minimum requirements, and if it is demonstrated that a safe and adequate sewage treatment system can be installed (300.09 Subd. 1). 3. If two or more non-contiguous parcels are owned by the same person,the parcels must be combined to meet the minimum requirements (300.09 Subd. 2). 4. If public sewer is not available and not anticipated, single family home sites must have a one acre on-site sewage treatment area; and H. WHEREAS,the Kinney Property: 1. Has 30,400 square feet; 2. Has a lot size which is only 48% of the minimum lot size requirement for property in R-1 zones; 3. Had been owned by the adjacent property owner who sold the property to Kinney; 4. Has less than one acre which can be utilized for an on-site sewage treatment area; and I. WHEREAS, a portion of the Kinney Property is located within the 940 flood plain, and all of the Kinney Property is located within 300 feet of the shore line of Eagle Point Creek; and J. WHEREAS, it has not been demonstrated that a residential building could be constructed in full compliance with all of the City's other zoning and flood plain regulations;and K. WHEREAS, on May 29, 2002,the Lake Elmo Planning Commission,by a 4 to 3 vote, recommended approval of the variance; L. WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002,the Lake Elmo City Council considered the recommendations of the City Planner,the comments of the applicant and residents who appeared at the meeting,the recommendations of the Planning Commission and directed the City staff to prepare a resolution denying the application for a variance to be considered on July 16, 2002; and M. WHEREAS, Patrick Kinney has twenty-three (23) years of real estate experience; did not review the City's regulations prior to purchasing the Kinney Property; did not apply for a variance prior to purchasing the Kinney Property; and did not purchase the Kinney Property contingent upon the granting of the variance by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVER that the Lake Elmo City Council hereby denies the Kinney application for a minimum lot size variance and makes the following findings: -2- 1. The Kinney Property (given its location, size, prior ownership by an adjacent property owner, and lack of public sanitary sewer) was and can be used in a reasonable manner as part of one or more adjacent parcels,just as it had been used prior to the acquisition of the Kinney Property by Patrick Kinney. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances created by the previous owner of the property and by the applicant, and is not due to the unique circumstances of the property. 3. The variance, if granted, may not change the character of the neighborhood, but a final determination on this point cannot be made without a complete set of plans demonstrating that a single family dwelling can be constructed in compliance with all other zoning and flood plain regulations. 4. The applicant has not proven an undue hardship. ADOPTED, by the Lake EImo City Council on the 16" day of July, 2002 Lee Hunt, Mayor Attest: t� r f Mary Ku e er City Administrator FAusersULORIUersyTMinney-Resolution Denying Zooiog-02.wpd d � s andshavn ; tifY to hsatar-auate yet the oornerspaal indicatedhanda than the eameais aaet.f Thar rna¢LeY1soo net ogrounc�A�n• or any travell+.d road or eac•emen{. on or across same or as s hown. �• urve Y'-r:,ert. N467. State of"-innexiota ;Aunty of Yaehingt-"0.this 45t'd¢) o: � "D '•961 before m^ pwraont 11,, n the undnrelgent Edgar C Swenson to=>is'kA. to ;,+ trm 1'nraon dwsc ri9ea in and who ez^eu 1 tolnf Snstrtruert ye his 1 own fret set and dead. Rotary c"N ashin✓,ton Aunty E'Snn+e ott B Edr' v - HAVEN my'.ommiesionexpir. _- SE%. 504 5,c. 165e NE'4 NYy:*'SEC. 21 T'290 1J R Zf W Wg5H,N9TON CoUN'TY FINN. Thi 961 'ouft July 196f hcotl ud and xI,p,ov.d by the',Mn!i- L' rd i%� •IR dre of as iron 5, Se wfr- , C i++r Su'v e e r h� "'Pte. nd a pFravtd by the ..card of County Hamm.;ssi±n^rs ai --hington :ounty,necata 'ih:e ?f r l 961 day six'--^ :ountr t?" Rtington aurtY b(innesota I i heroby certity that the T..zee for the year on he r-;_n property u s Fsid . n'aehin ton County, Yreasurer of i *, tL -- ` pats and transfer eat+red this7.C'- day of 161�`/; � k —is shi n Io or V i w s c 'ca filed to�- L•Cora Uua d¢y oa 196T \yh v TZ9 hrgiyter of heeds `'ashingto^�C Aunty, uinneeol .. _ 1 �b v 4 i toes _- Z S - .3 2 _ q we Psul G Pierson and :.orethy d !i roa husband sit'° Fri dze 1 6•E 98a I__�---'�4� 'fkde is to certify `• a`. w11 that. part o the ,he'Az o c sat :S \ 4- v 4t of the following des: >_o d property to Witt v it 21 X ttngt on oust i ^sots N• - i2 5 _ and that part of ..+ +; oY tha Nd'; of"I -on 2I in T 7.9 o - yet M_ = O 40 2 L a, lc d - \ y1 h° og - boueded as Collewe; end tahtish d 125 qo. z 5 Beginning st a pclnt on the North right of way lion of State flyway i t- _•1' rtr �ti 90 b �ta e;, ,Z + ,.,}� �— _3,_,234 _ rt. 'dest frog Lite :h, Ascent aP oats p�int boring zi4it No,th and s3 ;lorth,rly right of eaY line , :a 304S t a id coon :{ 'neroe •F:8° alone the a :h.,n - _ _ sDO 3j t or a %J r.4 ; c,1.Moro The ee 82'I6' N -944 2 fT*'Yt.tto ae point on the ds td la nc of of afar-tho mid oflth. A - I' It 0 1 Z 5 _ S°44 North -ang the wnat 11 •5.• 18 ft. (hence 00° 2 _ 2�•7S'7 .• BO.Ift. Theme N B@ 3 .m 16 Thwnce u 82° 16 - - 9 { G_ (297•� 33 33 have sous nd the same to be survey^d and plattw,nd hereaftu whall m (0 a _ to the point �af beginning. - be knovn an BF,nU NnVED; wn ahoen by this qo 1 2 5 S a 16 'fitness our W.A. and -e.1e this,'_,-day oL., - - 4" 1 Z- - N 9 n pr.a-non a' =;- Y AY ro SEC E �4 ti _ J O l.> State of]tiaaeeotn County of Wa¢hi.ngton �,�r; I961 beforw me personally {,red the uninreianed - Un thin -I day of .D�(' coons, . Paul G Herron and borothy d Yterson his wif+, to me knom to he the Fe ee andedn^a.+ne ,ho executwd the foregoing instrument and that they exeeut ed the hamw ae their own fre Notary Public:yaehingtnn Ny Co::vad anion :;zpirea.�,f.•;�,_._..,�-_-�•.�.. CITY OF LAK_ ELMO COPY EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES Folz, Freeman, Dupay UR Associates, Inc. ® LAND SURVEYING •LAND PLANNING 7815 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE•STILLWAIER,MINNESOTA 55062 (612) 439_8833 OWNERS CERTIFICATE CITY OF LAKE ELMO KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Jon W.Whitcomb,a single person,fee owner of the following described property situated in Washington Court Approved by the City ouncil of the City of Lake Elmo,Minnesota,this day of gt ty'• ,199 The provisions of Minnesota Statutes,Section Minnesota: 505.03.Subd.2 have een satis�fi(�. Lot 10 of BEAU-HAVEN,according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder,Washington County.Minnesota,EXCEPT that part Signed v s`_ '' Attest thereof designated as Parcel 32 of WAS HINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.23,recorded as Document No.393903 in the office of the Mayor �, -G County Recorder.Washington County.Minnesota. Clerk Reviewed by the City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission,this day of ,19 y ALSO.that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16,Township 29 North,Range 21 West.Washington County,Minnesota lying — northerly of Parcel 40 of said WASHINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.23:Iving southerly of the Chicago and Northwestem Railroad Signed Signed right-of--way as described in Book 7 of Dceds.page 106.recorded and on file is said office of the Count,Recorder:and lying westerly of the following described line: Chairman Secretary Commencing at the southeast comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.thence North 00 degrees 06 minutes 43 seconds East,assumed bearing.along the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarters distance of 864_i6 feet to the southeasterly comer of said tract described in Book 7 of Deeds,page 106:thence South 87 degrees 00 minutes 59 seconds West along the southery line of said tract 600.00 fcet thence South 02 degrees COUNTY SURVEYOR 59 minutes 01 second East along said southerly line 50.00 feet thence South 87 degrees 00 minutes 59 seconds West along said southerly line 39151 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described:thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 58.09 feet:thence South 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 Pursuant to Chapter 820,Laws of Minnesota.1971,this plat has been approved this72YL day of,6 o! .h ,199 S_ seconds East 196.00 feel thence South 46 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 129.00 feet:thence North 84 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 52.00 feet: — thence South 67 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 77.00 feet:thence South I I degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 107.00 feet:thence North 84 degrees By / /��,�y By . 00 minutes 00 seconds East 84.00 feet:thence North 49 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 137.00 feet:thence South 70 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds / ashington County Surveyor East 77,00 feet to the west line of the East 300.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter:thence South 00 degrees 06 minutes 43 seconds // West along said west line 356.63 feet to the northerly line of said Parcel 40 and said line there terminate. ALSO.that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 16 lying southerly of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad right-of-way as described in Book 7 of Deeds.page 106,recorded and on file is said office of the Count%Recorder EXCEPT that part thereof previously platted as said plat of BEAU-HAVEN and also.EXCEPT that part thereof lying within said WASHINGTON COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.23. COUNTYAUDITOR/TREASURER T�/yre areL�n"o delinquent taxes, the current taxes due and payable for the year 19� have been paid, and transfer entered this � day of Have caused the same to be surveyed,platted and known as EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES and do hereby dedicate and donate to the public for public use forever LI/pJILA4 6 ,199-6-' Inwood Avenue North and also dedicate the easements as shown on this plat for drainage and/or utility purposes only. Dv R 1/ By /7 In witness f JJwhereo said Jon W.N c ptb.a single person,has set his hand and seat this�a'TH day of N oye".1 etc ,199 c' Washington Coiling Auditor/'reasurer DepuR- (A JoA W.Whitcomb COUNTYRECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Document Number B(e F^-/5 r 91C n 7 COUNTY OF J,1)ASN IN L-m) ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 6-m day of NDVEM we 199 S-by Jon W.Whitcomb,a 1 hcmbv otr ifi this instrument was filed in the office of the Count%Recorder for record on this day of /(��C k2 6-e.H -199S-,at /'Yd single person. delock P M.,and was recorded in Washington Count,Records. \ My commission expires ..J pN 14 kg�y 31 f Zoo o By By Notary Public, ENn)L!^A County,Minnesota Washington Count%Recorder Deputy SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 1.David L.Dupay,hereby certify that 1 have surveved and platted the property described on this plat as EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES:that this plat is a cores representation of the survey:that all distances are correctly shown on the plat in feet and hundredths ofa foot on the plat;that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown:that the outside boundary lines are erectly designated on the plat:and that them are no wet lands.as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Secuom 505.02. Subd..I.or public highways to be designated on said plat other than as shown. � David L Dupay-Minnesota and Surveyor-Registration No,17252 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OFLv+V��t�.��/'"w )The foregoing certificate,by David L.Dupay.Registered Land Survevor,was acknowledged before me.a Notary Public,this 4 Y day of /L ek/d'rr 5.,''y .199.S- — 'Fad My commission expires ,JA1Vugtly 31 2Lt7a Notary Public. _ CounRt M� ynnesota --7--7 EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES Sheet I of 2 Sheets CITY OF LAKE ELMO COPY VICINITY MAP SEC. 16, T29N, R21 W EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. ® LAND SURVEYING •LAND PLANNING ATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 SEC. 1 6 1815 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE•STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082 SEC. 17i CHICAGO? "NORTIIVIESTERN RAILROAD �r < EAGLE POIN 612 439-8833 $ REEK ESTATE C.S.A.H.6 1 - WASHINGTON COUNTY Cl.AT THE STILLWATER BL4D N N1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 16,T29N,R21W I m 0 SEC. 20 I SEC. 21 z`a a -® - - - ___ Scale, _,aaa n - - - - � p _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - J ------------- - -- m o _ -____-___-- b[TrI vv C_Z Tr I I __ - _ ----------------91 -------------- ivvfl 1 r1rrl_J 1��11v T --------_- - - - ---- is nn A nn �All nll vnV ------ ` roll now removed) - --------- �\ VEINn\TV '----Centerl/ne original main ( __.__-_------ ----- - - X ----------- T-- - - - - - --80 ------------ �� N - ----- -------- - `r Tract Described In Boo _ -- - f existing main rail - ------ w nE Book comer7 of Deeds,dPa9eb106 -_Centerline a ng - _ : Of Deeda,Page 4 -- yONglnal R/W 1253(Rea --"--------�--- ' - -�- , 1248.J7(Moos.)--- ) 13 Rec.) 72.6f - 1 6.57 6 .00 I __ ----------'--_-- og (( 1� -------- NS 543'S4"E Southerly R/W of Chlca90 g 9.96(Mena.)" 1`�t,.._,�_..._._222.62 �p .h a Deacrlbed In I nS I ,~-------- Northwestern Railroad-�� Sf 1'!6'21'E .-t"i - OHO p Tract Deeds o,oa 1 567'00'59"W South line o,tract described in f32092 _ - �- _ / Baok 7 0l Deeds,po9e 106 _ 586.79 7- ,.y O' ^O Book f _m - 105.70 1.Ed ,��' g0 �\ 1 587b0'S"W N73770q� h ?�^ _ Pa 1 -----------770.17-------------- l = 9e o f �<c\ \OP i 1473323 0 _-r P,S.\ b0 90 1 ofi 58.09 S87b0'59"W v - - - - ---- / Wet/on �P�� \ �eL/ \\ \C�b I. N77p0�p�vN so ti. Sssroo'oo"E SCALE: -- m 0 ! RP O� /!/ $ CT161NE SWi/4-SEi/4 ssb0 \�\ SR Inch Feet 9sno 6 6o i6o -Centerline AMOCO pipeline Easement a \.• OOOO. h j 2 /OOOOV 1 i described in Book 252 of Deeds,pages267S$o\`` 25 foot wide Drainage Easement /fit F BL O/ as d...rlbed 1.0o..No.832733 y K l �� w l� \\ •mob p = h / /9 0o t rsD. 59pp00 s6sbD'ooE Yby �� o r�o j25.775 \ P n $\p\ \ 15 tT =N 6) h 5 Sz000'00"w WH m S Pa°_,, \ A' `b^� \ h 7bOp wo 8 h 000E Oh /T/ti _ �,� � \\.�077 �_,�� i� 36 tv �Q Do/ as 'I+Z" /f1ti \\ 40 p0 0p e _r 31.90 _ea �pO {0� p d l 277�� 9p.M1h i ��o \ F / oD m.• II om 7 Q�6 / / h ®0 a•/ f bo Ile oN84'00'WE 0 Ask, 15G", 84.00RFf1- !O N r)'ST�hy rG -_` _ 14d 07 1 / �'' ._ o -_ _ 589547J_E_ 3 // �O'S i//� t O� GJl. 30/ 7 'o Nb /00a--- \ �305.71 / O� II Im 1 12--- -� f0/1 N831M'00"E N� hh /-� h^a i A5"� v 0 P �/� I ^' /"� \ G I S846695 I 13744 bo ,4�0/ '///1.00� A� "`� m /109h^a \\ \ I I P y Iv �. 'A 50.04 ml I G 10� \ \ \ I �/�� 1 M $n a NB7yy8'45'E/ ( / �577g r-50.04 I�NOOM9Y5'W 1 ;+ p$ \ \ I OI IN ,. m a N � �� / { 383/b0'✓f0 t 66.70, ; 0 / /.-69.88 1 10807'29"W %IN0099'1p w i1 1 \` \ \\ Ito � � w\ L,3 b N08b7'29"W l z f fO )Jgr60.002�j `DR�^GE EASEMEN ,."/� 1 \ i_ ^1 -NORTH LINE BEAU-HAVEN / l 1 / 3.7T--� in �d-70'J1'44' \ I I I3 T z ro ar 1 1 I I N8728'45 E P I� I R=30.00 \ \ �I�,� /-{T O �p I I '{O PG'�' n O 1 /: p e a J, r' AS MONUMENTED S8728.45"W / - / L-1----- $ L-J6.93 3 5\ __LBL C/( I I V 5 / 'A/N \$ i.�/ , --- / 846.41 _t---- , 11 �`d ONI /^/oi $\ h ll -1 -y-.-----r--_-- 21 C=34.64 � d 1 295.6/ f ------ 153.11 24.89 24.89 c A F \252 \ ryI IN 1i I ti'0 I o zN po 125.66 I 125.66 I Olvtlot Ao °, 3533 ^\ I2.66 3 1 125.66 m OuHot C OU/JOt B m O la 4�O P.G• \\N I Iz �w NN ,f07.1 125.66/ I N {,D f24.89 124.89 0 ri Y \ \\`1I I I 1, 0 / � ; B tjo 67.79 s m I of 011 78.12 'n IQ $•\ I __-- rn UO / W /"$ o, m c°fi t G o n II �Ot P 0IIt1 125.06 J 317.57 314 Inch pinch roosi Fnd 31an o,0 / m$j//ryA n.'0 0' P " 6 P 100 m m ` I I P 3 m .30.N, pu m$ , 0 125.06 1` I S87'28'45",W 1 to iron o2 \ �„ III 8Gi3o in �, / ai ^N °^°P g m z 125.06 !1 I\ 3/4 inch rebar I / 1 pipe man. m Sa-) \ I I 306 63 N io piPe��\Pe ; / 'o/ 2Got I ^� z 125.06 1`1 I ... ------------ -------------- -1- a; Oil , 125.06 1 825.40"W 1 13/41nch rebal•,'I• --------------- I 1 _ C� \ /4 Iranm 301 3~'li'� y J78.80 \ \I n N 300.00 J L .J 1... 125.00 S81'ST 31 :.•' '� I plPe monument p.- /L ---VVV _-7 I 1 r1 I A pn 11/1 T I I 1 I 1 0 1021.47 eS CTI 1 %At A TC' L V nf\V 1 VV 1 rl --NORTHERLY LINE OF 6B vm 1 Iron q' : -SOUTH LINE r�F THE SE1/4-SW,/4 SEC.i6 Z 1 f\ i 58996'S3"W r--01 1_r �_3 4 inch I 1 I 11`\ 1 1 Nfi 36'O6"E v 1 IL_L_YYn I L L�V VL_ / �152.10 z+ `�--29.20 1 �e monument I COLAT 23 1 _ yI I SH. I 36.03 N\ CORHWY4R/W 3te.Do I 6 I PP 1 "I S 1 \ I i42.04 , " FEi r• :.; i.ciE"E... .. I.a:"E 't•..: P ... .`i _ .• �� / +-.•:. :'•. .. .. /320.56 EXCEP Sooro5 47 w - :::•.:, •... -sue _ �� 2636.00 •,,.+1 ,,.. �- �� 452.00•(Meos.&Rec.) • �• �v __ r 1 N88'36'53"E i N8927'39"E / // -- - - - / �0 11 -�� 1 t �I F r^ \ - - - - - - - - - 7� 2841.11 i0 z 1 ItA1 A 26.29 °y" 155.91 ^..r A Tr ^�V f11\�Fl�v n SE CORNER OF THE/ l � �� E _ S /- / - � N8735'53" �?$ //`(� i wf 4 Set 4 N81'S4'03_E Y`�vIVT\I .i 1 n I L :. "- � �• .� 2 I S1/41CORNERCOFNSEC.16.T29N,R21W If i1 I N T 11.06 v •.:.): •• _ \ -� ` ----Soum LINE S /-S / SEC 16 WASHINGTON COUNTY CIM AT THE N'ly R/W J / 42.00 N81'56'47"E •-.,i :..':i,•.j"';•- •� t� SE CORNER OF SEC.16,T29N,R20W---�of r 1 Wn 4 E, 4 Wash.Co.Hwy `SO8'OS'57"E I I F R/W Plat 23 '.:/.: +;••k 1 WASH. CO. L1J I 6 PARCEL 32 ... ... �� HWK RIµ'PLAT 2= t!' c- :.. I Lli C NOTES • I L,J I .... SENT COPIES OF PL r AT TO- -� I <C 5 O DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT n /I�� <� I r �- LIJ�) 5 I -LOT LINE Kevin Stroman SET AND MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP NSP David Wettergren L_L_I V I � I r I L_ r I i �i I `f\� I o -STREET LINE o INSCRIBED OTHERWISE. RLS 17252",UNLESS l SHOWN OTHERWISE. ISO#834 � 825 Ric St. �- i- I -+- • DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MONUMENT 1875 S.Greeley St. Stillwater,55082 St.Paul,55117 I �= I FOUND AND MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP ��F INSCRIBED"RLS 9232",UNLESS SHOWN �� I DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OTHERWISE. Tim Lange Barb Bjorkman I I _ O DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: US West Lake Elmo Elementary .... - I ,> j I BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING STREET LINES, ORIENTATION OF h115 BEARING SYSTEM IS ASSUMED. • •• •"r AND BEING 5 FEET IN N7DTH AND ADJOINING SIDE AND 70 West 4th St.,Bldg]C 11030 Stillwater Blvd.N. REAR LOT LINES,UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. St.Paul,55102 Lake Elmo,55042 I �= I -"'- DENOTES 0 EDGE OF LO PS 0 BY ENGINE GI EWETLAMARCO, Jim Wright WETLAND BIOLOGIST Lake Elmo Post Office EAGLE POINT CREEK ESTATES Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets NOTES TO USERS LEGEND This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program.It does SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS(SFHAs)SUBJECT TO INUNDATION not necessarily denti II areas subject to flooding,particularly from local drainage BY THE 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD y identify a q g p y g �Scep'"E 35TH ST N sus W°m E ce7pp0in E The 1%annual chance Flootl(IOONear flood),also known as the base flood,Is the Flootl NM has a possible of Smell r ad The community Nazar map repository Should be Consulted for 92°56'15" JOINS PANEL 0245 92°54'22.5" 1%chance of being equaled or exceedetl In any given year.The Special Flood Hazard Area Is the possible updated or additional flood hazard information. area%bjed to flooding by the 1%annual chance flood.Areas of Special Flood Hazard include 45°00'00" 45°00'00" Zones A,AE,AH,AD,AR,A99,V,and VE.The Base Flood Elevation Is the water-surface elevation JAMACA AVEN of the l%annual chance flood. To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations(BEES) • `� �2, ° Be.ZONE A No Flood Elevations determined. and/or floodways have been determined,users are encouraged to consult the Flood 20NE A Base Flood Elevations determined. E Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Stillwater Elevations tables contained Sqj, "'� T" within the Flood Insurance Study(EIS)Report that accompanies this FIRM. Users FN - y n ' {,' ZONEAH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually areas of Fording);Base Flood ElwabDns should be aware that BEES shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-foot �i determined. elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance rating purposes only and ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet(usually sheet flow on sloping terrain);average should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Accordingly, Cot f Lake EMI' depths determined.For areas of alluvial fan flooding,velocities also determined. flood elevation data presented in the FIS Report should be utilized in conjunction with _ the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management. - J MAC C N Z ZONE AR flood b Flood Hazard Areas formerly as sus from the ce%annual chance 4 H uE N Flood by a Flood control system that was subsequently decertlFlad.pone AR • _ indicates that the former Flood control system is being restored to provide protecdon from the 1%annual chance or greater flood. Coastal Base Flood Elevations shown on this map apply only landward of 0.0' ,� 1: _ ZONEAss Area to be protected from 1%annual chance flood by a Federal flood protection North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAND 88). Users of this FIRM should be construction;�.� 1 1 system under construction;no Base Flood Elevations determined. aware that coastal flood elevations are also provided in the Summary of Stillwater " Elevations table in the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. Elevations ZONE V Coaxed food zone with velocity hazard(wave anion);no Base Flood Elevations shown in the Summary of Stillwater Elevations table should be used for construction r•• \•\ _ - determined. and/or floodplain management purposes when they are higher than the elevations 'NI " _ ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard(wave action);Sale Flood Elevations shown on this FIRM. L1ty"llt Lalke El m-Ii If,, _ g7l LW ERB ON determined. 2705'05 FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated 2: NE A - - - The Foodway Is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent Flaodiplaln areas that must be kept free of between Cross sections.The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with PP 1 g'2 X Z encroachment so that the 1%annual chance flood can be carried without substantial Increases In regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway,widths .Q Flood heights. and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report mr. for this jurisdiction. .N•N PA HFp• I D `p,`• I OTHER FLOOD AREAS ` i:: M t •3rlgS`�ZN y r� , ZONE areas of 0.2%annual chance Flood;areas of 1%annual chance Flood with Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected b flood control r ,p N ij` �I TONE AE- average depthsof less than 1 foot or with drainage areas mess han 1 are y p y ZONEAE y �apN ` �•v iELslat _ mile; a protected by levees from 1% l chance flood. structures.Refer[o Section 2.4"Flood Protection Measures"of the Flood Insurance � Study Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction. Raleigh Creek 9q^ g2A qe� < * OTHER AREAS i�JONOUIL AVEN n W FHkt R9tCif•'!{r!'y(�ilU ^ ZONE Areas determned to be outside the02%annual chance floodplain. ZONE X p vg,24 ° .> ((({y (h0 820�/bOOr) The projection used in the preparation of this ma a `b a ZONED Areas In which Flood hazards are untletertnlned,but possible. p was Universal Transverse PROFILE BASELINE �! A Mercator(UTM)zone 15. The horizontal datum was MAD 83,GRS80 spheroid. 938 P °o t 929, Differences in datum,spheroid,projection or UTM zones used in the production of COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM(CBRS)AREAS FIRMS for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional differences in map z 916 _ features across jurisdiction boundaries.These differences do not affect the accuracy _ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS(OFI of this FIRM. STILLWATER BLVDNI BO :•�` 13a �g1A L CBRS areas and OPAs are normally locand within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD DISCHARGE 1%annual chance floodplain boundary Flood elevations on this map are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of a C•N,AINEB IN CULVERT �^ > 1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations °82coom N 9 } o.2%annual chance floodplain boundary referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion Floodway boundary m m � w between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American a _ f q g K 7 f �ONpUf1 - —— pone D boundary Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at 3 q 0',1 -, TRL .............. CBRS and OPA boundary htto://—.ngs.noaa.gm rcontactthe National Geodetic Survayatthe follming address: _ pp TRLN 1� Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different ease Spatial Reference System Division I ONWO 9 ~— Flood Elevations,Flood depths or flood velocities. National Geodetic Survey,NOAA m° Silver Spring Metro Center •^^-573^^ Base Flood Elevation line and value;elevation in feet' 1315 East-West Highway N J, • Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone;elevation in Silver Spring,Maryland 20810 2 TH sT N i 9' (EL 987) feet" (301)713-3191 - _ u• I z 'Referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 e+ / a ^y 907 ]TH ST N To obtain current elevation,description, A A Cross section line and/or location information for bench marks _ _ shown on this map,please contact the Information Services Branch of the National - za H ST N `c® 23 ----- 23 I'mmect line Geodetic Survey at(301)713-3242,or visit its website at htto://www.nas.noaa.Gov. ah c r 9p1 0—(A> Modeled Node Label Base map Information shown on this FIRM was obtained from the Minnesota oe H v Land Management ement Information Center LMIC. The orthophotos have a resolution Z `° g07 w 45-02.08'93-02'12- Geographic coordinates referenced to fibs North American Datum of 9 ( ) Q = I 905 M 1963(NAD 83),Western Hemisphere of one meter and are dated 2008. O. A Dirt O '86"'N 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values,zone 15 Z 9U fir W ML5510 Bench mark(see explanation in Notes to Users section of this FIRM The profile baselines depicted on this map represent the hydraulic modeling O - N•TE:MAP RE -H HI- E-L / Q X panel) baselines that match the flood profiles in the FIS report. As a result of improved -L ATE-• ITHI T P a M1.5 River Mile topographic data,the profile baseline,in some cases,may deviate significantly from _ - N E 21 E- T. o,MO 2✓2 Z the channel centedine or appear outside the Special Flood Hazard Area. H•sTN Op 9 O MAP REPOSITORIES Corporate limits shown on this map are based on the best data available at the time Refer to listing of Map Repositories on Map Index of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de-annexations may have - _ 21 �-S �DO EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE occurred after this map Was published, map users should contact appropriate A' FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. +l FEBRUARY 3,2010 Please refer to the separately printed Map Index for an overview map of the EFFECTIVE DATES)OF REVISIONS)TO THIS PANEL county showing the layout of map panels;community map repository addresses; and a Listing of Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program dates for each community as well as a listing of the panels on which each community E is located. ZONE X Contact the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616 for information E on available products associated with this FIRM. Available products may inGude 4861°0°mN— c '{ For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping,refer to me Community Map History previously issued Leiters of Map Change,a Flood Insurance Study Report,antl/ortt f Lake E�LmO table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this junsdic8on. digital versions of this map.The FEMA Map Service Center may also be reached by C Fax at 1-800-358-9620 and its website at http://www.msc.fema.goy. '70j 5 To determine If Flootl Insurance Is available In this community,contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638E820. If you have questions about this map or questions concerning the National Flood Insurance Program in general,please call 1.877-FEMA MAP(1-877-336-2627)or visit the FEMA website at httD://www.fema.aov/business/nfiD. 9+f 250 0 MAP SCALE 57D'o=500' 1000 7 I FEET METERS T TN •� Raleigh Creek 150 0 150 300 % `�, PROFILE BASELINE 900 PANEL 0331E FIRM r o D FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP w Q,S, 9p ED a � WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA m AND INCORPORATED AREAS c _ - PANEL 331 OF 456 '80"'IN N. �.� (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) NE A CONTAINS' D In IMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX WWWi LAKE ELMO,CITY OF 270505 0331 E IP W IVORY CT � �` 900 m rgTfl,STCT N ONE CD �.. T5TH s N 15TH ST N t t 1 Notice to User:The Map Number shown below _ _• �i�1 f Lake E�I�m should be used when placing map orders;the City Of Lake E�ImO ----- ---I. ""-- Community Number shown above should be L 2705'0-5 27U5 used on insurance applications for the subject At 1t - community. ARTY 44°58'07S" JOINS PANEL 0335 92°54 22.�07.5" CID /fie M 7P 3CO3631 ER 9 E 2°56'15" o EFFECTIVE DATE FEBRUARY 3,2010 likilFederal Emergency Management Agency THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO STAFF REPORT DATE: 01/13/2020 REGULAR ITEM#: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan Amendments—MUSA Boundary Change, Update to City's Wastewater Facilities and Land Use Plans—Heritage Farms Sanitary Sewer Service Area Extension and Re-guidance to Village Low Density Residential REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer BACKGROUND: The City Council recently approved a public improvement project to extend sanitary sewer to the existing Heritage Farms subdivision. This development is located west of Manning Avenue and south of 301h Street and has 44 single-family homes that are now served by on-site sanitary sewer(septic) systems. The proposed public improvement project will extend sanitary sewer throughout the subdivision(along with other improvements) and will allow the property owners to connect to the City sanitary sewer system. The City is planning this improvement project for the 2020 construction season. This sewer change,however,requires City Council and Met Council approval of several changes to the recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The changes are required because the Heritage Farms subdivision is not now included in the MUSA(Metropolitan Urban Service Area)nor had the City included these 44 properties in the Wastewater calculations in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments require a 4/5th affirmative vote by the City Council and approval by the Metropolitan Council. (Please see the attached maps and tables for more information about the proposed changes). ISSUE BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION: Should the City amend the MUSA Boundary and other relevant sections and elements of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to include the Heritage Farms subdivision in the sanitary sewer service area? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Amendment to the MUSA Boundary. The MUSA Boundaries for the sanitary sewer service areas in the City of Lake Elmo are depicted on the maps on Pages 3-11 (Map 3-2), 3-17 (Map 3-3), 3-19 (Map 3-5), 3- 26 (Map 3-7) and 9-5 (Map 9-1) of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Heritage Farms subdivision is not now included in the MUSA in the City. As noted above, the City needs to change the MUSA boundary on all relevant maps in the Comprehensive Plan to include the Heritage Farms subdivision as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order for the sanitary sewer project to proceed. Amendment to Wastewater Services and Facilities Plan. As part of their feasibility study, Engineering reviewed the possibility and effects of adding the 44 properties to the sanitary sewer system. They determined the sanitary system can accommodate these additional properties on the system. The City will 1 need to amend several tables in the existing Comprehensive Plan to show the addition of 44 single-family properties to the sanitary sewer system. They include Table 3-4(page 3-21),Table 9-2(page 9-8),Tables 9- 3 and 9-4 (on page 9-9) and Table 9-5 (on page 9-10). Amendment to Land Use Plan. The City will need to re-guide (change the land use designation) of aforementioned single-family properties in the Heritage Farms subdivision from RAD (rural area development)to the V-LDR(village low density). This is because the RAD land use designation is for areas not in the MUSA while the V-LDR designation is planned for areas within the Village Planning Area and identifies land intended for single-family detached housing development serviced by municipal sewer and water. Met Council Review.The Met Council has confirmed that the usual jurisdictional review period for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment will likely not be required. Additionally,the request may qualify for administrative review by the Met Council,rather than full Council review,meaning that the approval process for this request may take a shorter time period than a typical Comprehensive Plan Amendment. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will be assessing the full cost(100%) of the sanitary sewer extension project to the 44 benefitting properties.The additional 44 properties on the City sanitary sewer system also will generate additional Sewer Access Charge(SAC)fees to the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of amendments to the Land Use Plan and to the Wastewater Services and Facilities Plan of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by adding the 44 existing single-family home sites in the Heritage Farms subdivision to the City's sanitary sewer area. "Motion to recommend approval of all necessary amendments to the 2040 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan (including those to the Land Use Plan and to Wastewater Services Plan)to add the existing 44 single-family properties in the Heritage Farms subdivision to the City's sanitary sewer area." Additionally, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan,re-guiding the aforementioned existing 44 single-family properties from RAD(Rural Area Development)to V-LDR(Village Low-density Residential). "Motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment re guiding on the City's Land Use Plan the existing single-family homes in the Heritage Farms subdivision from RAD(Rural Area Development) to V-LDR(Village Low-Density Residential)." ATTACHMENTS: Page 3-11 (Map 3-2) Page 3-17 (Map 3-3) Page 3-19 (Map 3-5) Page 3-26 (Map 3-7) Page 9-5 (Map 9-1) Page 3-21 (Table 3-4) Page 9-8 (Table 9-2) Page 9-9 (Tables 9-3 and 9-4) Page 9-10 (Table 9-5) Pages 3-17 and 3-19 (Maps 3-3 and 3-5)Proposed Land Use Map Amendment to V-LDR 2 Map 3-2. 2018- 2040 MUSA i ' 1 _ +/luau{;11111r� I, ��"� �`J Rntn.n,•�!P -��',� •n1✓ IIIII♦ � IRf� + R� `„�� • Nq ll_fl!^� �7n • ■ TTT ��e��`/�!♦��1lEIIJ:aftl7Cle�r 1h;1' 1' .�II111i�e�!!nip _'.o. �" fir rl' -y rz 50- i'4Se11:11111VILLAGE PLANNING AREA d � (MUSA) 1 1 ,"':::•iVIIc, i� STILIWA ' :_�•_G=— . � kv f �'elrsel _'will"t EY�dr �31► '�a y : - �—. • - c 1, LZZ floc/1es�.S_II►nl �'' : J,fto 9 'rir also...Fit its. Vi a1604 'l %F d flip;10 Ilk '' •!� '�_- �t' i ��r•.=,Down creep � t 1 . _ • rt 1 Hor, 9 Jj �. . - • / � il au�I � 1 1ATH S Elliw,� le _ �.� 1 tsVon e1t.Ys/� SOUTH PLANNING AREA (MUSA) SEEN .- LAND USE rne,m,r LAKE City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 t. Map 3-3. Future Land Use Map -- 60TH ST Njloll., - KlPoay+'�IJ* _ f nnamell - ,_t•� 50TH S_T_N 47TH ST N r. ' Dirk's P�,)d Goetschel 'iTM STct �_ as 9 ' on •Pond LAjtr-JXNgi T'RL N Bersr.len-� i 9romhr d i 1 ' ohm r I sums •- l %.> STILL ATER BLVD Po "iedn'll t Pond Jgoo Legi .- �- • � an 6 yIf ' Downs t Eagle �r tW� { - Point Elmo 1 I w d -f oboe I Armstrong T N Gt'ose -Rose nqW Z a- �r - • � 1 1 2040 Future Land Use LOR ®V-MDR-Closed Landflr)�Planned Roadway(Parkway) ®AP -MDR _V-HOR-Institutional RAD -HOR -V-NIU -Park Draft Date:Rev,6.11.2018 Source:Washington County, RSF -NIU-BP LB -PSP MNGEO,City of Lake Elmo,SHC ®RSFS -MU-C -BP ROW ®GC V.LDR -C MUSA 2040(Revised) LAND USE ntt rm.-0 LAKE EL,MO City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 Fa �,r '® 'I rvi�'wata�7Ca LZ �� pause /IC , =,0 i; OWN Ilk All • �- wn vamps Millis ill� I',Il�aupRlJlll uuuel �Wizz i.neu► ` �� .. aye jai LL Legend Phasing & Staged Growth The majority of the City's growth in households and employment is anticipated to occur within the designated MUSA boundaries; however, there will be some continued development in the rural residential areas of the community consistent with the community's land use designations. Table 3-6 identifies gross acreages per land use designation, while calculations found in Table 3-3 provide net acreage calculations for each residential land use designation within the designated MUSA as noted. The City's objective is to plan for phased, contiguous growth to ensure adequate infrastructure and capacity are available to support development. Map 3-7 identifies four staging areas consistent with existing and planned water, wastewater and transportation infrastructure. The City acknowledges that market conditions, as well as other Map 3-7. MUSA Growth & Phasing Plan r- 3-24 r may: lk_ J t„, '..,....i.... Er._..,.� 1 1 Y t • %BitI •�� - RN=V!f Vl.iMY.�.0�/L�0��IM�!fts.a Nf��Y�M.�••�r�N me.m i� LAND USE I"AKO City of lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 Map 9-1. Existing and Future Sanitary Sewer System City of Stitlwatrr Pier.Cprings City Of Grant Tonm,hip cm of -may^C ✓ WkPwrR Height., 7 J` Baytown Oakdale Township Service Connection itj'of Oakdale Lisbon Lift Station e rr MA ! Service Area i {hest akeland Tinvn.ship Royal Golf oyal Golf Lift Station Lift Station Servic/e'Area#2 Service Area#1 �i 5th Street Lift Station f-94 Keats Service Area ray Lift Station _- Lift Station .t Royal Golf Service Area Service Area Lift Station ♦� Service Area#3 I a. Oakdale' MCES Connection Kramer Lake Cottage Grove Citjt of{{oodbru:l' Lift Station `° Ravine I/Ion Service Area MCES Connection EXISTING & FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Existing Sewer Main v Existing Force Main 1-9A Lift Station o Future Force Main _ Keats Ave Lift Station South West MUSA South East MUSA Future Trunk Sewer Main ) Royal Golf South Lift Station Future Lift station n Royal Golf North Lift Statio • Olson Lake MUSA Old Village MUSA N Existing Lift Station Lisbon Lift Station !� Capacity Reference Point Map Date:May 2019 0 0.5 1 Miles Created By:Plonn:ng Department WASTEWATER SERVICES nn:unrF City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 LAKE ELMO Revised Population & Household Projections As noted in Table 3-3 the number of households, and thus the corresponding projected population, is consistent with the revised forecasts for the City as agreed to with the Metropolitan Council in June of 2019. As denoted in subsequent sections of this Chapter and the Sanitary Sewer Chapter, the City's infrastructure .may need additional improvements to its infrastructure to serve the entire MUSA area depending on the ultimate commercial and/or business user and density of the residential neighborhoods. Thus capacity of the infrastructure within later staging areas will need to be evaluated, and development approvals contingent on appropriate system upgrades. Regardless, this Plan identifies and guides all land within the MUSA with an urbanized land use designation. Table 3-4. Revised Population &Household Projections 020 2030 2040 Population Unsewered f,6-62 6' 7,319 7,457 Population Sewered 4"a i�6+1�i 10,686 W 14,847 Total Population 11,020 18,005 22,304 3 2 i Households Unsewered 2402.-71cff 2,642 2,742 Households Sewered 1,,550160-Z 3,858 5,458 Total Households 3,800 6,500 8,200 Source;Metropolitan Council, SHC, City of lake Elmo LAND USE PRIM t,l t9 LAKE City of lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 �. ,,,.._l'a « FORECASTS Population The Metropolitan Council projects and publishes population and sewer usage forecasts for each City in the Metropolitan Area.This allocation is used in projecting future wastewater flows and system capacity to plan for additional infrastructure needs.Table 9-2 shows such forecasts for .bake Elmo. Table 9--2. Population Forecasts for Lake Elmo ComponentForecast Year Forecast MCES Sewered 0 0 623 2010 Unsewered 8,061 2,776 1,318 MCES Sewered ' b` L, 1.8- 166,L�,ars8' 2,338 2020 Unsewered 1n.3 6, T 711�6 2,24-2- 562 2030 MCES Sewered 10,687 3,858- 2,788 Unsewered 7,318 2,642 562 9_8 2040 MCES Sewered 14,846 5,458 3,238 - Unsewered 7,458 2,742 562 Projections, Capacity and Staging for Regional Sewer Service Wastewater flow projections were generated for each MUSA area and regional interceptor for the 2020, 2030 and 2040 planning periods based on the anticipated land uses. Table 9-3 outlines these projections by sewer ItEC units, average day wastewater flows, and peak day wastewater flows. Table 9-4 summarizes projected flows for. each MCES interceptor. Table 9-5 then provides the capacity and. design flow information for each major trunk sewer and lift station together with the estimated 2040 design flows. The Existing and Future Sanitary Plan Map (Map 9-1) shows sewer service staging in four phases in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan in Chapter 3. WASTEWATER SERVICES 1,,1i<L ]?LNIt) Ciiy of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 Table 9-3. Projections by Sewer REC Units MCES WONE Inte77Units MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor REC AveragREC Average Peak Day NDay Proje Day Projected Projected Units Flow{M Flow(MGD) Flow(GPM) Old Village MUSA 82't -8-23 Southeast Planning MUSA 150 0.04 114 Southwest 821 0.23 594 Planning MUSA TOTALS 821 0.23 594 1 -9-74 �84, MCES WONE Interceptor/Oakdale MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor Average Peak Day Average Peak Day REC Day Projected Projected REC Day Projected Projected Units Flow(MGD) Flow(GPM) Units Flow(MGD) Flow(GPM) Old Village MUSA 1,879 0.52 1,216 Southeast Planning MUSA 437 0.12 333 9 9 Southwest 1,821 0.50 1,212 Planning MUSA TOTALS 1,821 0.50 1,212 2,316 0.64 1,499 111rRE WONE Interceptor/Oakdale MCES Cottage Grove Ravine Interceptor Average Peak Day Average Peak Day Day Projected Projected RECDay Projected Projected Flow(MGD) Flow(GPM) Units Flow(MGD) Flow(GPM) Old Village MUSA 2,109 0.58 1,365 Southeast Planning MUSH 1,383 0.38 948 Southwest 2,290 0.63 1,482 Planning MUSA TOTALS 2,290 0.63 1,482 3,492 1 0.96 2,127 Table 9-4. Projected Flows for Each MCES Interceptor Service Area (MGD) FlowsAverage Day Projected Wastewater Peak Day Projected Wastewater by • by • • Year WONE Cottage Grove Year WONE Cottage Grove 2020 0.23 —9.27- 2020 594 684- 71 2030 0.50 0.64 2030 1,212 1.499 2040 0.63 0.96 2040 1,492 2,127 WASTEWATER SERVICES LAKE EL\10 City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 TABLE 9-5 Capacity and Design Flows for Local Trunk Sewers and Lift Stations D CO n w (n m c n c n CODU) (D C cn (n m n m m m m m G� G� O < < < < < C Cn m N w 1� v, D z m m N W a in MN W N w a �n D z m � T M COa O a � Ozm Z = n if= _ cn � O N DzzM z Q r- Z m cn f Q 0 z o W 3 -a r r r o m cn p m N Z Cn Dmm Z N w o cn w Gn Dmm 0 °a (� - < A CD n v x Nm w N rr m m o m m o O O Z : o Z m m > Ia rr O a N d D n C7 n n 9 n n o n o Q o n n m (o a o D 'n C m o. 3 -sn = = C m ci O a @ 0l D z < a O @ d @ ' o n ci D D Z < o z < < < o 71 n < z < S. < m m m � < 5 5 K - n m (1) m N '� z z z m io d d m 3 '� Iz .g 11 m (n m (n CO m m m O ( m m m -� 3 °'. (n (n to (n -� m f � � m f f o CO f f f � * o m x m m m 0 nz O O (T (Jl -� O Q) m m O .VA O Cn N V Can W O W O V CD Cn m z m 3 o rn 0.1�1 M o n Cn o W a (D o cn 0 Cn CO n 0 � D' Z 1 y O ° n z n 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 m N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D $ i, o W i,) j 0 ro D z 8 N m a v o 0 0 W D a W O O { G� CD O (D 0) n T V O O W W N N O O V CD -+ m N (n N N A C f N A N Cn O O A V W W N V C n cn { 0 N m N O< m m m 3 W G� DT. D O CO m .0 O N -nD 0 r O O V O CDif r- O c� O Z � p � rn z M m m n m 0 o N o 0o n N CO N oo V No o m w w o (0 m o n � Z -I M � m x m O 0 0 0 0 0 cn O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 -n cn z rn m W G) O C oO - m o 0 0 0 o u, o A W v O O N N N W Q) 0 (D W CO M O W N N to V (D V N V A a 4, O D = V - a CD CD 0 CDa o 0 W o V C D m n m m O m D -0 ^� { D m N m A O w w s� a t a n W a W w w m 0 a D oO > O m iv o 0 0 0 0 o c o Cn a o > o m O m D G) o n m D m w GAD m OD W W W W m (O V C7+ O N ti W N N CO 0) 'f7 N N Ui Cn r- N O V W O i'-' <0 0O< G C m m ti rn �. ."LJ rn A' N CO .S W .? w �7 n W N O m � A CO Cn N Cn � O O O V CP Ul W CO n m Q) Cn CO (D W V CO (n 0 0 0 0 0 D m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D m W Ul --AW N O O o -• N .A. -+ O G7 O (7 N { C { THE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION LAKE ELMO DATE: 1/13/2020 AGENDA ITEM: CASE#N/A ITEM: 2020 Planning Department Work Plan SUBMITTED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner Kristina Handt, City Administrator SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission review the Planning Department Work Plan for 2020. REQUEST DETAILS: The Planning Department Staff has updated the 2019 Planning Work Plan for 2020 and below are the following that have been completed from the 2019 Plan: • 2040 Comprehensive Plan approval • Update the subdivision code ordinance • Adopt Mixed Use Zoning • Zoning code update for trailers in the front yard • CIP review • Contract with Muni Code(instead of American Legal)to update the City code Some projects are currently in progress: • Codify Zoning Ordinance(s) • Comprehensive plan amendment(s) • Submit application for Village Parkway railroad crossing • Summary cheat sheet • Update the PUD ordinance It is the intent of staff to address the work plan projects in the order that they have been ranked. However, some projects, although ranked lower in terms of priority take less time to accomplish. Because of this other projects with a lower priority will be given attention before or in tandem with others of a higher tank. REQUESTED ACTION: Staff is respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission review the Planning Department Work Plan for 2020. ATTACHMENT: • 2020 Planning Department Work Plan(redline) 2020 Planning Department Work Plan TI IF CITY OF Prepared by the Lake Elmo Planning Commission: 01/13/20 LAKE ELMO Accepted by the City Council: Key Status C - Complete IP - In Progress PL Priority Level 1-5 with 1 being the highest priority) Project and Description PL Status -Zoning Map Amendments . To be done after 2040 Comprehensive Plan update 1 IP Code Amendments • Codify Zoning Ordinance 1 matGh OP DI D proGSs 3 112 . Refine Design Guidelines and Manual to enhance a more 5 pedestrian scale and provide clear and descriptive elements to incorporate into urbanizing and redevelopment areas of the community. Reselye ZnniRg GenfliGtS with the Metropolitan Airports 4 IP Commission, Met e e and WashiRgton Cow* Implement City airport zoning regulations for the airport safet 4 IP zones w0thill the Village PlaRRORg Area . Review and make recommendations about new Airport 2 IP Zoning regulations after the approval of Airport Zoning regulations by the Lake Elmo JAZB and MnDOT 0 Review and Adopt the- Mixed Use-zonigg 4 C * Trailers OR frORt or side yards (driveways) 3 . Review PUD Ordinance - Remove Concept Plan review 4 IP . Begin Makin corrections to the Zonin code. 3 IP -Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Assist with the nreation of a master plan for selented Cit 3 IP • Drepare CPA to g iide RR and A pareels less than 20 aeres in 2 size to R • Look into modifyiRg the 7onln`v Code and Comprehensive 4 Plan to innli de requiring and/or innentiViZino affordable • Address amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as regured 5 IP Other Planning Initiatives • Submit application for new Village Parkway railroad crossing 4 IP 1 • Develop a policy or ordinance for stormwater reuse. 3 • Add/Review Planning Module from Permit Works to track 3 planning and zoning applications • Investigate conservation easement holder options/city policy 1 • Provide a cheat sheet that summarizes key goals, strategies 3 IP and characteristics of each land use designation that clearly describes the desired development in each area • Create educational materials that may include a brochure, 34_ website, or other publication to communicate the intended and planned development patterns in the urbanizing area • Participate in the planning for and the expected land uses for 2 IP the City-owned 180 acres of land near County Road 14 and Ideal Avenue -OngoingPlanning Activities • Planning Commission review of Capital Improvement Plan fnr 3 IP r+nncictennY with the Comprehensive Plan • Provide support to code enforcement program with the 3 IP Building Inspector as the Cit 's code enforcement officer • Conduct review of 201 (community) septic system policies 3 IP and management practices. Develop system for proper oversight, billing, and maintenance of community systems. • Update /\merloan Legal and the Gity website with Re 4 IP • Streamline & Improve Policies/Procedures for the handling of 1 IP routine land matters including but not limited to variances, site plan review, setbacks et al; • Consistently update the City Code on the City website as well 3 IP as American Legal Soon to be Muni Code 2