Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-08 PZMarm L.KE City of Lake Elmo jitEL fti10 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Ora NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, February 11, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. January 28, 2008 4. Welcome new Planning Commissioners — Greg Hall and Brenda Anderson 5. Public Hearings a. INTERIM USE PERMIT: Application from Common Ground Church to allow the keeping of horses for operation of the "Hoof Prints" ministry at 10240 Stillwater Blvd. N.; PF zoning; PID 14-029-21-32-0024. 6. Business Items a. Floodplain Map Updates b. Election of Officers 7. Informational Items a. City Council Updates i. February 4 — Appointments to Planning Commission ii. February 4 — Ordinance amendment for shoreland district — approved iii. February 4 — Village AUAR — development scenarios chosen to pass on for input 8. Adjourn DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Armstrong, Fliflet, Helwig, Lyzenga, McGinnis, Pelletier, Ptacek, Roth, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Planner Matzek. Agenda Commissioner Lyzenga asked that a conference update be added under Informational Items. M/S/P, Helwig/Roth, to approve the agenda as amended. Vote: 9:0. Minutes — January 14, 2008 M/S/P, Helwig/Pelletier, to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 8:0. McGinnis abstained. Public Hearing: Oakdale Gun Club CUP Amendment Planning Director Klatt gave a background on the conditional use permit, the 1998 resolution for the operations on the site, and the proposed amendment request. He said the applicant is requesting two alterations; the first is a structure to cover to an existing range and the second is an addition to an existing operations building. He said staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions. Torn Tousignant, Member of Oakdale Gun Club Mr. Tousignant said he provides firearm training at the site and there are times when safety training occurs and displaces noisier firearms onto uncovered ranges. He said that the proposed structure to cover the range would provide noise abatement and additional room for covered shooting. He said the building expansion would relieve scheduling conflicts for indoor safety training classes and would not require much grading. Commissioner Van Zandt asked what percentage of noise reduction would occur with the addition of the structure over the range. Jerry Marah, Building and Grounds Director at Oakdale Gun Club Mr. Marah said it should reduce the noise by 30 to 50 percent. He said they have had difficulties getting the sound meters to work on the southern property boundary due to the highway noise, but have had readings of 65 to 70 db. Commissioner Fliflet asked if covering the existing range would extend the season. Mr. Tousignant said there are no plans to extend the times or dates available for shooting. Commissioner Pelletier asked what are the current the hours of operation. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-28-08 1 DRAFT Terri Williams, Vice President of Oakdale Gun Club Ms. Williams said members are allowed to shoot at 8 a.m. until 30 minutes before sunset, year round. She said there are more restrictive times for the public and limitations on the time of the year. Mr. Tousignant said the proposed building would have additional noise abatement and safety characteristics such as heavy vinyl hanging from the ceiling to the ground along the south side of the structure and three foot wide swaths of conveyor belt material inside the structure. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 P.M. Warren Schmidt, 3240 Lake Elmo Ave N Mr. Schmidt said he has lived in his house for thirty two years and has noticed in the last six months that the noise has increased. Mr. Marah offered to go to their property to address their concern. Theresa Schmidt, 3240 Lake Elmo Ave N Mrs. Schmidt asked if the covering of the range would increase the use of other uncovered ranges. She asked if the police department has a contract to practice at the location. Mr. Tousignant responded that if the additional range were covered, it would reduce the number of users on uncovered shooting ranges. Ms. Williams said that the police rent the area to practice. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. M/S/P, Armstrong/ Helwig, move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit amendment. Vote: 9:0. Commissioner Pelletier asked if the property owned by the gun club to the east had any restrictions or if it could be sold in the future. Planning Director Klatt said that the property is guided for public facilities so a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be needed for future potential development. Business Item: 2008 Work Plan Planning Director Klatt provided a revised work plan with assigned priorities. Commissioner Fliflet said there was room for improvement on implementing the work plan. She asked staff to consider the length of an agenda and to consider holding off on items if there is only one item on an agenda. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-28-08 2 DRAFT Chairman Ptacek said that the commission often does not see what else staff has to work on, but that commissioners have the option to bring something forward if an item is not being addressed. M/S/P, Van ZandUHelwig, move to recommend forwarding the work plan to the City Council. Vote: 9:0. Business Item: Election of Officers Chairman Ptacek asked Planner Matzek if Commissioner Deziel's leave request had been reviewed by the Council and asked her to let the conunission know the council's decision. Commissioner Pelletier asked to vacate her position as Vice Chair of the commission. M/S/P, Helwig/Fliflet, motion to table election of officers until the February meeting. Vote: 9:0. Informational Items Planner Matzek stated that the City Council approved the request to rezone the property on 55`h Street, approved the ordinance amendment for reduction of front yard setbacks, and tabled the ordinance amendment for the shoreland district at the January 22"d meeting. Commissioner Lyzenga said she had attended a community sustainability workshop and will provide a written report for the commission and council to share the information. She encouraged commissioners to attend a neighborhood sustainability conference in March. Chairman Ptacek said work on the Village AUAR is continuing. He said the council will be discussing development scenarios on February 4`h, although no decisions will be made then. He stated that a public open house will be held at Oakland Junior High on February 28th. Adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelli Matzek Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-28-08 3 Planning Commission Date: 2/11/08 Public Hearing Item: 5a ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an Interim Use Permit (IUP) application from Common Ground Church to permit the keeping of horses. REQUESTED BY: Common Grounds Church, Applicant SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to consider a request from Common Ground Church to allow the keeping of horses as an interim use at 10240 Stillwater Blvd N. The zoning of the subject property is Public Facilities (PF) which allows the keeping of horses on the site as an interim permitted use. The applicants have identified approximately four acres as grazable land for horses and are proposing up to twelve horses be kept on the site throughout the year as part of the "Hoof Print" program. After reviewing the application, the Valley Branch Watershed District expressed concern regarding potential runoff from the site to Sunfish Lake if a high density of horses was permitted on the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and city staff also have concern with the number of horses requested and is suggesting the applicants adhere to city regulations which state that a site must have at least two acres of grazable land per horse. The staff analysis of the review criteria in City Code indicates that a maximum of two horses can be permitted as an interim use on the subject property given the acreage identified for pasture. The twelve horse maximum would need to be denied based on the MPCA threshold for a feedlot and the fact that not enough pasture is being made available to support twelve horses. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the proposed IUP with conditions outlined below and in the detailed staff report. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • If approved, the proposal would authorize horses to be kept on the property throughout the year as part of the "Hoof Prints" organization which is a non-profit, faith -based, volunteer run group. The purpose of the organization is to benefit people who may be dealing with abuse, sickness or other troubles through work with horses. Guests and volunteers care for the horses by exercising, grooming and feeding them; which in turn is meant to provide a sense of accomplishment and improved self-confidence. The proposed hours of operation would be primarily "after school" and weekends by appointment. • Over the past two years, the applicants have explored different avenues for keeping horses on the property in conjunction with Common Ground Church. Most recently, the applicant met with consulting city staff who informed them that keeping of horses on this site was clearly not permitted by code, and that it was a stretch to consider horses as conditionally permitted given the uses spelled out in the PF zoning district. The applicants worked out an arrangement with neighboring property owners to board their horses with a permitted facility while the Church sought authorization to have the horses on their land. An application to make horses a conditionally permitted use was submitted, but was ultimately denied by the City. Subsequent action by the City, however, changed code to permit horses in conjunction with churches as an interim permitted use in the PF zoning district. OPTIONS 1. Recommend the City Council approve the requested IUP based on the following: a) Two horses will be in compliance with all livestock requirements and MPCA requirements for this type of facility; b) A maximum of two horses will be in conformance with all interim use permit criteria outlined in code. With the following conditions: a) No more than two horses shall be allowed; b) All riding of horses shall be done in accordance with section 95.01 and 95.02 of city code; c) The Interim Use Permit shall expire on December 31, 2009; at such time, the applicant's may apply for another two year IUP. 2. Recommend denial of the requested IUP request based on findings of fact (please cite). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve the requested IUP as the keeping of horses is listed as an interim permitted use in the PF zoning district with conditions outlined above. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kelli Matzek, Planner - Report by staff Kelli Matzek, Planner - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Applicant Comments Chair facilitates Questions of the Applicant Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing Chair Close the Public Hearing Chair Call for a motion Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS (5): 1. Area map showing the location of the subject property; 2. Detailed staff report on the request. 3. Applicant's Written Narrative. 4. Written Comments from John Hanson (VBWD). 5. Applicant's Site Plan of proposed pasture area. 2 " 'my' ' 3536 -Jur 0 / 3520 N.. \ abiu 0 3484 -cr 3416 0524 b,v) 9041 10350 2525 3503 3505 10472 10550 3300 3150 0 Common Grounds Church 10240 Stillwater Blvd N. (PIO 14-029-21-32-0024) OITY OF LAKE Li110 Location within the City of Lake Elmo 10732 t l i City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Interim Use Permit Amendment Request To: Planning Commission From: Kelli Matzek, Planner Meeting Date: 2-11-08 Applicant: Common Grounds Church Representatives: Pastor Mark Anderson and Dawn Oswald Location: 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North (Hwy 5) Zoning: Public Facilities (PF) Introductory Information Application The applicant is seeking an interim use permit (RIP) to allow the stabling of Summary: horses in conjunction with a ministry being run at the existing church at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North. Horses would be kept on the property throughout the year as part of the "Hoof Prints" organization which is a non-profit, faith -based, volunteer run group. The purpose of the organization is to benefit people who may be dealing with abuse, sickness or other troubles through work with horses. Guests and volunteers care for the horses by exercising, grooming and feeding them which in turn is meant to provide a sense of accomplishment and improved self-confidence. The proposed hours of operation would be primarily in the late afternoon hours and weekends by appointment. The applicant is proposing up to twelve horses be kept at the property, and also say they will comply with the two grazable acre minimum per horse. Applicable Section 154.019 Interim Use Permits. Codes: Outlines the general requirements for all interim permitted uses in Lake Elmo. Section 300.13 Design and Performance Standards — Restrictions on Nuisance and Hazardous Activities Subd. 15 Livestock. D, Hazards and Nuisances. Outlines the keeping of horses; cattle, or other grazing animals on a site with less than two (2) acres of existing grazable land per animal is declared to be a nuisance, Subd. 15 Livestock. E. Grazable Acres. Grazable acreage shall be defined as open, non -treed acreage exclusive of the homesite and yard that is currently providing enough pasture or other agricultural crops capable of supporting summer grazing at a density of one (1) cow, or its equivalent, per two (2) acres. Grazable acreage shall not include non jurisdictional wetlands or slopes over twelve percent (12%). <brmmon G"ronnda Church /fll' Request - Planning Commission Report; 2-11-08 (cont.) Section 300.07 Zoning Districts. Subd. 4(M). Public Facilities. Ouasi-Public Facilities. Subd 3. Uses Allowed by interim use pennit. Allows the keeping of horses in conjunction with Churches as an interim use in the PF zoning district. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Entire Lot Size: Approximately 24.5 acres (including road right-of-way for Highway 5 and Kelvin Avenue North) Lot Size (available for horses): Approximately 4 acres Existing Use: Common Ground Church Facility / farming Existing Zoning: Public Facility (PF) Property Identification Number (PID): 14-029-21-32-0024 Application Review: History: Over the past two years, the applicants have explored different avenues for keeping horses on the property in conjunction with Common Ground Church, Most recently, the applicant met with consulting city staff who informed them that keeping of horses on this site was clearly not permitted by code, and that it was a stretch to consider horses as conditionally permitted given the uses spelled out in the PF zoning district. The applicants worked out an arrangement with neighboring property owners to board their horses with a permitted facility while the Church sought authorization to have the horses on their land. An application to make horses a conditionally permitted use was submitted, but was ultimately denied by the City. Subsequent action by the City, however, changed code to permit horses in conjunction with churches as an interim permitted use in the PF zoning district. IUP Review Criteria: Interim uses must be reviewed under both the general criteria for such as well as the specific criteria outlined for the requested use. Keep in mind that for these types of applications, the burden is on the City to show why the use should or should not be permitted. For horses in the PF zoning district, the following questions apply: I. Is the use allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district and does it conform to standard zoning regulations? Horses are an interim permitted use in conjunction with churches in the PF zoning district. The specific criteria for this interim permitted use can therefore be reviewed to assist the City in determining whether the proposal is in conformance with standard zoning regulations. The specific criteria are as Wand tlse\Gnerinr Ilse\Rep- Canonon Ground+•..PG2-11-0t3 vl.doe Page Compton (3rouncls ciiwrh IUP Request Planning Contntisrion Report; 2-11-08 (cont.) follows: A. The keeping of horses does not constitute a feedlot per Minnesota Rules. By Minnesota rules, the definitions of "Animal feedlot" and "pasture" are as follows: MN Rule 7020.033 Subv. 3. Animalfee.dlot. "Animal feedlot" means a lot or building or combination of lots and buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and specifically designed as a confinement area in which manure may accumulate, or where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. For purposes of these parts, open lots used for the feeding and rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall not be considered animal feedlots under these parts. MN Rule 7020.033 Subo. 18. Pastures. "Pastures" means areas where grass or other growing plants are used for grazing and where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetation cover is maintained during the growing season except in the immediate vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding or watering devices. According to Don Hauge at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, a rough gauge is two acres per horse when setting aside pasture land to meet the MPCA definition. Based on a two -acre threshold, the Church would be limited to two horses based on the four acres of available pasturable land identified on the provided site plan. Supplemental feeding and watering would be allowed for the two horses as needed. B. The property is directly adjacent to only Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR) zoned properties that are not developed as open space preservation subdivisions. Roadways shall be considered an adequate buffer. The subject property conforms to this requirement. C. Evidence is provided to show adherence to all livestock and horse regulations in the Lake Elmo city code. The specific regulations for livestock are found in section 154.104 of city code and read as follows: • Prohibition of manure deposition without safeguards. No manure or livestock waste shall be deposited, stored, kept, or allowed to remain upon any site without reasonable safeguards adequate to prevent the escape or movement of the manure or wastes or a solution of the manure or wastes from the site which may result in pollution of any public waters or any S:V.and 11se\hnerint Use\Rep-Comvnon Gmunda.PZ_3-11-118 r2.dor Page 3 Common Grounds Church 11JP Request Planning Cornnti.ss'ion Report; 2-11-08 (cont.) health hazard. The MPCA has reviewed the proposed site and finds no reason to believe that the amount of manure generated by the two allowable horses will pose any risks for area water bodies. There is some concern as expressed by the VBWD in their memo (Attachment #4) that allowing more than two horses on the site east of Kelvin Avenue N will increase the potential for runoff into Sunfish Lake in addition to reducing the amount of vegetation available for grazing. Additional review would therefore be necessary if the planning commission or council determined that more than two horses is appropriate for the site. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standard minimum requirement. All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency relating to keeping of livestock shall be adhered to and the regulations shall be considered the minimum safeguard necessary to prevent pollution of public water or creation of a health hazard. Again, the MPCA has reviewed the proposed site and agrees with staff's assessment that two horses fall within the guidelines for a pasture facility. Furthermore, the MPCA did not find that the proposed use would be out of compliance with any other agency regulations. • Inadeauate safeguards. In case the Zoning Administrator shall find that any manure is stored or kept on any lot or storage site without a safeguard, or that any existing safeguard is inadequate, the Zoning Administrator may order the owner or other responsible person to immediately remove the manure from the storage site and refrain from further storage or keeping of any manure at the site unless and until an adequate safeguard is provided. The review of the proposed use did not reveal reasons to be concerned about two horses pasturing on this site. However, the applicants should be aware of this code requirement, and the fact that the City will inspect the facility periodically to ensure that unexpected manure issues do not arise. • Hazards and nuisances. On parcels of less than 40 acres which are not part of a larger crop- producing commercial agricultural farm, the keeping of horses, cattle, or other grazing animals on a site with less than 2 acres of existing grazable land per animal is, by this section, declared to be a nuisance. Horses may be kept on any parcel larger than 5 acres. No other domestic farm animals, livestock or commercial kennels shall be placed on any site of less than 10 acres. As the overall parcel size exceeds five acres, horses will not be considered a hazard or nuisance on the subject property. • Grazable acres. Grazable acreage shall be defined as open, non -treed acreage exclusive of the homesite and yard that is currently providing SA/.aud tlsevnterim Use\kep -Common Grmwds_PZ_ 241-08 s'' c/ c Page 4 Common Grounds Church 7Up Request Planning Cwm; ission Report; 2-11-08 (coal.) enough pasture or other agricultural crops capable of supporting summer grazing at a density of 1 cow, or its equivalent, per 2 acres. Grazable acreage shall not include non jurisdictional wetlands or slopes over 12%. This requirement lends support to the MPCA's general guidelines used to determine the threshold between a pasture and a feedlot. By code, one (1) horse is listed as an equivalent to one (1) cow, and therefore this site could support one (1) horse per two acres of pasture available for summer grazing. As the church pasture area is limited to approximately four acres, the maximum number of horses for the facility under city code is two (2). Specific regulations for horses are found in sections 95.01 & 95.02 of city code, and prohibit the riding of horses on paved roads or over paved roads. The applicants will be made aware of these requirements via conditions on any approved interim use permit. 2. Use will not adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance, noise, traffic, dust, or unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Because the overall site area exceeds five acres, code dictates that the act of keeping horses will not be considered a nuisance. Additionally, neither staff nor the reviewing agencies have identified any ways in which two horses would impact the health, safety or welfare of the community. 3. Use will not adversely impact implementation of the comprehensive plan. Allowing the horses to be used in combination with the church will not impact implementation of the comprehensive plan. 4. The date or event that will terminate the use is identified with certainty. Staff is recommending a termination date of December 31, 2009. This date was identified as the deadline as the end of the year is often associated with the renewal and review of many city projects and applications. This deadline would also meet the requirement (#8 below) of limiting the interim use to two (2) years or less. 5. The applicant has signed a consent agreement agreeing that the applicant, owner, operator, tenant and/or user has no entitlement to future reapproval _ of the Interim Use Permit as well as agreeing that the interim use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to fully or partially take the property in the future. The city is in the process of working with the applicant to sign the consent agreement as required. SN/llld U.se:Vnrerim U.ve\kep--Common G;mtii(Iv /'7 2-11-08 v2.rtoc Page 5 C:orr,,non Grounds Church IUF` Request Planning Commission /ie/sort: 2-11-08 (corn'.) 6. The user agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use including the requirement of appropriate ,financial surety to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim structures upon the expiration of the interim use permit. Conditions deemed appropriate by the city will be added to the interim use permit. The permit will then be valid provided the applicant accepts and adheres to the conditions. 7. There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or City utility fees due upon the subject parcel. The City's Finance Officer has reviewed the City's records and finds no indication of unpaid taxes or assessments. 8. The term of the interim use does not exceed two (2) years. As identified in criteria #4 above, staff is recommending an expiration date of December 31, 2009 as this would not exceed the two year limit. Interim Use The above analysis of the review criteria in City Code indicates that a maximum Permit of two horses can be permitted as an interim use on the subject property given the Conclusions: area identified for pasture. The twelve horse maximum would need to be denied based on the MPCA threshold for a feedlot and the fact that not enough pasture is being made available to support twelve horses. Resident Concerns: Staff is not aware of any resident concerns surrounding the requested interim use permit. Other Agency • The DNR did not have any comment for or against the application. Reviews: • The VBWD expressed concern in a letter (See Attachment #4) regarding the number of horses and the available grazable acreage. Allowing a higher density of horses has the potential to create runoff which would ultimately drain to Sunfish Lake. Conclusion: The applicant is seeking approval of an IUP to allow the stabling of horses in conjunction with a ministry being run at the church. Horses would be kept on the property throughout the year as part of the "Hoof Prints" organization which is a non-profit, faith -based, volunteer run group. 57V1.card UsAlnterim tJseVtelr--C'urnnum Grormds_PL_2-11.08 vl-doc Page 6 Common Grounds Church /UP Request ( Planning Commission Report; 2-11-08 Commission Options: The Planning Commission has the following options: A) Recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit request; B) Recommend denial of the Interim Use Permit request; The 60-day review period for this application expires on 2-24-08, but can be extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed. Staff Rec: Staff is recommending approval of an Interim Use Permit to allow two horses on the site for the Hoof Prints ministry at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North, based on the following: 1. Two horses will be in compliance with all livestock requirements and MPCA requirements for this type of facility; 2. A maximum of two horses will be in conformance with all interim use permit criteria outlined in code. With the following conditions: • No more than two horses shall be allowed; • All riding of horses shall be done in accordance with section 95.01 and 95.02 of city code. • The Interim Use Permit shall expire on December 31, 2009; at such time, the applicant's may apply for another two year IUP. Approval Motion To recommend approval of the request, you may use the following motion as a Template: guide: I move to recommend approval of the requested IUP based on the findings cited by staff in the report with conditions (and others as you deem appropriate). Denial Motion To recommend denial of the request, you may use the following motion as a Template: guide: Move to recommend denial of the requested IUP based on the findings of fact...(please site reasons for the recommendation) cc: Pastor Mark Anderson, Applicant S:V..cnrd Use\Interim Use\Rep--Cnmnron (lronndv_PZ -2- I1-08 v2.doc Page 7 Cty,of Lake Elroy) DEVE` - 1VIENt APPLICATION FORM ( In Comprehensive Plan Amendment f Zoning District Amendment r--1 Text Amendment Flood Plans C.U.P. Conditional Use Perm (J Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) UPPLICANt: Mar (Name) 'ELEPHONES: 4✓0 / (Home) EE OWNER: Name) ELEPHONES: 4, 7- (Home) Variance * (See below) Minor Subdivision In Lot Line Adjustment - Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan [— Site & Building Plan Review IhfY��fiI C9 c [P2 Suni mmsuan Czreu.et CA.ELr (Mailing Address) C ..- n (Work) (.o/e? ,%:5 (Mobile) Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O O1-l0Lots O 11 - 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More cavating & Grading Permit AAppeal// �ti72�`tF .t;1/watre YS'1N (Fax) ¢Mallin Address) '1 ( i? a `.k-k. c' o a.t..� wtt< v . (v vo\A-1,-tc; C. if 1 (Work) (Mobile) (Fax) I —I PUD 1-2ernt (RIP) 6 'i (I y'..a (Zip) ROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): { rye ETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: f a )P r l AAlNY CAI IC.'N4(tY-Iil 1-0*1 .� �C>✓ �� ( n ( i 6�.iK(V'fR F bcft7 , ci+.•� UESTS: ?,s outlined itt Section 30.0 RIANCE RE f 1: monstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: ' rl •V'Pc42)1 Cu- A cs, /1.rc arevuf 60 C. o thd Lake Elmo Municipal o e, the Applicant must c; signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the ning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. !further acknowledge the fee explanation as :lined in the application procedure, and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the. City Pertaining to litional aonlication expense.. lature of Applicant II-o 7 Date /2003 City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 - Fax 651-777-9615 Location Map i ?Ni i31*{ T3ON T29N T2BN R2 IW R2OW RI9TV T32N L( T31N T3ON T29N T27N nN R2IR' R2OW Vicinity Map 0 1027 Scale in Feet This drawing is Ne resufar a compuacmn and reproduction of /and records as Nay appear to vanous W asenmon County omrs The drawing should he used for reh_rence purposes only. Washington County is not rsppnaihle for any inacanarJea. Spurn: Washington County Suroanoen IX6a Phone (651)430-6675 aarcemare Eased on A5400 mrormamn amerrcmmsstn Novenaer 30.2e07 Map Printed. January 10.2a0a ACEIVED 1 JAN 1 1 2007 Common Ground Church Interim Use Permit Application Reuuest Hoof Prints is a non-profit, faith -based, volunteer run organization that will fit nicely into the rural setting of Lake Elmo and within the community's values. Our vision for this ministry is to help people through direct contact withrehabilitated horses. Our purpose is to benefit people who may be dealing with'abuse, sickness or other troubles. This will happen as our guests, in conjunction with our volunteers, care for the horses by exercising, grooming, and feeding them. Horses have a calming effect on people and the interaction will provide individuals with a sense of accomplishment while improving their self confidence. Common Ground Church is fully prepared to comply with all city and state requirements to maintain this permit. In the event that Common Ground wishes to continue this ministry beyond the two year interim use period, Common Ground will seek to re -apply for permit in January 2010. As per Lake Elmo City ordinance 154.104 Common Ground will comply with the 2 grazable acre minimum per horse, and house no more than 12 horses. Proposed hours: As we begin the ministry in spring 2008, it is anticipated that hours of operations will be primarily in the late afternoon hours and on weekends by appointment. We will re- evaluate the need as the ministry evolves. 154.104 LIVESTOCK A. Prohibition of manure deposition without safeenards Fill was taken from Parcel 3 and moved to Parcel 2 when the church building was first constructed in 1979, in order for the building to stand on higher ground. Though the site plan states "retention pond", it has never functioned as one, because the two culverts were never installed which would have allowed water to escape this area. In fact, a dike was built at the east end of the parcel that is about 4 to 6 feet high. This is the area closest to Sunfish Lake. Occasionally there is a small amount of water that pools resulting from the spring thaw but this does not amount to more than a few inches each year, and is located more along Highway 5. It is usually absorbed by the end of spring. The section of land in question is completely landlocked and devoid of direct or indirect contact with any surrounding bodies of water. B. Pollution Control Agency Standard Minimum Requirements Doug Hougie of the MnPCA, was provided with a full description of the intended use of the Common Ground land, after which he indicated there should not be any concern as the State of Minnesota considers this as a pasture operation. Since horse manure is considered fertilizer he said it can be broken apart, raked into the ground, or simply left alone. The only way this would be of concern is if our horse population exceeded 50 horses. We would then be required to have the manure hauled away to another site. We can not and do not intend on retaining more than 12 horses. The Land will be used to serve in the capacity of a pasture as outlined in MN Statute 103G,005 Subd.14a. And as described by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as: Areas where grass or other growing plants are used for grazing and where the concentration of animals is such that vegetative cover is maintained during the growing season, except in the immediate vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding or watering systems. This land will not be used as a feedlot as defined by MN Statute 116.07 and as described by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as: A lot or building or combination of lots or buildings intended for the confined feeding breeding raising or holding of animals specifically designed as a confinement area where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure. Open lots used for feeding and rearing poultry are considered feedlots. Pastures are not considered animal feed lots. C. Inadequate Safeguards Though we do not anticipate any problems we will cooperate with the city if safety is brought forth as an issue. Please see section "B" in reference to manure control. D Hazards and Nuisances In accordance with MN Statutes and Agricultural standards, vegetative cover will be maintained during the growing season throughout the pasture with the exception of the immediate vicinity for feeding and watering. We are in compliance with this regulation. (See map) E. Grazable Acres In accordance with MN Statutes, MN Agricultural standards and Lake Elmo City ordinance 154.104, the Common Ground property exceeds the minimal restrictions of 2 acres of grazable land per horse. Currently grazable land owned by Common Ground is in excess of 24 acres. We have no intention of exceeding our horse capacity beyond that which allows for the 2 acres of grazable land per animal, which thereby restricts us to a full capacity of 12 horses. January 30, 2008 Ms. Kelli Matzek City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Common Grounds Church, Lake Elmo Hoof Prints Interim Use Permit Request Dear Ms. Matzek: Thank you for forwarding the information regarding the above -referenced proposal, No proposed activities appeal to require a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District. However, I have concerns regarding the proposed number of horses to be grazed on the land. In the permit application, the applicant states that he will have two acres of grazable land per horse and wants to graze 12 horses. The proposed pasture is east of Kelvin Avenue North (Parcel C) and appears to be only approximately five acres in size. Therefore, there will not be at least two grazable acres of land per horse, if 12 horses are allowed. It appears that the applicant counted the entire church -owned parcels (including the parking lot and building west of Kelvin Avenue North) when stating the church owns more than 24 acres and the 12 horses will have at least two grazable acres per horse. Allowing this requested high -density of horses on pastures can create more runoff because the livestock will cause more soil compaction and reduce vegetative cover. The increase in runoff can negatively impact the quality of downstream water resources by increasing flows, which can contribute to more erosion. The water quality of downstream water resources can also be negatively impacted by greater manure accumulation from the denser animal stocking rates and from erosion due to less vegetative cover. In this case, the site ultimately drains to Sunfish Lake. The Valley Branch Watershed District Managers are already concerned about the water quality of Sunfish Lake and are considering a project to improve the lake'squality. The current pasturing plan does not appear to protect Sunfish Lake's water quality. The proper size of a pasture is dependent on several factors. Based on a 2004 telephone conversation with a local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) representative, at least a two-inch height of a vegetative cover such as Kentucky bluegrass should be maintained, The NRCS and the University of Minnesota Extension Service are some of the agencies that could provide additional information to the City regarding the requirements for properly maintaining pastures to prevent negative environmental impacts. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2622. Sincerely, JoaYn P. Hanson, P.E. BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Engineers for the District c: Valley Branch Watershed District Managers (via e-mail) LINCOLN FETCHER • DAVID BUCHECK • DONALD SCHEEL • DALE Bt1RASH • RAY LUCKSINCER VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT • P.O. B'OX838 • LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA55042-0538 wyvw.vbuud,org • fiarr • 404 OA- t1 • 6,2 .wMM..x... ,wr 10, n F r 4,4n9, 741' 0 ' lei.g ' atoir, $ ••••-•••• •••• ....•••••• •• • e ••• • ,eareare... ••••••••• " Ce,A.Ktut)Pailc-Lof2LHFLAL;) --••••••••ee, eee A •••••,-•• Ckk, ey,(4 541.>Tivi3 Planning Commission Date: 2/11/08 Business Item Item: 6a ITEM: Consider process for review of updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps REQUESTED BY: Planning Department SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kelli Matzek, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Washington County has received a preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The study and FIRM maps update the existing flood information for the community, which has not been revised since the late 1970's. The area covered by the updated report and maps includes Lake Elmo, and will ultimately need to be incorporated by the City as an amendment to its Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Section 152 of the City Code). At this point in time, Staff would like to review the proposed FIRM and FIS with the Planning Commission at its meeting and discuss a general plan for any action the City should take relevant to the new study. One of the key parts of the City's review will be informing property owners about the proposed changes to the maps. Overall, there are several new flood areas shown on the map that have never been previously identified as such, and many existing flood zones have been modified in size (both larger and smaller). Staff has only recently been able to compare the old and new maps, and will present two maps for review by the Planning Commission at its meeting: 1) a comparison of the existing and proposed flood zones on the City's base map, and 2) and aerial photograph overlaid with the same flood information. BACKGROUND AND TIMING The City's Flood Plain Management Ordinance regulates the use of land within designated flood zones. These areas were delineated in the 1979 FIS and FIRM maps, and are referred to as the "official maps" in the Ordinance. The preliminary study reference above will ultimate revise these maps, and must be adopted by the City in its Flood Plain Ordinance within a certain amount of time before they become official. There is an appeal process available to the City and property owners for instances in which new or updated technical information is available that would alter the proposed flood boundaries. To date, the City has received the revised FIS and FIRM and the Minnesota DNR has conducted a public open house for public officials and the general public. Staff has also obtained the preliminary flood information electronically, used it to create maps that highlight the proposed changes, and sent general comments to FEMA regarding non -technical aspects of the map (i.e. road name corrections and other labeling errors). Over the next several months, the City can also expect the following to occur: • Community comments (non -technical) incorporated into FIS and FIRM • Notice sent to the City of Lake Elmo regarding start of formal appeal process. • List of base flood elevations published in local paper twice. • On second publication date, 90-day statutory appeal period begins for new or modified base flood elevations. • Final preparation of FIS report and FIRM. • Letter of Final Determination sent by FEMA to Lake Elmo stating that maps will be effective in 6 months. • Adoption of Ordinance Amendments to reflect changes to the FIS report and FIRM, including reference to the new effective date (need to adopt before the maps become effective). • Printing and distribution of final FIS report and FIRM with copies to the City of Lake City 3 weeks before the effective date. • Revised report and maps become official. The entire process, starting with the submission of the preliminary FIS report and FIRM to the City in December of 2007, will take approximately 15 to 18 months. Please note that all comments and appeals will need to be submitted through the City of Lake Elmo for those flood areas under the City's jurisdiction. The DNR has provided the City with additional information concerning the process for submitted comments, protests, and appeals, some of which is attached to this memorandum. Additionally, the local DNR office has offered some assistance to Staff concerning notification to property owners and review of the proposed maps. In the next few weeks, Staff will be working to more accurately identify the properties impacted by the proposed map changes, and will hopefully receive some additional guidance from the DNR to help provide accurate information to the general public. At a minimum, Staff would like to publish the new maps on the City's website along with the comparison maps produced internally to help property owners determine how they will be affected by the revised study and maps. Since the Planning Commission will be involved with any future amendments to the Flood Ordinance, Staff will welcome any feedback regarding the process from the Commission as well. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • Since the revised flood maps cover the entire City, it is not possible to provide the Planning Commission with a maplarge enough to depict the City on a discernable scale. Staff will present the attached floodplain comparison map (which contains both the 1979 and proposed 2008 data) at a scale that can be more easily read during the meeting on February 11 th. Please note that on this map, the red areas represent the 2008 information, while the blue areas represent the current (1979) data). • Other information that has been attached to this packet includes: a summary of the map update process, a flowchart depicting the process and timeline, and an answer sheet concerning challenges to the maps — all of which have been provided by the Minnesota DNR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is not being asked to take any specific action relevant to the preliminary FIS report and FIRM at this time. Staff will welcome any comments or suggestions form the Commission for how to best inform the public about the proposed map changes. Within the next year, the Planning Commission will be asked to formally amend the Floodplain Ordinance to incorporate the new maps and study. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. City of Lake Elmo Floodplain Map with 1979 and 2008 data 2. DNR materials: o Map Update Process o FEMA Map Update Process and Timeline o How Do I Challenge What's Shown on the Preliminary FEMA Maps? /i Lake Elmo Floodplain Map • e 1 ; i icy.. o, ! i `y ! t s 9 • i —... ! I —... ! E Legend Lake Elmo Parcels Flood Data 2008 Data 1979 Data Village_Area Lake Elmo Boundary Lakes I1, Map mated by MFR<on 1.18-08 Pre-Scoping ,., „ ..•" DNR Waters or FEMA will send letters and informational packets to,those commtinitie'that wilt be funded for Flood Map Modernization in a current, fikaal year. This letter kicks off the ;'ft` modernization process with what 'are known as,-PrQscoping Actpeittts. The purpelse&,of these '-3- 3 activities is to research and accumulate resoufd.'ez that will confti'6ute to the map attp j'ate-'project:;.. Such activities include digital base, map, inVentoriese.rriapping needs assessments, and Letters; of ',^ Map Change collection. The'digital base;map inventoties'fI volve obtaining the best available base ni imaterialst"such `as... corporatq,.Jitnits, roadss°`n'erial photography, stream centerlines, and topographic data. Mappingk 33r needs'a'ssessmentl;'include the collection of needs from.FEMA's Mapping Needs U,pdate;Support",,,yt -—Systenk(MNUSS), This system was developed to track' and p ioritize mapping nee4s'identified by.." =A Communities. DNR Waters will •perforhi. art, in-house mapping needs- rassessmd[it:b <con piling' needs from community files^'(tommunitpAssistance Visit Reports, cojrespondetic02'e1feetive flood map 'panels)pand'ati' pproximate''(unnumber 'd,); A-Zone'a alysisf This- ahaiysis'involyes' measnring,densjtles of structures within of",near an approximate A Zona;' fiery , ¢ ;.:: � ' � � ff... ,tj» The Study Contractor iind DNR Watert°will also use this:lin- wto coihpile ali"approved Letters of ;' Map Change (LOMCSV including Letters, Of Map Amendment, Letters of Map Revision Based on' Fill, and Betters of Map Revision These' .OMCs will be addressed during Map Productior.i, but an accurate.-lisfis necessary so all are, addressed .in the:project:' Scoping Meeting .,.`f '; The nett stage of this p�roucessN s called the Scoping Meeting. This meeting presents an opportunity i "for all; interestedparties to ;gather; finai fie ":;be-asoope of project -sand .confirm project task assignments. tThefcope of project, formally identifies where new'flood stehies will be conducted, ;1 ,''their type; .and'.iheir limits. Invited 'to; this meetings are representatives from FEMA, ObNR, the :' Regional Management Center (RMC), Abe Study Contractor 1,(ii,",Used), and communities' throughoutthb county being updated., n , - E,,,', Mapping needs pla}lY,an integral role in the''$coping Meeting as well. Because funding is limited for this map iupdate, new flood studies' will be few. However, the meeting provides an excellent :'opportunity -for federal, stale, and private entities to collect local mapping needs. Such needs will be'docuiY%nted and provided as impetus for future flood study funding. 4,4 is MO' Production "' 11611owing the conclusion of the Scoping Meeting, entities involved, in tlie:nnap update begin their di "'partnership roles in Map Production. This step of the update process involves the completion of .Mrtasks identified and assigned during the Scoping Meeting. For itiStatice the paper flood maps ,:will be digitally scanned and gee -registered during this phase. This is also the time when the newly treated digital flood layers. will be fine tuned to fit the best available topographic data. If any Hoed studies are performed, this would be the phase for their completion and incorporation into th&,,nerw maps. y r Letters of Map Change (LOMCs) will alse'beaddressed during this phase. Each FEMA-approved map change will be handled in :One of four ways: 1) incorporation into the new maps; 2) revalidation; 3) superseded; or 4)' case -by case review. Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) (not those based on fill, or LOMRtFs) " will lie incorporated into the new flood maps. Large-scale LOMR-Fs and Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs) may be incorporated into the new maps PAGE 1 OF 3 depending on their size. However, most LOMAs and LOMR-Fs will be revalidated since they are too small in scale to be represented on the maps. If a new study has been performed on a•, watercourse near any LOMCs, the LOMCs may be superseded or may need case -prase review. Digital maps created during this phase will be reviewed by FEMA so as to ensure that they meet the Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. For further information about these guidelines, click here (httu'(/www fema gov/ Ian/ reventifliin/dl cgs shtm}. r .• _ •Rreliminary Maps Preliminary Maps and a preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) are released for public review when all `tasks have been completed, and the new digital flood maps have been printed. Each community will receive copies of the preliminary Mood ,maps, a preliminary° Flood Insurance,-' Study report, and a preliminary Suthmary of Map !,Actions }(SOMA`):'' This ,last'-dbcumett :• -:;;_' summarizes what happened to all fff:the'Letters of Map„Charige affected byrthe'map update.' For.•'•• further inf ormation, please see the description of Mqp Pr"oduc'tion,,.. P °' ' j �Pr ,en" Once the Preliminary Maps are released, comigtidnkty"officia1s•.ar& ncouraged to review.tjie'•maps”,. , for accuracy and completeness. In..order-tb aid an,.tbls` effort, DNR Waters has`develop°f)he `,' "Preliminary Map Review Cheeidist" lspecifitally for local officials. This list will guide them '", during their review aticW will provide them a why to document evidence for' any'issues they mays ' Y S have wrththe+new maFs..,:.��y ..., " Rloodrli'kk information Mav,on Open House a+ s`:.<.., r , " • .r.. day •r G.. Once the'.Preliminar are�ieleased and couufrunities have. an opportumty,':to`'revie v F'LMA will' coordinate a'.Blood .Risk Information Qpen'Flouse. The Op"en:.Ijouse• in'*'elves,, two meetings: local officiar.meeting and_:publie, meeting. Federal and -la- fe,offiect.'and the Study" Contractor will""meet with?;cotvmuriity;; offieial,s:Ito discttss'.the new maps;, any`{ssues' associated with them, and their iFuplicationsi ,Qnc& this Meeting ht}s`.eoncb4ded, ,?'LMA,:ODN1 ``and community officials` will have '' inoppportunity t9, answer public inquiries regarding the preliminary=' maps. Questions -generally range'Itf,topic from 'flood instirahce and building requirementstto mitigation opportunities a} dittals Fhanges'.', ry, 43 '' Appeals PeriodlCom`tnent Period,• , tea. ,After the Flood'Risk Information Open;Ho tse, FL -+•MA will publish the preliminary base flood elevations: (BFts) in the Federal Register (only if REEs have changed'),'` and they will notify the CEO of ;each-: community," regarding lthisL;4publishing. Additionally, FEMA will post this informatiOn:iin, localrpewspapers ,;twice in a two -weep_ period. On the date of the second publication; the 90-day Appeals Period begins, and this is, when stakeholders may submit;.new flood data [.appeals) or .map corrections (protests) to their community floodplain officials for possible. incorporation into the new digital FIRMs. At the end of Appeals Period, FNMA will '-' ,protests to finalize the maps and the Flood Insurance Study report. ..If BF s have not changed due to the` snap update, a 90-Day Appeats_1'errod will not be held. Rather, 30-Day Comment Period will;be held in its place, and this wilhgtill provide citizens and community officials an opportunity to:submit protests. r i,.• t Letter of Riha4 Determination • • When the maps are finalized, FEMA will issue the communities a Letter of Final Determination (LFD), and ;this initiates the mandatory update of their floodplain regulations. A community has six months; from the LFD to update their flpod damage reduction regulations. This timeframe PAGE 2OF3 includes the ODNR review and approval time; so, they actually have less than six months for this update. If,a community's floodplain regulations are not approved by DNR Waters and adoptedzby,,,,, , the effective date of the maps, the community will be suspended from thew?IP. Potential consequences associated with suspension include flood insurance unavailability and some disaster assistance unavailability. Flood Maps Effective Communities have six months from the date of the Letter Of Firlah. Determination to update their flood damage reduction regulations to reflect the new maps. After this period, the new maps are ective, :and are the tools the communities must use,to implement their floodplain regulations. Most flood insurance policies written on or after the° effective date will be based on the flood hazard data on the new maps. In terms ;of logistics, the map updateDrocess takes approxirhately 2:3 years. -from the ;initial Pre-.' Scoping Activities until the maps become effective. This Period„oftiine depends,'ih part; on the ',R types of studies conducted in a given -County and-the;:amotint of„floodplain located°within its .,,.:; ..» v(ry ......, s s. boundaries. i- _:.�r" _.�,x•.:a .,, �'.�;a; ` -1 to 2 years (or more) -6 to 12 months 6 MONTHS (NOTE: NO extensions) DNR Waters C. Strauss —1/10/08 rev FEMA Map Update Process and Timeline FEMA Hold Scoping Meeting Do studies / Produce Maps State Assist at Scoping Meeting Assist: data collection / studies Preliminary Maps Mailed Out Local Officials Meeting & Public "Open House" Mail Appeal Notice to Community CEOs & Publish 2x in Official Newspaper(s) 90-Day Appeal Period (30-day if no Base Flood Elevation (BFE) changes) Letter of Final Determination (LFD) FEMA 90-DAY WARNING LETTER FEMA 30-DAY WARNING LETTER FINAL MAPS MAILED OUT MAP EFFECTIVE DATE Explanation Email — make —I digital copies available 4 Assist at Local Officials Meeting & Public "Open House" 4, Ensure Locals are Aware of Appeal Period/Process Provide & Review Technical Protests Appeals Assist t Locals with: Ordinances, Public Advisory, etc. MnDNR EXPLANATION LETTER Review, comment on, and approve draft ordinances (or amendments) Obtain Approved Ordinances & Certification Local Participate in Scoping Meeting & Provide Data Review Preliminary Maps & Initial Comments Formal Comment on Preliminary Maps viv Inform Public Draft Amended or New Ordinance to Adopt Maps & send to MnDNR for approval Adopt Approved Ordinance Publication of Ordinance How Do S Challenge What's Shown on the Preliminary FEMA Maps? Can what's shown on FEMA "Preliminary" Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) be changed before they become finalized? Yes and No. There are different levels of potential changes, and each level has different requirements for the type and format of supporting information needed. Also, the earlier the supporting information is submitted, the more likely the change can be made before the maps become final. Who can submit comments, protests or appeals? All comments, protests and appeals must come through the local unit of government that is the zoning authority, usually the city or the county (for unincorporated areas). What types of challenges can be made? Comments - Changes to street names, community boundaries, and other cosmetic or non-floodplain features are comments. Comments are usually incorporated into the final maps with minimal discussion. Protests — If data are available to show that the boundary of the floodplain should be drawn differently, that is submitted as a protest. For example, better topographic data may be available Whether protested areas are considered for incorporation into the final map depends on the size of the area, whether the area to be removed is contiguous with existing Zone X, the format of the data, etc. Digital data is more likely to be incorporated than paper data. Paper data may be incorporated but is dependent on whether it can be converted into a useable digital format. hi approximate A Zones, updated base flood elevations based on a technical study would be considered protests. The elevations will not be printed on the maps or in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS). In cases of new approximate A Zone analysis, the modeled A Zone information may be available for zoning/permitting decisions and for Letters of Map Amendments (LOMAs) or Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-Fs). Appeals — Appeals are challenges to changes in base flood elevation or floodway boundary in a detailed study area, or Zone AE. Challenges to changes in the base flood elevation require a high degree of supporting technical data that supports the appellants appeal. In most cases, a registered professional engineer must certify the supporting data. When can the comments, protests and/or appeals be submitted? Communities can begin submitting comments, protests and/or appeals immediately after the preliminary maps are distributed. To ensure consideration for incorporation of the change in time for the final map, they must be submitted before the end of the formal 90-day appeal period (if there are base flood elevation - BFE - changes) or 30-day comment period (if there are no BFE changes). What are the options if the challenge is too late? For protests, the better data can be submitted with a LOMA or LOMR-F request for the lot(s) of concern. For appeals, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) application can be submitted. A disadvantage of the LOMR-F or LOMR would be the inclusion of a possible application review fee for FEMA's contractor. Also, large scale LOMAs /LOMR-Fs and/or LOMRs do not physically change the FIRM panel or FIS report. They are a separate document. However, the LOMA/LOMR-F and/or LOMR become the official legal document for the applicable area identified. C Strauss-1/10/08 rev