HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.A. Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone-Ord. No. 751
I~ -ft-
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 06-019
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II
SUBJECT: Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to
Rural Residential (RR) Zone
MEETING DATE: March 21, 2006
REVIEW PERIOD: January 27,2006 to May 26,2006
INTRODUCTION:
Brian Thompson has made application to rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG)
Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone. Please refer to Sections 11.22 and 11.24 of the. City Code for
the list of uses and design standards ofthe AG and RR Zones.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting rezoning of property adjacent to Lake O'Dowd, which presently has a
single family residence located on it that was constructed in 2001 and has access from Vista Ridge
Lane. A single family residence is a permitted use in the AG Zone; however, the property is 22.1
deeded acres, which is not consistent with the AG Zone design standards, which has a maximum
density requirement of one dwelling per 40 acres. The RR Zone has a maximum density
requirement of one dwelling per 10 acres. The applicant has submitted a letter in support of the
request. The applicant may also seek approval in the future to construct an additional single-family
residence on this property. For that to occur, he will need to submit either a Minor Subdivision
application (with City Council waiving the subdivision criteria for required lot frontage on a public
street) or a preliminary plat/final plat for review and approval for the proposed lot configuration for
this development.
Darrel Gonyea, a property owner within 350 feet ofthe applicant's property, has submitted a letter
expressing a number of concerns regarding this property. Planning staff has responded by letter to
Mr. Gonyea's concerns; a number of which maybe addressed further if/when the applicant
proceeds with a request to split this property into two (2) lots.
The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive
Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conformwith a city's Comprehensive Plan. The
City's Comprehensive Plan presently guides this property as Rural Residential, which is consistent
with the proposed zoning.
FINDINGS:
The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with
proposed findings for the Council's consideration.
Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error;
Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error.
Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place;
Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place.
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns
have occurred; or
Finding #3 Significant changes in neighborhood development have occurred; rezoning of this
property to Rural Residential would be consistent with several surrounding
residential developments.
Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision.
Finding #4 Rezoning the subject property to Rural Residential (RR) would be consistent with
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
VISIONING RELATIONSHIP
This action supports:
Goal D: "Vibrant, resilient and stable"
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Ordinance No. 751, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the subject property
from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone.
2. Approve Ordinance No. 751, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the subject property
from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone, with modifications.
3. Deny the request to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural
Residential (RR) Zone and direct staffto prepare the appropriate ordinance.
4. Table the matter and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their March 9,2006 meeting, and by a 7-0 vote,
recommended approval of the request to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG)
Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone. A copy of the Planning Commission's report is attached for
the Council's information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve Ordinance No. 751, an ordinance approving the rezoning request to the same property
from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone.
~-L ~
Mar Noble '
Planner II
ORDINANCE NO. 751, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEe. 11.03 BY REZONING
LAND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF LAKE O'DOWD AND EAST OF VISTA RIDGE
LANE FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) ZONE TO RURAL
RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE
WHEREAS, Brian Thompson, applicant and property owner, has requested the rezoning
of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as:
See Exhibit 1,. and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on March 9,2006, at which time all persons present were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on March 21,2006; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request:
Finding No.1: The original Zoning Ordinance is not inerror.
Finding No.2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken
place.
Finding No.3: Significant changes in City wide or neighborhood development
patterns have occurred in that development has proceeded in the
vicinity ofthe subject parcels.
Finding No.4: Zoning of the subject property to Rural Residential (RR) Zone is
consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to rezone the property from
Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone is hereby approved.
Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota, held this
day of ,2006.
Mayor of the City of Shako pee
Attest:
Judith S, Cox, City Clerk
Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of ,20_,
H:\CC\2006\03-21 \060 19thompsonRezoning
.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE ~Lj
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 06-019
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner IT
SUBJECT: Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG)
Zone" to Rural Residential (RR) Zone
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006
REVIEW PERIOD: January 27,2006 to May.26, 2006
Site Information:
Applicant: Brian Thompson
Property Owner: Brian Thompson
Location: Southeast of Lake O'Dowd, East of Vista Ridge Lane
Adjacent Zoning: North: Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone
South: Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone
East: Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone
West: Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone/Rural Residential
(RR) Zone
Acreage: 22.1 acres
MUSA: The property is not within the MUSA area
Attachments: Exhibit A: ZoninglLocation Map
Exhibit B: Applicant's Narrative/Survey
Exhibit C: Darrel Gonyea Letter
Exhibit D: Planning Department Letter
INTRODUCTION:
Brian Thompson has made application to rezone property from AgriculturalPreservation
(AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone. Please refer to Sections 11.22 and 11.24 of the
City Code for the list of uses and design standards ofthe AG and RR Zones.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting rezoning of property adjacent to Lake O'Dowd, which presently
has a single family residence located on it that was constructed in 2001 and has access from
Vista Ridge Lane. A single family residence is a permitted use in the AG Zone; however, the
property is only 22.1 acres, which is not consistent with the AG Zone design standards, which
has a maximum density requirement of one dwelling per 40 acres. . The RR Zone has a
maximum density requirement of one dwelling per 10 acres. The applicant has submitted a
letter in support of the request. The applicant may also seek approval in the future to
construct an additional single-family residence on this property. For that to occur, he will
need to submit either a Minor Subdivision application (with City Couricil waiving the
subdivision criteria for required lot frontage on a public street) or a preliminary plat/final plat
. for review and approval for the proposed lot configuration for this development.
Darrel Gonyea, a property owner within 350 feet of the applicant's property, has submitted a
letter expressing a number of concerns regarding this property. Planning staff has responded
by letter to Mr. Gonyea's concerns; a number of which may be addressed further if7when the
applicant proceeds with a request to split this property into two (2) lots.
The City Clerk has recommended approval, if the proposal is consistent with the approved
Comprehensive Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the
Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoningis to conform with a city's
comprehensive plan, The City's Comprehensive Plan presently guides this property as Rural
Residential, which is consistent with the proposed zoning.
FINDINGS:
The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below
with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration.
Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error;
Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error.
Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken
place;
Finding #2 Significant changes in .communitygoalsdandpolicies have not taken, place.
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development
patterns have occurred; or
Finding #3 Significant changes in neighborhood development have occurred; rezoning
of this property to Rural Residential would be consistent with several
surrounding residential developments.
Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision.
Finding #4 Rezoning the subject property to Rural Residential (RR) would be consistent
with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
VISIONING RELATIONSHIP
This action supports:
Goal E: "Financially strong", and.
Strategy 11: "Ensure range of housing".
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the property from
AgriculturalPreservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone.
2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the property from
Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone.
3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or
staff
4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional infonnation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval ofthe requestto rezone the property from Agricultural
Preservation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR) Zone.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and approve a motion to make a recommendation to the City Council consistent with
the Planning Commission's wishes.
~A -
. MarkNob e '-
. Planner II .
Shakopee - Location Maps Page 10f1
EY+l'tb.r A
-
"-
---
.---.
~ . _ Subject Property
w ...... Shakopee Boundary
. SHAKOPEE t:i
COMMUNltYl"RI"aS!NC.Il 11$1 5 C:J Zoning Boundary
c=J Parcel Boundary
Rezoning ~gricultural (AG) to
Rural Residential (RR) Zo'ne.
E'~~\~,,... to,
Brian Thompson
1127 Vista Ridge Lane
Shakopee, MN 55379
January 20, 2006
City of Shakopee
Planning & Zoning Department
129 Holmes Street
Shako pee, MN 55379
Dear Planning & Zoning Dept.:
Please accept this cover letter as "Item #2" required for the submittal's application of Re-
Zoning.
Currently, our home at the following address: 1127 Vista Ridge Lane, is zoned (AG)
agricultural. I believe the proposed request for re-zoning is within compliance with the
"Comprehensive Plan" and does address the criteria for amendments to the "Zoning
Ordinance". Please find attached with this application both the legal description of our
lot and a description of the criteria met for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
Please feel free to contact me via cell phone if I can provide any further information or
my application is missing documentation.
Sincerely,
~J4
Brian Thompson
e)C'~ \(b\T" C 1-
.
l>ropertv Split .
1. Does Shakopee have a 10 acre ordinance?
2. Do you have to have two remaining parcels with 10 acres each?
3. How many acres does this parcelllave? I thought it 11ad about 13.5 acres above
the ordinary high water mark that was set at 945.2 by the Cityand DNR at the
time of platting of Westridge Lake Estates. Is that correct?
..... .............. ......... -4': '......Th;.p;~~i~~~.s.~~tt..c~~~~ty. 'SuNe-yor"wicfiIle"DNifiolCi 'nie.thaTiiie"si~ite'orMN"""'._'''''.'.'-'' .... ....-- . .
now owns the land below the ordinary high water mark on a meandeted lake such .
as Lake O'Dowd. They say I and my neighbor may have owned the land in the
bays before they were connected to the main lake, but that the State of MN owns
it now that the bays are part of Lake O'Dowd.
5. Is the City going to require a celtified survey of the land above the ordinary high
water mark of 945.2 to ascertain how much land is available for the split?
6. Is the City going to pass a variance so that the parcels of land can be less than 10
acres?
7. What are the other requirements of the 10 acre law?
S. Is Scott County required to approvethepJat or split according to the platting or
parcel split phase requirements of the most recent Scott County Septic Ordinance?
9. Do you need 300 ft of road frontage?
Problems Created By An Improper Access Off The EIid Of. A City Street
a. Westridge Bay Company erected a reflective barricade at the end of Vista Ridge
Drive as was required by the City to prevent vehicle accidents and injuries. By
pemlitting a driveway off the end of a public street and allowing Mr. Ingalls to
tear down that barricade, Shakopee accepted responsibility and liability for any
injuries or accidents that may occur.
b. When I platted Westridge Lake Estates, the City insisted that I dead-end the road
at the property line to serve Rich Logies' ] 00 acres to the East. By pennitting a
driveway off the end of a City street, the City created a driveway access easement
that the City wiJ] have to condemn, or Mr. Logeais will have to pay for, in order
to extend Vista Ridge Drive.
c. No fi~ontage for a mailbox: (The Post Office called me, and J had to give them a .
$] 00 mailbmc and a place in our subdivision to put it. There are no more spaces
Jeft for a second mailbox and they are not part of OUT homeowner's association).
d. Garbage: On whose Jot does the homeowner place his garbage when they have no'
fi'ontage on a city street? My neighbor's lot across the street or mine? Are you
going to add a second set of garbage cans on one of our lots? Who cleans up the
garbage on our lots when the wind blows? (Isn't this one of the reasons for a 300
E~t-('6'T C. ~
: . f( public street frontage requirement ear.h remaining parcel in a 10 administrative
sj)1it?)
e. A Jot split with two homes ,,,,,ould only serve to compound and create another set
of problems with this access.
f. These are some ofthe reasons why other cities do not peilllit access off the end of
a city street.
g. Isn't there a state or county Jaw that prohibits the practice ofpermiitillg a pJiv~te
access off the end of a public street? .
Other Concerns
.:..... ...... ......... ..:.....~.. "'-,vi~~~;~~;'I~;~~ll~~"d;:j"~~~;~y-;;;~'~;;;~k~d-b;;'~'~~'~~;~y~'~:~'j "~sked'C1iy' .st:aff(.To.ei....... ............... .. ............ ........
Rutherford) why a several thousand foot road was being pennitted to be bulldozed
up the wooded bluff and across springs (wetlands) flowing into O'Dowd Lake
without review by the City? He said, "It's only a driveway and not a road. It is
only going to serve one house". (The city staff didn't know there was a residential
lot that would be impacted next to where the road was going up the hill)
b. This was not a 40 ft. driveway going to a house. This was a ~OOO ft. private road
with no speed or noise regulations by the City for the four wheelers, mini-bikes,
motor bikes, and pickups that speed up and down it.
c. The Ingalls' pennit was to be the only one according to City staff at the time -
This driveway wasn't going to become a road because ofit's proximity to the side
oftlle house to be built 011 Lot 1 Block 3.
d. I do not want it .to become a road in that location. It is a hazard to the future
residential house to be built on the Jot next door. Fortunately, when the cement
truck slid off the "driveway", it wasn't in a position to hit a house that will
someday be built 011 the lot next door.
e. Our lots fTom the West drain that way and the city required two l5 inch culverts
according to Mr. Rutherford. Were they put in?
. f. Once the City splits the property, isn't the City required to give access?
g. The previous owner was going to landscape with boulders along the driveway
which he didn't do.
h. Shouldn't these issues'be addressed pri9I to rezoning?
There is a logical solution to con'ect the present situation. The previous O\7.mer was
working with Mr. Logeais, the property owner to the East, 011 a clustered large
acreage lot development, which would include a logical extension of Vista Ridge
Drive to the East along the base of the bluff. 111is was ab011ed when the city (Joel
Rutherford) gave the previous owner the right to bulldoze a 3000 ft driveway through
the bluff without City Planning and Council oversight. A logical extension of Vista
Ridge Drive 'in a proper plat would eliminate most ofthese concems.
Thank YOll for addressing these iSSlles prior 1.0 making a decision.
~"'M'~''''' 0,
SHAKOPEE
February 24, 2006
Westridge Bay Company
Darrel E. Gonyea
. . ..--..-.. "H15a -PefifrisIil~fPomfRb"ad'-"""'.'" ..... ........-.-.-... .-.....-. .......--.............-..-.-.-:.... .-...... ....-........-... .......... .....-.... ...... ..... "'" ........ ...-........... .-....... ...-. ......-..
Shak?pee, MN 55379 . . .
Subject: Rezoning - 1127 Vista Ridge Lane
Dear Mr. Gonyea: .
This letter is to inform of an upcoming public meeting concerning the property at
1127 Vista Ridge lane, as well as respond to your letter dated February 3, 2006.
, .
First, I would like to inform you that there is a public hearing scheduled for March 9,
2006 with the Planning Commission concerning a rezoning of property at 1127 Vista
Ridge Lane from Agricultural PreselVation (AG) Zone to Rural Residential (RR)
Zone.. A Notice of Public' Hearing concerning that meeting should be mailed out
within' the next few days; The 'Planning Commission is charged with forwarding a
. recommendation to the City Council, which could conceivably review the application
at their March 21, 2006 meeting. If the rezoning is approved, the property owner
intends to submit a minor subdivision application to split this one parcel into two
parcels. That can only be accomplished if staff and the City Council approve the
request, which would include allowing lots with (ess than the required lat frontage on
a pu blic street:.
I would now like toaddress'the ql.lestions and cOrlcems you raised in your letter, as .
follows:
PropertY Split:
1. The Rural Residential (RR) Zone has a maximum density of one dwelling per
ten (10) acres.
2. In an example where you may have 40 acres of land, you could possibly be
allowed to develop the property with, for example, three smaller parcels and
one larger parcel, provided the selVice issues are'addressed satisfactorily.
3. The applicant will need to provide a sUlVey that includes information regarding
the existing lot area, the existing and proposed legal descriptions, and the
proposed lot area. That minor subdivision application has not yet been
submitted. The rezoning application notes that the current lot is 22.1 acres in
. size.
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South' Shakopee, Mil1nesota . 55379;1351 . 952-233-9300' FAX 952.233.3801 . www.cLshakc.pee.Jnn.us
E "'" \~,,.. 1)L
. Page 2 February 24, 2006
4.1 have shared this issue with the' applicant. He will be researching that, and
providing city staff with an answer .prior to or at the time of any l1!inor
, sub9ixision application submittal.
5. The City will require a sUlvey of the property that shows it as it currently exists
and after the split, provided an application is submitted. The existing and
, .." ' ...._.......... .., .........propos.edJegaLdescriptio/J.s...wlILb.e..r.e.quJrec:LgHhaUim.~__~~.w.~l1~_....._,..:.......'_ .._...........__ .
. .. ....~..M_......._.M...._..M......._......,._
6. The applicant would need to make application to the Council to waive the
subdivision. criteria for lot sIze,' prior to. review of any minor subdivision
application submittal.
7. None that I am aware of.
8. Scott County will be included in the review of any minor subdivision
application and comments and/or conditions of approval/denial will be made
part of the record.
9. The RR Zone requires a minimum 150 lot width. The applicant could make
application to the Council to waive the subdivision criteria for lot frontage on a
public street, prior to review of any minor subdivision applicati~n submittal.
. .
Problems cr~ated bva" improper access off the end ofa citvstreet:
a. I have shared that concern with the current property owner. I will confer with
other city staff on whether this driveway 'access was permitted, and what
conditions may apply to the situation.
b. As I understand it, Mr. Logeais would need to work with Mr. Thompson on
securing property for road right-of-way. if he were. to propose a development
that he,wishes to tie into Vista Ridge Lane.
c. I have shared this concern with the current property owner. It is my belief that
any new mailboxes could/would be placed on his property, not on yours or the
neighbor on the south side of the road.
d. The current property owner informed me that the garbage is presently picked
up at the residence, not at the end. of Vista Ridge Lane. .
e. It is my understanding that the property owners would share a single access '.
drive to a point near the residences, at which time they would each have their, ,
own driveway to the residence.
f. This issue will be addressed at the ti~e of minor subdivision application.
g. This issue will be addressed at the time of minor subdivision application.
E\e~'Aa \,.. t)
. Page 3 February 24, 2006 1
Other concerns:
a. I have shared this question with City Engineering staff.
b. I /:lave shared this concern with the current property owner. He does not
anticipate this type of activity to occur anymore.
c. Tili::; issue wHl be addl essed-at the-1:tme-of-mhwr--sttbeHvfslefl-8-!=TpHeatien,
~lid/or future building permit application. . . . .
d. I have shared this cOncern with the current property owner.
e. I have shared this question with City Engineering..
f. The applicant would need to have recorded a shared driveway easement
document
g. I have .shared this concern with the current property owner. This may be
somethina the City can not enforce,unless it was a specific condition of some
prior city approval for this property.
h. A 'number of these issues would be addressed at the time of minor subdivision
application, ~uld/or future' building .permit application.
. .
I appreciate the Jetter expressing your concerns with this potential development. If .
you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (952) 233-9348.
Sincerely,
CC: Michael Leek, Community Development Director
2006 Correspondence
PJ.D. File: 27-930004-4
Brian Thompson, 1127 Vista Ridge Lane
~ N0114'05"E . -'~ - - -...
I ... 475.28 ~
tigre I 7}i - J A5t'g~ .
:::;:;. LOT DETAIL
I 1lI;+1I4;J!"t- 1 "=200'
a-ft~ Iii
! I ,
~ I --' ~r
bf J.... ~ A ('"
846.85 NTS :\._ b::l ~ P.' ~ ~ ~ Iii
"., ~~ ~ "., t:J............ I pr ~ . ~
~ ."",,, - :I e :.: \ , t I
f 0"'" ~ ~ liIl "":'" ,. ~ 1r. \ ( I'},.", r/.
It) . '" ...CDo", +."~ '" 1Q bf
t: ~ ~ .'/J(-~ b! G:f a ~ r-. ~ .)-410 \ 1 !!s
f"': '"\ CD II) ~:I!!b S! It) :t :t .)-,j'o ......~. . i~'?-' ...~
,,-I If) l4.6}J> i iQ II) '" ~ '.t"O,j' (" (, ~tl
I -< '.." g~: ! z (~. ~l'atC~ .. Ill!
1\ \ I" I !/,V' ,- v~~ ~l2"
~'-{ .' , (' '..... ... 1'~ w~
to '..1 / !.-J'... . Ire, ~~
,:) 7'" ' '\'~" NOO'S8'14"C: (DEED) j5~
I I ) IN f.1 I ~ ((' .NOO'55'OS"E (MEAS) ~'"
,. ~ .~ 2012.10
J - CD"" '<t
. 10. ----- 0 0....
" - - - -2657.08 (YEAS) - - - _ _ _ cO ~ l:f .
-.. - ~~ NW CCANER OF THE I I 2656.61 (DEED) sw CORIlER OF !hE J lD ~e 0
O'DOWD' LAKE I SE 1/4 OF SECTICIN 30. 11I11I SOO'55'OS.W ~t.lEAS~ lIoEST UN[ OF Sf: 1/4 OF SEClIOH 30. SE 1/4 OF SECTICIN 30. W I- 0::
TOIlNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (tIIS 500'58'1 . TOIltlSHIP 115. RANCE 22 TOllN~ 115. RANGE 22 a. UI .
l~~~\ ... W DEED In i:S 0
1>1t io U
!P
'"
II)
z
Legal Description:
ThalpartofGovemment lot 4, Seclion 30, Township 115, Range 22, Scott Counly,
, MilneIoIa lying soudl of the NoIth 846.85 (eetlhereot,1ying west of the East 476.~1
, flletlhereof and I)ing east of the easl shor8Illle of O'OOWD LAKE;
, ~D
I
( / That part of Ihe Soulheast Quar18l of said Secllan 30 described as beQinM9 allhe
I ~ comer of said lIOUlhea&l quanar. Thence CI\ an assumed bearing of east
I aIcng the &Wh &Ie Ihenlor a ciatance of 68.06 feel: thence NoI1h 00 degrees 58 minutes
I 14 sec:.ands East and paraIeI Mth the west lne of said soulheast quatler for a di&tance
I of 2012.10 feel; thence NoRh..s degrMa 58 minutas 14 seconds East a di&Iance 549.30
'eellO the IOIllh line oflhe I1OI1Il 261 feec of said SoulheasC Quarter, thence South 89 degrees
I , 47 minute& 20 seconda East along said south line a dl$lanc8 of 393.90 featlO the west &ne
I of Ihe east 1803.26 feet of said Southeast Quartar.1hence NoIth 1 degrae 23 ~
I I 16 seconds east aIcng said west ine a dI&Iance of 261.04 feet to the I1OI1Illina of said
j Southeast QuaIter; lhenc:e Nonh 89.~ 47 m/nutea 20 SllClllIds West along said IIOI1h
\ I. i &ne a dlstance of 850.26 feetlO the nortl1wesI comer of said Southea$C Quarter; thence
I . South 1IO d9grees 58 nWwtllS 14 seconds west along the wast ine of said Southeast Quarter
-\ - ~ r - k - - ~ - -:1- .-..".....,............,,-.................."'...""'"
) )) ~~.rl'[.'.,/4 i ""''''-1<
/ Ii.'
/ I / I-:
/ I l(j/l. ~l-
' .- ./ / '.Ii .. \
------ / I ~r;/f
-.. / / I1J ~___
_.- -"'-" C......... ..Q!H:!!. ELEV = 945.2 / I' /" 11i..U, DENOTES EXISTING ELf.VAnON
-... -.. -- -. /;1" iJ ~ ~ E~~
-... -.. ...... ...... - - -- . . , 1/ INDlCAlES DIRECTION OF SURFACE. DRAINAGE
HOUSE DETAIL ............ - - --- - 946 - .I. A ,$ .. ANISHEO . GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
. "- - - /Y- , _ BASEUENT FlOOR ElEVATION
1 "=30' "-._ ___ _.- -- ,;' . - TOP OF FOUNDATION El.fVATION
f1e:g~~RING ~~w_ .~:?~~ 1ir~~~1 l~:-I CER71F1CATEOFSUR~ fll
COMPANY INC. tr::1 H ~ {l. ,-..... . 4