7. Preliminary Plat Extension 1 r /
—+r
1 .
:, AN EN
CITY OF
, _
1 \ l ‘
, ,
''''` 67>- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I ,; (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM Atum .v - t,r,i.;,,st=i-
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager r1-0' ', _
FROM Barbara Dacy, City P1ann AaMp A&lP00
4 1., '—....5.1'4,_/4.-g' __.
1 DATE: April 21, 1988
I SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Extension - Sever Peterson .-
Y/zs/ka
BACKGROUND
II Mr. Peterson received preliminary plat approval for the creation of
five lots south of and adjacent to County Road 14 on October 6,
1986 . Since that timeframe, the city has undertaken the concept
I alignment study of the TH 212 corridor in preparation of signing
a Joint Powers Agreement to initiate the Environmental Impact
Statement for TH 212 . It was also anticipated during 1987 that
I the city would adopt the official map for the North Lake Riley
alignment. Although the city completed its concept review pro-
cess in June of 1987 , and adopted a resolution which stated that
the city would adopt an official map by September of 1987, MnDOT
I has been delayed in its preparation of its official map.
According to MnDOT, they are still working on issues in Eden
Prairie. It is not known at this time when the official map
Iwould be received by the city.
ANALYSIS
I Section 18-41 of the Subdivision Ordinance permits the Council to
grant an extension for "a good cause shown" . The applicant has
submitted a letter dated April 18 , 1988 , requesting such an
Iextension. The Council has the following options:
1 . Since the approval date of the preliminary plat, the Council
I has adopted the new zoning ordinance which enacted the one
unit per ten acre density restriction in the A-2,
Agricultural Estate District. If the Council does not grant
the preliminary plat extension, the applicant could not
I reapply for the same number of lots . Because the total area
is approximately 12 . 5 acres, under current rules, only one
unit would be able to be established on the property.
I2 . The Council can grant a preliminary plat extension for a spe-
cific period of time to enable the applicant to prepare a
I final plat for the property or, in this case, enable Mr.
Peterson to apply for Right-Of-Way Acquisition Loan Funds
( RALF) from the Metropolitan Council.
II
Mr. Don Ashworth
April 21, 1988
Page 2
Although the city is fully aware that the three middle lots will
more than likely be acquired for construction of TH 212, it has
no means at this time other than acquiring the land to prevent
its subdivision. According to Metropolitan Council rules , preli-
minary
plat approval and official map adoption are required
before RALF monies can be obtained.
If the Council does extend the approval of the preliminary plat, '
it cannot deny the final plat. The official map merely
establishes the boundaries of the proposed corridor. The offi-
cial map statutes provide that if a building permit is issued
within the official map boundaries that property will not be eli-
gible to receive compensation.
Mr. Peterson has complied with the other conditions of approval 1
regarding septic locations .
RECOMMENDATION '
Should the City Council approve the preliminary plat extension
request, it is recommended that such an approval be permitted to
January 1, 1989 .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Letter from Sever Peterson dated April 18 , 1988 .
2 . City Council minutes dated October 6 , 1986 .
3 . Detailed location map.
4 . Section 18-41.
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
//( ._ C it / Lit CI 6/ coa„ ci/
I &.,.......,,, ,..._ 0 .c (,.._,z, cgi-p.A,,..,/, go-„,
I -71 k.),,D tiL, a /tk ._ '1 r) Z'ct # .5 0 ixe c%._ h 1:- befb
t\ty
I50 2:71"--/( fcli.ffr 74-- \eicr C 5%5e-__.>/I .
/ a_
I €Xre/lsii7/1 e, P r /4 z
in io , it c y
I
I 447 efr 72-/&-A ‘e-/ 741 e 1"- -71 , o r 7L/,( , e:--/-y
C LA/4",_ ---1 t _ACct.ji OL 117;C. 1"Ct t-eOL_ -71--9 fal,f&Litki of'
I i )
441keN4 0--) 4(‘ck cort--;Lfr- wct_ /40i- 41-i-eci cyLitc1
I /1"7 - At 0._Ack; f;Di/ct_( 71-i I'1 t - 1.)‘-) 2T emsctr x 7P0 r7
e-H,'it
t q
I
il
I /(cs--. ' --74.4‘e__,A icc,.___ 1--- _(31_7/;›, A e..,,i
ri 4 cx_ii Q';ce_ ( o 4m col-- 7,,y1 e , 4.01 /7
I t
C°fr 1.- My ipi- -//7))/4 c5,...7--x , 4J .
I
Tjaa-14 7e) a .
I - -
I
II
IF
AL
i
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 12.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF PIONEER TRAIL, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SEVER PETERSON.
Barbara Dacy: The property is located on the south side of Pioneer Trail just
west of the property, if you recall the recent Bluff Creek Greens subdivision
and golf course on the east. As you can tell that the shape of the lot is
very restrictive in that it is very long and very short. What the applicant
is proposing is five 2 1/2 acre lots with Lot 5 needing a lot area variance
stemming from the fact that Carver County has obtained an easement, a 90 foot
easement along Pioneer Trail for the future Pioneer Trail improvement and thus
by approving that easement has subtracted I believe .13 of the lot area
variance. When proposed, the applicant asked Staff if they should distribute
f that .13 of an acre over the five lots or just have one lot deficient and our
recommendation to the applicant was instead of five variances that one would
CV V be preferred. The Planning Commission considered this request twice. The
first meeting the applicant was not there. They wanted further information
regarding Lot 5. Lot 5 contains some of the steep slope area that is
contained in the Bluff Creek Greens. As you recall, the Bluff Creek Greens
request had six lots proposed along the south side of Pioneer Trail. At that
point the creek is bending down and some of those steep slopes are ... The
applicant did supply additional blow-ups of that particular lot and they
should have been in your packet. What they did offer was two alternative
site layouts showing two septic systems and a house pad each showing adequate I
area for a large septic system with setback distance for wells and proposed
house pad, the steep slope area and the side lot lines. It should be noted
3
that the septic systems are on fairly level slopes of 12%. The Planning
Commission recommendation at their last meeting was to recommend approval
subject to the nine conditions that you have on page 4 of the Staff Report.
In essence requiring erosion control, shared access between Lots 1 and 2 and
Lots 3 and 4, requiring specific designs and construction plans in conjunction
with each of the septic system sites proposed, the standard utility easement
provisions and that the driveways in each of the lots contain a turn around
area so the cars are entering front first onto Pioneer Trail instead of
backing out. As a final note, the name of Hidden Valley is being used already
and the applicant has submitted an alternate name of Bluff Creek North or
Bluff Creek Estates.
Sever Peterson: The one concern that I did have was the .13 of an acre that
was short on the overall area and as Barb pointed out that when the road went
through there a few years ago, or about 3 years ago when they went down and
widen itself, they took 90 feet instead of the normal 66 feet and I felt well,
all good citizens take what is given to them by Carver County or any other
County where they are residing on these road things and I didn't pay any
attention to it or thought well, whatever they have to do they have to do and
I realize now that it was consequential but I would ask for a variance on that
if that would be considered by the Council.
Councilman Horn: Would your neighbor to the east of you sell you that
property?
Sever Peterson: The neighbor to the east of me. That is a good question but
that has already been platted because I inquired of that and I did at one time
31 1
11
IC
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
make an offer for the property to the south of me because I thought it would
I make a natural, enhance the area and so on and it was refused. Not because of
the offer but because they just were not interested in selling the property
and so I did make an attempt on both areas, if that answers your question. I
I did make an attempt. Found out the property to the south would not sell and
the property to the east was platted so I was rather stuck with what I had.
Councilman Horn: They wouldn't even sell a sliver rather than the whole
Ithing?
Sever Peterson: They weren't interested in selling any of their property to
I the south and I even had a purchase agreement, earnest money and everything
that goes along with it and we talked about it and they didn't want to do
that.
ICouncilman Horn: One other thing. Is there any way that we could double up
on driveways here or maybe only have one?
3 n,
�
I _' Barbara Dacy: That was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting because
they felt Pioneer Trail is very busy and really functioning beyond a local
. street as which it is chartered in the Carver County's plan but we felt that
I if there is just one, there would be a tremendous administration problem with
of what lot goes first and that first lot's house location and driveway
location is going to determine what happens with the rest of the development
of those lots. We felt that as long as there is minimum separation standards
1 being maintained between the right-of-way in this location and the driveway in
this location, it is about 700 feet, we could still accomplish minimal amount
of access points by single family homes. We checked this with what was
I happening on the Bluff Creek plat to make sure that we had good separation all
the way down on Pioneer Trail so that is what we are proposing.
II Councilman Horn: So there is no way or you didn't think. I didn't quite
understand the fact that you had to worry about which one developed first.
Barbara Dacy: Well, if this guy comes in and so on, you are in essence
I creating a frontage road along Pioneer Trail and I guess we are listing
that as not being a productive use of land. Having a lot of area in there to
use for a frontage road, a lot of cutting, a lot of filling. The County has
Ireserved 90 feet for a reason because Pioneer Trail will be improved.
Councilman Horn: Even more reason not to have more accesses on it.
IIBarbara Dacy: I'm not going to disagree with the philosophy of minimizing
access but we felt that one would be too restrictive. We thought that three
would...
ICouncilman Horn: You are doing a better job than the Minnesota Highway
Department does but I'm not sure it is quite good enough.
1 Councilwoman Watson: Wouldn't he have quite a loss of land too? He's just
barely meeting land requirements here, if we put a frontage road on here we —
would cut the lots down even further. Wouldn't we end up with five --
II
32
II
1
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
substandard lots?
Barbara Dacy: I think what Councilman Horn is suggesting that it would need '
some type of easement right along the right-of-way.
Councilwoman Swenson: It would only have to be the middle three lots and it ,
would have to be, it is almost a common driveway I think Barbara. For
instance if you went from the easterly edge of Lot 1 to the westerly edge of
Lot 5, that would give egress into the two end properties and the middle three
also. We have other proposals coming up tonight, I would like to see this
utilized as frequently as possible to eliminate the cuts into roads. Calling
-2:3 Pioneer Trail a local street is probably as ludicrous as anything I can
I,' V imagine. Lyman is suppose to be an arterial and Lyman doesn't even go through.
ru I don't see by doing that you are really only working with the middle three
f lots and you are eliminating one full cut.
Barbara Dacy: I understand the point, the Council wants to minimize the
access points and that is a traditional thing that we always look to do but we
just felt that with the perc test locations and the septic fields and so on,
and you want to maintain that 50 foot setback from the street as much as
possible, we just feel that it wouldn't be an efficient use of the land to
have a frontage road down in there especially when Pioneer Trail may be
improved.
Councilwoman Swenson: With a 50 foot setback, I don't understand the reason
why that common driveway couldn't encroach on that 50 feet. '
Barbara Dacy: No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying the driveway can't go
across the setback or otherwise how will you get access to the lot but we are
planning around 100 foot setbacks, 10 foot setbacks, two septic system sites,
house pads locations plus topography and we just felt that it would be best to
create three individual drives, two of which are two lots sharing two drives.
That will still achieve the same objective.
Councilwoman Swenson: We could cut it down to one by merely paving maybe,
what do you need 16 feet. It doesn't even have to be paved. Just across in
the setback zone. I guess I have problems.. .
Barbara Dacy: Well, if this is what the Council wants to recommend I would
suggest then, I know Sever doesn't want to see this thing tabled or postponed
but I would recommend that the Carver County Engineering Department take a
look at what the design should be if you are talking about shared access.
Bill Engelhardt: I was
ng just going to make a comment on it. In looking at the
grades and the topography and the shape of this particular piece of property,
I don't really think it lends itself to a frontage road type of situation. I
think the developer and the City Staff has got it down to a point where we
have three driveways for five lots and they are separated by over 300 feet of
distance so that is like a city block width. From an engineering standpoint,
we could go along with the three driveways because of the topography.
a
i
33
•City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: I think sometimes we try to get a little bit too pure in
our planning process and I think three cuts in Pioneer Trail is more then
reasonable for this development. I'm more concerned about where the eventual
TH 212 might come and how it would effect this particular plan. Secondly, I
would like to see on an overall scale where the eventual southbound CR 17
' might extend and cut across or near his property. Could you show me that on
your plan please.
' Bill Engelhardt: We talked to the County about it and all they did was throw
it out to us. They said we don't know where it is going to go, we don't have
any plans, we don't have any maps but...
' Councilman Geving: I disagree with you.
7 Bill Engelhardt: That's what they told us.
Il S �
Councilman Geving: I disagree with that. We've been planning for 10 years
_ for TH 212. I personally have worked on it. Mayor Klingelhutz has worked on
it. Our Mayor here Mr. Hamilton has worked on it. We know where that
' alignment is. I swear it is going to go near this property and we ought to
be starting to show it so that we don't junk it all up and prohibit us from
building TH 212 because we put new developments in. We ought to start looking
at these things. We ought to start planning where TH 212 is going to be five
years from now. We know where that alignment is within 1,000 feet and I
disagree with what your statement was Mr. Engelhardt. We have got to
recognize that this TH 212 is going to happen someday and the State has
already given us an idea of where that plan is.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill might have been referring to CR 17.
Bill Engelhardt: That's what they told us on CR 17. TH 212 there is a
Corridor Study of TH 212 and we have run into that all over.
Councilman Geving: Answer my question then. Where is TH 212 coming in
relation to this plan.
' Bill Engelhardt: I can't tell you that according to this.
Al Klingelhutz: I think I can tell you. As far as I can see and the way I
' look at a map, I don't think it can be any closer then 1,000 feet to the
closest point to this.
' Councilman Geving: Of this plat?
Al Klingelhutz: This plat.
Councilman Geving: It will go to the west of this plat.
Al Klingelhutz: You've got an overall map of Chanhassen up here. It comes in
approximately on CR 14 and immediately starts to curve northward. There you
have it right there. Maybe I can point it out on your map.
34
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: The reason I asked those questions is that the first thing
we know we are going to have a whole lot of new development in Chanhassen and
it is going to come right smack dap in the middle of what we have planned. 1
Barbara Dacy: As I recall it comes in over here down by the intersection of
Audubon and Pioneer Trail but it kinds of cuts like that where this
intersection would be constructed.
Councilman Geving: I wish from now on when we have plans that could possibly
be effected by TH 212 or any other planned extensions of major roads such as
CR 17, that you show them on our sketches.
Barbara Dacy: I apologize for that. We did have that on a later plat because
we knew, because of the Chan Hills alignment that went with that particular
subdivision, we were less sure in this area.
P/
Councilman Geving: Okay, so we are okay on this particular one. Now, take
the extension of CR 17 and bring it south to Pioneer Trail.
Barbara Dacy: The extension of CR 17 would be right up in here and would come
along.
Councilman Geving: We're following up the section line there? Right on the
east edge of this particular plat. Is that correct?
Al Klingelhutz: That's where the original alignment is of CR 14 or Pioneer
Trail but to go beyond that. 1
Councilman Geving: No, I'm not going beyond. I know what is beyond that and
that is the golf course and Bluff Creek and a whole lot of other projects but
it does give us a better idea because I think someday in the very near future
we will be extending CR 17.
Barbara Dacy: I just found out the location may was wrong. It only goes over
to this section line so it is right here.
Sever Peterson: In regards to the driveway situation. I had gone down and
spoken to the County. They explained that their preference or requirement was
300 feet, every 300 feet and they said, they did indicate as Barbara has
indicated that if there was a way that we could consolidate those, it is
pleasing and I appreciated Barb working with me on consolidation. I really
strongly feel that a frontage road on this property, because of the lay of the
land and I think they are attractive property, it would tend to diminish the
property is another reason we have gone with that. There may be some
technical things that would also inhibit it that I'm not familiar with and I'm
not prepared to address those but I just feel that we tried to do, in lieu of
Lot 5, we tried to do the three and bring it to that point. 1
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would have to go along with three. They eliminated
two.
35 1
1
_, `S
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
II
Councilman Geving: I think if we had had the engineer's comment initially we
wouldn't have pursued it.
II
Barbara Dacy: I think he said it a lot better then I did.
I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request
#86-23 as shown on the site plan dated August 18, 1986 with the following
conditions:
II1. There shall not be any alteration of Lot 5 past the 890 foot
elevation.
I 2. Restoration of each site shall occur immediately after construction
is completed.
,- f
1,
v 1 3. Erosion control barriers shall be required at each site before any
�, . f - grading or construction is done.
4. Specific construction plans for the septic systems shall be provided
II ' with each building permit.
5. Access permits must be obtained from Carver County with culverts
Iplaced under each driveway.
6. Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 must share a driveway.
II 7. All driveways must have a 300 foot separation and have a turn-around. _,
for the purpose of not backing onto Pioneer Trail.
I 8. Each lot shall provide 10 foot utility easements along the front and
side lot lines.
1 9. The name of Hidden Valley must be changed.
10. Lot 1 has a lot area variance.
IAll voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a couple of comments I would like to make.
I First of all, I was kind of surprised, I mentioned this to Barb today, I was
kind of surprised with the discussion that went on at the Planning Commission
level regarding the fact that we didn't have controls over our septic systems
I and Barb explained it. She thought that it had to do with the meeting that
was held I guess the night before with the University people so I'm satisfied
with that but I think maybe we better emphasize that we do indeed have control
I over it. Secondly, I would like to ask what the response has been from Bluff
Creek Watershed?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, when you called me this afternoon I had a member of Staff
II try to get a hold of Bob at the Watershed District. He was not there for the
afternoon but, Obermeyer. „_,
II
36
4
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: He's Riley.
Barbara Dacy: It's Riley, Purgatory and Bluff Creek. They are all one I
watershed district but on our standard referral notice they were notified of
the meeting, know about their minimum requirements. There is not any
alteration of any slopes and so on. Just on an individual lot basis, they may
II
not have comments.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think Barb that in the future when we have anything
I
that is this close to any body of water, I would like to double check and at
,, least get a no comment, it doesn't bother us or what, from the Watershed
District and the Soil Conservation and the DNR. There was one thing there
(� „�/ ) that I would like to ask you to include and that is that I would prefer to see
')l!) \J alternate two as far as Lot 5 is concerned, to keep the septic systems II
away as P y as far
I �, " y possible from draining down into Bluff Creek. I have to agree. I
think that is an extremely sharp drop down there and as you heard earlier II
tonight, malfunctions of septic systems are not unknown if not properly
install�3 and maintained and also Mr. Machmeier's inspection thereof.
Councilwoman Watson asked about the name of the Subdivision and Sever Peterson II
thought they had come up with Bluff Creek Estates. Barbara Dacy said what
would have to be done is that that name would have to be doubled checked by
Carver County Survey to make sure that no plat names were duplicated. II
Barbara Dacy: Just a question. The people who are affected by Item 1(a) on
the Consent Agenda wanted to know if it would be applicable at this time to II consider their item?
Councilman Geving moved to revise the agenda and bring back the Consent Agenda
items 1(a) , (b) and (c) . II
Councilman Horn: I wanted to comment in there for the record so we don't
start setting precedent with lots under 2 1/2 acres that we found that there
II
was no other alternative to make this lot expanded to 2 1/2 acres and that be
one of the Findings of Fact.
CONSENT AGENDA:
II
1. a. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION.
Councilwoman Swenson: I talked to the City Engineer today regarding the I
of attachment that you had g
y put on your desks. One is a copy of a letter from the
��A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and one had an attachment to recommend that
erosion plans and I talked with Bill on this and he seemed to feel that these II�
six items were well covered by the proposed Ordinance are already existing
practices. Is that correct?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, all of them on the attachment I
that you read me that we went through on the phone nt Everything are
isminones
f those six items, the City is doing right now and requiring in their
II
specifications for approval so I didn't see any problem with any of them.
II
37
II
_
ISUBDIVISIONS § 18-41
PI II e. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan for the areas.
f. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that proposed for the subdivi-
sion, a general development plan of the remaining property depicting the possi-
I ble relationships between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision.
The plan shall address the overall land use, traffic circulation, utility easement
configurations, and general lot layouts.
g. A soil erosion and sediment control plan. The plan shall include a timing sched-
ule and sequence of operation indicating the anticipated starting and completion
dates of the particular development segment and the estimated time of exposure
' of each area prior to completion of effective erosion and sediment control mea-
sures. Gradients of waterways, design of velocity and erosion control measures,
. and landscaping of the erosion and sediment control system shall also be shown.
h. A vegetation preservation and protection plan to provide stabilization of erosion
Yor sediment-producing areas.
i. Required variances.
I "= j. Water distribution system.
k. Proposals for street lighting,curb and gutters,sidewalks and boulevard improvements.
=1 1. Such other information as may be requested by the city.
'I a (Ord. No. 33-D, § 59.2(7), 2-25-85; Ord. No. 33E, § 1, 12-15-86)
Sec. 18-41. Final plat—Generally.
- (a) Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased developments,
within one (1) year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat, the
subdivider shall file an application for approval of the final plat.In addition to the application
the subdivider shall submit:
(1) Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city;
(2) Two(2)mylar copies of the plat;
(3) One(1)two hundred(200)scale copy of the plat.
If the final plat application is not filed within this period, the preliminary plat will be
considered void unless for good cause shown an extension is requested in writing by the
4
1 . subdivider and granted by the city council. . •• ica ion • Ina • • • •• • . . •-
• -• - •eting of the city council at which action is
a` desired.
I i (b) The final plat shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to all conditions
set forth in the approval of the preliminary plat as modified during final plat approval.
I (c) The city council shall review the final plat and shall approve or disapprove it within
sixty(60)days of receipt of the completed application.
(d) No final plat shall be approved by the city council until the plat is in a form acceptable
for recording with the county,the proper filing fees have been paid to the city, a development
_,• contract has been signed, appropriate security has been furnished, and no other payments to
_ the city related to the development are outstanding.
'`=~ 1005
f
LYM. . . .Ilk
II
B•U . EVARI
..
0
a
0
ac -
R--IA
z
I
0
m
0
o
a
I
I
________
PIONEER T- AI!
I
I
4 Lcr�s-nc�r c t� = r�
7-------. ,
I a.3-] E.-5
wESr IlL e!
e.,,
A
1......p l' 0
PONOr 4, `. EE.
�'° 1 ,9040 �% ' / ~',...„,
, .c.c-,N,\:,F,4,, ..„4,11,„„P—i' , c
, \�� L
,
...ucs, • r
111111 IIIM IIIIII Mill 1111111
NM I ME IM
MIN NM NM ME • 1111•1 Eli
N = a
FT = SEVER PETERSON
F
LL
O O
w 3
0.411;411teLl)
N y
HF-
LL
O O
I
J• J ��_�� G
N N CENTER`I IN •0��AVEL AS FIELD LOCATED ON JULY 15,1986
/ w 4i),(,euguo
g
_r _ -
-------- 1 6� / /
100111111.- 11,00.4 -44
t i -----,----2"
_�' / /E' _ _
�P/ / / /iii i i i i // �� \ ---�-_--T-/ /// �I -- \\\ v\ L• I "j L / / / / / / /// �• `\ \eli■
„., �.///,i�cti' ��%�' '/� , �. �\� � 93R. , ,
I \ �I1J ::c\ \\ 916. I/ 1 - / 1 ii ' O / r I 1 I 1 I ' / -
// /� / /J/J r//�2/� / / / \ -_ _ / /J I p) �� --- \�� r l iii / .III —
/ /; ' / // / �/ / \ ' / 2 / / X81 / I N — 1 ( / I
7,/, ,„/ / , // p OBI
_ 3 / r r I - 5 i,-----,„‘„,
/BI OP3 / / I / III ice_
II / I II 51/ / / I 1 / / � — \ I / / 92 / / / / J J :j )/ I I 1 / / / 1 / /\ ___ 1 "9zoa I " 1 - -r ' J / /35• /!I I 1 ( I J I I I 1 940 �i 346 / / r r II j,,� —.,
/ 1285
5 0 W J '
9�0 EDGE”OF W'SOD / O
O m0 0 0
EI/q OF THE NE I/4 SEC 27 / \ SOUTH LINE OF THE SW I/4 OF THE NWI/4 OF SEC.26 m cf,? /
CO
I I
6L UU a�
1 f-N. I
1 1 1 GEORGIA JEURISSEN I