09.08.25 PC Meeting_Agenda Packet September 8, 2025 — 6:30 PM
Council Chambers
1.Call to Order Regular Meeting, Land Acknowledgement, and Attendance
Attendance by presence, not roll call
2.Consent Agenda
All matters listed under Item 2 are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one
motion. Individual discussion of these items is not planned. A member, however, may remove
any item to discuss as an item for separate consideration under New Business.
2.A.Approval of Agenda
2.B.August 25, 2025 Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
3.A.Minor Subdivision at 641 Westwood Drive
4.New Business
5.Staff Updates
6.Commissioner Updates
7.Adjourn Regular Meeting
8.Work Session (not broadcast)
8.A.Parking Code Update
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
The public may watch the meeting remotely on cable channel 16 or streaming on CCXmedia.org. The
public can make statements in this meeting during the planned public comment sections. Individuals
may also provide public hearing testimony remotely by emailing planning@goldenvalleymn.gov by 3
p.m. on the day of the meeting.
City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 8, 2025 — 6:30 PM
1
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, August 25, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
1. CALL TO ORDER AND LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Chair Ruby called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the Land Acknowledgement
Regular Members Present: Amy Barnstorff, Adam Brookins, Gary Cohen, Mike Ruby, Martin
Sicotte, Eric Van Oss
Regular Members Absent: Chuck Segelbaum
Student Member, Status: Vacant
Staff Members Present: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Steven Okey, Associate Planner
Council Member Present: None
2. CONSENT AGENDA:
2.A. Approval of agenda
2.B. Approval of July 14, 2025, meeting minutes
• Ruby asked if there was any discussion or requested changes to the consent agenda.
• Ruby asked for a motion to approve.
• Cohen moved.
• Sicotte seconded.
• All voted in favor, and the motion passed.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3.A. Minor Subdivision at 200 Cutacross Road
Kramer presented the proposal. She noted that there was one email in regards to the
application that asked about noxious weeds on the property; however, that does fall out of
the scope of the criteria to be considered for a minor subdivision. She added that the
applicant and design team had noted that they would look at how to remove the black locust
before construction. She stated that this demonstrates the work that Staff does behind the
scenes for a project, even when things don’t necessarily fall under official criteria, they are still
trying to bring applicants into compliance as much as possible. She added that the City
Council will take action on this application on September 16th, and once that is done, the
Applicant will then apply for a final plat, which only has to go to the City Council.
Ruby stated that he had a procedural question in terms of the flow of how it happened. The
designs are already put out there as a concept, but the approval has nothing to do with the
design. He noted that they could change the direction of the driveway through the process,
which would trigger the Board of Zoning Appeals. He asked that this application be strictly,
even with the designs present, a plat.
Kramer noted that the preliminary plat that is being shown is a fit test, demonstrating that it is
possible to meet all the code requirements, but it is just a footprint, which shows the setbacks
and that driveways could go in a different direction. She added that if the plans change, it
would not necessarily have to go through another public process, unless a variance was added.
Ruby noted that the application stated a proposed driveway, and he was curious as to what
that meant.
Kramer stated that the property lines and easements would not change and would stay as
shown.
Ruby asked if there were any other questions for the Staff. Seeing none, he asked the
Applicant if they would like to present.
Applicant, Dave Spencer of 203 Cutacross Road, spoke,
Spencer stated that he and his wife, Stacey, were sensitive to finding a reputable builder, 2
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, August 25, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
Sustainable 9, who seems to be very professional, they will be nice to deal with in the building
process, and will keep the area very clean. He noted that in everything that has come up, the
builder has been easy to work with. He added that when it came to the water, the ponds, the
builder said they understood and would take care of it. He stated that for the invasive species,
black locust, he was certain they would take care of it.
Ruby asked if there were any questions for the Applicant.
Ruby opened up the public hearing.
Resident Ruth Paradise, 8515 Duluth Street, spoke
Paradise noted that it is a good opportunity, and it meets all the requirements, and there does
not seem to be a good reason to take this opportunity to have two homes where there was
one.
Ruby opened the item for discussion.
Barnstorff noted that she has no concerns about this application and that it seems like it
meets all requirements. She added that she thinks it is great to put into practice everything
that was talked about a couple of weeks ago at the meeting, and to find more places to build
more housing.
Sicotte stated that it exceeds all the minimums, it is adding more density, so it seems like a
slam dunk, and he is supportive and has no concerns.
Cohen stated that over his time on the Planning Commission, which is almost two years, this
area that the application is coming from has had a lot of possible subdivisions and other stuff,
which in some cases has driven some neighbors crazy, but this application seems wonderful.
He added that the fact that no one from the public is present in opposition, that is means that
the surrounding neighbors are also appreciative of the work that has gone into it. He noted
that it is nice to see one done without lots of controversy, and he fully supports the Applicant.
Hill noted that he likes the idea of two houses for one. He added that, based on the discussion
from a few weeks ago and the fact that it meets every requirement that is needed, he thinks it
is a great opportunity.
Ruby stated that he agrees with everyone and thinks that it is the right choice, and would vote
in favor.
Ruby asked for a motion.
Cohen moved to approve the request for a minor subdivision at 200 Cutacross Road, subject
to the findings and conditions in the staff report.
Barnstorff seconded the motion.
All voted in favor, and the motion passed.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
4.A. Zoning Code Amendments
Ruby introduced the topic of the zoning code amendments and stated that the Staff would
provide an update on them.
Kramer stated that several zoning code amendments have been worked on and will continue
to be worked on. She noted that she has heard back from almost everyone. She stated that
the first code is the Missing Middle Housing Study, for which there was a meeting about a few
weeks ago, and there is no immediate action on it, but there will be code amendments
generated from those recommendations. She noted that Commissioner Van Oss volunteered,
and she was hoping Commissioner Hill would volunteer as well. She stated that the next one
is the Climate Equity Plan, which is similar to the last, having no code updates right now, but
there will be hopefully, and Commissioner Barnstorff volunteered to serve on the Steering
Committee. She noted that Commissioner Segelbaum was not present, but she asked if he
would help with subdivision, conditional use permits, and variance updates, which he agreed 3
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, August 25, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
to. She added that Commissioner Sicotte would be helping with the Accessory Dwelling Units,
ADUs, updates. She noted that there had only been one or two ADUs built since the ordinance
passed, but they would like to see more, so the ordinance is being looked at to try to figure
out what could be tweaked, what could make the process easier. She stated that they are
always thinking about how the code can be made more user-friendly, especially for those who
are not builders, and how code can be made easier for the Planning Commission to enforce
and interpret the codes. She noted that Chair Ruby will be coordinating and facilitating all the
meetings and public hearings, and helping to support everyone as they go through the code
updates. She added that Commissioner Cohen and Steven Okey will be working on the parking
code, which is not a complete overhaul, but some things are being looked at to change.
Ruby asked what the Climate Equity Plan is.
Kramer stated that the Climate Equity Plan is a plan that came from the City Council directive
and is primarily being championed by the Environmental Commission. She noted that they are
looking at short-term and long-term policies, ordinance updates, and incentive programs. She
added that it is similar to the Missing Middle Study, which is very broad, and it will feed into
the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update, which takes place next year. She stated that there is a
consultant who is helping to put together a large climate equity document, and from that
document, there will be a list of recommendations of specific things to implement, which is
where the anticipation of zoning code updates may come from. She added that it may be
something like the Dark Skies Ordinance or updating the stormwater requirements.
Cohen asked if there are timeframes for the beginning or ending of some of the meetings.
Kramer shared a slide with information on the rest of the year for the Planning Commission
schedule. She noted that on September 8th, there would be a work session on the parking
code update. She noted that September 29th would be a rescheduled meeting for the sign
code update, which is being led by the consultant Stan Tech. They made it through the legal
review and are polishing up the revised ordinance, and should be able to put the public notice
out soon. She added that on October 13th, they are hoping to do a parking update public
hearing and to have a joint work session with the Environmental Commission, where they will
talk about the Climate Equity Plan, and introduce the Environmental Commission to the
Missing Middle Housing Study.
Ruby asked if it would be another phase of the Missing Middle Housing Study or if it would be
the same.
Kramer stated that she was not entirely sure what the discussion would look like; it may be a
little bit of an introduction, but there would be more documents from the consultant, and the
consultant might have the feasibility analysis done by then.
Kramer stated that, through October and November, there should be a code amendment
public hearing at every meeting. She noted that there will be a minor subdivision application
next month, but beyond that, it is too early to say; however, there is nothing big on the
horizon. She added that in December, they would discuss the 2026 work plan, vote on it, and
adopt it on December 22nd. She noted that she does not like to have the Planning Commission
meetings the week of Christmas and the holidays, so it may get pushed to January. She added
that as far as which amendment or which public hearing will go when, she is not sure because
it will depend on how much the City Attorney tears up the amendments and how long it takes
to put them back together.
Van Oss asked when do we start our Comprehensive Plan 2050 work.
Kramer stated that outreach is supposed to start at the end of this year, and they are hoping,
dependent upon budget approval, that there will be money for a consultant to help put the
plan together. She added that, really, 2026 is when the big kickoff starts. She noted that the
Met Council releases the system statements in mid-September, which consists of a packet for 4
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, August 25, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. | City Hall Council Chamber
7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
each city that describes housing anticipated needs, water resources, transportation, and the
number of units the City is supposed to plan for.
Ruby asked if the 3,000 number that was heard a few weeks ago could change when the Met
Council comes back with information.
Kramer stated that the 3,000 number was from the last Comprehensive Plan Update, and was
maybe updated slightly as new census data came in. She stated that the City’s urban
classification has changed or gone up, but they have also renamed it. She noted that she
believes the City is still second tier, with Minneapolis, St. Paul, and a couple of suburbs being
the urban core, and then Golden Valley being the next level down. She added that when they
released the numbers, Golden Valley had already zoned and guided to meet the anticipated
density. She noted that the Staff is not worried about it.
Hill asked if changing the City from urban to urban edge could change the whole thing
Kramer stated that they have already done that. She noted that the growth and zoning that
the City has already had are on track to meet what would be required, but the specific
numbers have not been released yet.
Kramer noted to please let her know if someone is unable to attend a meeting. She shared
the rest of the year for BZA rotation, with Commissioner Van Oss attending the following day,
then Commissioner Barnstorff, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Cohen, and Chair Ruby as the
meeting happened.
Van Oss asked if there were plans to merge the Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning
Commission.
Kramer stated that she does not know where those talks are. She noted that other cities have
done it, such as St. Louis Park, when she worked there, because there was not much interest
in BZA, even less than in Golden Valley, and there were not a lot of variance applications, so
Planning Commission just took over the role of BZA, and when there were variances, they
would hold a BZA meeting, then gavel in and out, and then have the Planning Commission
meeting to cut down on meetings. She noted that it kept it a little more consistent for
applicants because the same people were reviewing the applications.
Ruby stated that he likes the concept because, with some of the rules changing, decisions
could be made faster, and things could get done faster.
Ruby asked if there was anything else.
5. STAFF UPDATES:
Ruby asked if there were any council liaison reports.
Kramer stated that she had not heard from Councilmember Ginis, but Councilmember Ginis
did thank Commissioners and Staff for the Missing Middle Housing Study Work Session,
because she is very excited about it, and tells everyone about it.
Ruby asked if they were able to find a high school to serve on the board.
Kramer stated that there is not one right now, but she heard a rumor that interviews were
happening or would happen soon. She noted that she thought there were some applicants,
but they had not been holding interviews because the person who handled Staff had left for
another job, and the new person had just started. She added that she thinks there has been a
little bit of interest in the Planning Commission.
6. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Ruby adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley Planning Commission Meeting
September 8, 2025
Agenda Item
3.A. Minor Subdivision at 641 Westwood Drive
Prepared By
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Summary
Curtis Olson, the property owner of 641 Westwood Drive, requests a Minor Subdivision to adjust the
interior lot line between his property and the neighboring property 521 Janalyn Circle. No new
dwellings or construction are proposed as part of this application.
Recommended Action
Motion to recommend approval of a Minor Subdivision to adjust an interior lot line between 641
Westwood Drive and 521 Janalyn Circle, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Supporting Documents
Staff Report
Public Comment
Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat
6
1
Date: September 8, 2025
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
From: Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
Subject: Minor Subdivision Application for 641 Westwood Drive
Site Image
2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)
Subject Property
Location: 641 Westwood Drive South and 512 Janalyn Circle
Parcel ID Number: 3002924130007
Applicant/Property Owner: Curtis Olson
v
v
Existing lot line
Proposed lot line
641 Westwood
Drive
512 Janalyn Circle
7
Site Size: 641 Westwood: 0.7 acres, 30,473 square feet
512 Janalyn Circle: 0.81 acres, 35,297 square feet
Future Land Use: Low Density Residential
Zoning District: R-1 Single-Family Residential
Existing Use: Single family home
Adjacent Properties: Single family homes
512 Janalyn Circle is a single-family lot north of 641 Westwood. 641 Westwood Drive is a single-
family lot with a home built in 1940. The northern setbacks of the driveway and the house do
not meet the minimum setback distances required in the R-1 zoning district; both the house
and driveway are considered legally nonconforming, as shown in the table below.
R-1 Standard
Existing Condition at 641
Westwood Drive
Building Side Setback 15 ft. 0 ft.
Driveway 3 ft. Over property line
Proposal
The property owner of 512 Janalyn Circle has agreed to sell the southern portion of their lot to
the property owner of 641 Westwood. This land sale requires a lot line adjustment. City code
does not currently have a process to allow lot-line adjustments to be approved
administratively, so the applicant seeks approval to adjust the lot line northwards 30 feet
through the Minor Subdivision process in City Code Chapter 109, Division 4.
The revised lots would exceed the dimensional requirements for the R-1 district as shown in the
table below.
R-1 Standards Lot 1 (512 Janalyn) Lot 2 (641 Westwood)
Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 29,241 sq. ft. 36,678 sq ft.
Lot Width 100 ft. 166.37 ft. (no change) 188.12 ft.
Front Setback 35 ft. 35.2 ft. (no change) 47.9 ft. (no change)
Side Setback 15 ft. 32.6 ft. (no change) 30.2 ft.
Rear Setback 25 ft. 70.8 ft. (no change) 79.1 ft. (no change)
Accessory Structure
Side/Rear Setback
5 ft. 5.6 ft. (no change)
Driveway 3 ft. 48.0 ft. (no change) 21.11 ft.
8
Planning Analysis
Level of Discretion in Decision Making
The City has limited discretion when approving a Minor Subdivision application. Per City Code,
the City must approve a Minor Subdivision application if it meets the requirements listed in
Section 109-121.
Eligibility
In keeping with Minn. Stats. § 462.358, subd. 1a, which allows for the establishment of more
than one class of subdivision and more than one set of regulations, certain proposed land
subdivisions and consolidations may qualify for application as a minor subdivision. Each of the
following conditions must be met to establish eligibility:
1. The land to be subdivided or consolidated must be part of a recorded plat or a recorded
registered land survey (RLS). The site is part of an existing plat, Kennedys West Tyrol Hills
Addition.
2. Consolidations may involve any number of parcels, but subdivisions shall be limited to the
creation of four or fewer lots from one or more original parcels. The applicant proposes to
adjust one lot line between two existing parcels. No lots will be subdivided or
consolidated.
3. The subdivision or consolidation shall not necessitate any additional public investment in
new roads or utilities to serve the lots. No new dwellings are proposed as part of this
project. Staff has determined the proposal requires no new roads or utility lines.
Staff finds the request meets these three conditions to be considered a minor subdivision.
Application Analysis
In reviewing this application, staff has examined the request in accordance with the standards
outlined in Section 109-121 of the City Code, which provides the criteria for approving a Minor
Subdivision.
1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the
appropriate zoning district. Both lots will meet all dimensional and area requirements in
the R-1 zoning district after the lot line adjustment.
2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not
buildable. No new buildings or dwellings are proposed as part of the application. Both
existing homes will remain on the lots.
3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available
or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on city utility
systems by the addition of the new lots. No changes to sewer or water capacity are
proposed as part of the project.
4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the
city. New easements along all existing and new property lines will be required in the final
plat drawing.
5. If public agencies other than the city have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor
subdivision, the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. Not applicable.
9
6. The city may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney for dedication of certain
easements. Title documentation has been submitted for review by the City Attorney. Legal
review will be complete before the application goes to City Council.
7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. Since no new
dwellings are proposed as part of the application, no park dedication fees are required.
Findings of Fact
Criteria Finding Met?
Meets requirements of appropriate zoning district Yes
Buildable lot Yes
Sufficient sewer and water capacity Yes
Easements Yes
Other agency review Not applicable
Title review Yes
Park dedication fees Yes
Public Notification
To comply with State law and the City’s public hearing notice requirements, a notice was
published in the Sun Post Newspaper and notices were mailed to property owners within 500
feet of the site. At the time of this report, staff have received one email (attached to this
report) in support of the application.
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision application based on the findings in the
staff report, with the following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment shall not go into effect until the sale of the land.
2. The Minor Subdivision approval shall expire 180 days after the date of approval unless
the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of the Final Plat.
Recommended Motion
“I move to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision for a lot line adjustment at 641
Westwood Drive, subject to the findings and conditions in the September 8, 2025 staff report.”
Next Steps
Council will consider the Minor Subdivision and Final Plat applications later this fall.
10
If City Council approves the Final Plat, the subdivider shall then file it for recording with the
Hennepin County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles within 60 days of the date of the resolution
approving the Final Plat. If not filed within 60 days, the Final Plat shall be null and void unless an
extension is given by the Council.
Staff Contact Information
Prepared by:
Jacquelyn Kramer, Senior Planner
jkramer@goldenvalleymn.gov
Reviewed by:
Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
cmcguire@goldenvalleymn.gov
11
From:Edward Alch
To:Planning
Subject:641 Westwood Drive South Lot Line Adjustment
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:17:40 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Golden Valley. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Golden Valley Planning Commission
I just received your notice of Public Hearing for Monday September 8th re: the adjusting of an
interior lot line. I live two doors down from Curt & Jayne Olson and am in full support of this
adjustment. They are excellent neighbors and this proposal is reasonable and non-impactful to
neighbors other than the parties involved.
Best-
Eddie Alch
612-242-2798
--
Edward Alch
edwardalchconsulting@gmail.com
12
S74°29'07"E 156.81S89°09'54"E9.56S00°17'13"W 329.89N89°01'47"W 167.6411.38Δ=1°34'01"R=415.92N11°14'14"W 157.8130.31Δ=30°16'19"R=57.36N17°14'49"E 184.62S88°54'46"E 213.70195.00 3.56134.89
181.06
12BLOCK 1("GLENURBAN SECOND ADDITION" = 158.1)("GLENURBAN SECONDADDITION" = 8.2)("GLENURBAN SECOND ADDITION" = 183.9)("GLENURBAN SECONDADDITION" = 30)EXCEPTIONS Line of Lot 11, Block 13,"KENNEDY'S WESTTYR"OL HILLS ADDITION"S Line of the S 50 Feet ofLot 11, Block 13,"KENNEDY'S WESTTYROL HILLS ADDITION"Found 1/2 Inch Iron Pipew Cap No. 42379Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipePID: 3002924120059Address: 504 Janalyn CirOwner: Robert Yost Trust Et AlPID: 3002924120060Address: 512 Janalyn CirOwner: Amy A Wolford Family TrustPID: 3002924110067Address: 516 Janalyn CirOwner: Michael V ChryssomallisPID: 3002924140050Address: 700 Tyrol TrOwner: Patricia H Lisberg TrustPID: 3002924130007Address:641 Westwood Dr SOwner: Curtis Olson & Jayne OlsonPID: 3002924130040Address: 717 Westwood Dr SOwner: Gwen L Egan TrustPID: 3002924140051Address: 708 Tyrol TrOwner: Rachael Lea ConstableExisting Property LineVICINITY MAP512 Janalyn Circle
& 641 Westwood Drive South
Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota 55416
641 Westwood Drive South, Golden Valley, MN 55416
Curt Olson
PROJECTPROJECT NO.: 25351COPYRIGHT 2025 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONV2.0PRELIMINARY PLAT............N44565RORY L. SYNSTELIENLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY,PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.8-13-2025NCLIENT Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060QA/QCFIELD CREWDRAWN BYREVIEWED BYUPDATED BYDM/BOCJRS.PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTESPROPERTY DESCRIPTION:Lots 24 and 25, "GLENURBAN SECOND ADDITION".ANDLot 12 and all of Lot 11 except the South 50 feet, Block 13, "KENNEDY'S WEST TYROL HILLS ADDITION".andLot 26, Block 6, "GLENURBAN SECOND ADDITION".This preliminary plat was created without the benefit of a commitment for title insurance. The descriptions above are percounty tax records and may not be the descriptions of record. There may be easements or other matters of record we areunaware of and thus not shown hereon.DATE OF PREPARATION:8-13-2025APPLICANT:Curt Olson641 Westwood Drive SGolden Valley, MN 55416612.916.0404colson@channelsoftware.comBENCHMARKS:Elevations are based on the NGVD29 Datum.Site benchmark is the top nut of the fire hydrant located on the southwesterly side of Westwood Drive Southapproximately 50 feet southwesterly of the westerly most corner of the subject property, as shown hereon.Elevation = 911.59.AREAS:Proposed Lot 1 = 29,241 Sq. Ft. or 0.671 AcresProposed Lot 2 = 36,678 Sq. Ft. or 0.842 AcresTotal Property Area = 65,919 Sq. Ft. or 1.513 AcresFLOOD ZONE:This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per FloodInsurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0352F, effective date of November 4, 2016.________________________________________________________Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565rory@civilsitegroup.comPRELIMINARY PLAT: JANALYN WESTWOODOVERHEAD UTILITIESGASMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERFIBER/COMM. LINEELECTRIC LINE (RECORD)WATERMAINELECTRIC LINEGASMAIN (RECORD)CHAINLINK FENCE LINELinetype & Symbol Legend CONCRETE SURFACEPAVER SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEGRAVEL/LANDSCAPE SURFACEIRON FENCE LINEGUARDRAILWATERMAIN (RECORD)SANITARY SEWER (RECORD)STORM SEWER (RECORD)FIBER/COMM. LINE (RECORD)TELEPHONE LINE (RECORD)TELEPHONE LINESIGNSANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLECABLE TV BOXTELEPHONE MANHOLEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE BOXTRAFFIC SIGNALGAS METERELECTRICAL METERWATER MANHOLEWATER VALVEAIR CONDITIONERBOLLARDCATCH BASINELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS VALVEFLAG POLEHANDICAP SYMBOLFOUND IRON MONUMENTHYDRANTCAST IRON MONUMENTSET OR TO BE SET IRON MONUMENTFLARED END SECTIONPOWER POLEUTILITY MANHOLEGUY WIRECONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEROOF DRAINSEWER CLEAN OUTFIRE CONNECTIONWELLUTILITY VAULTPOST INDICATOR VALVEGAS MANHOLEHAND HOLEFIBER/COMM. MANHOLEMAIL BOXFUEL TANKELECTRICAL OUTLETSBSOIL BORINGLIGHT POLEACCESS RESTRICTIONWOODEN FENCE LINESATELLITE DISHBUSH/SHRUB60153001530SCALE IN FEET13