Setting
- Backs to
- open or farmland and a rail line
- Cul-de-sac
- No
- Corner lot
- No
- Frontage and depth
- 198 ft of street frontage, 518 ft deep
- Back yard faces
- southeast
- Nearest highway
- 0.3 mi
- Nearest rail line
- 70 ft
- Walkout
- Neither: the ground rises 1 ft across a 60 ft house pad starting 30 ft back from the street
- Slope
- Gentle: 5% on average across the lot
- Tree canopy
- 51% of the lot in 2015
Computed from county parcel and map data, as of October 2026. Screening only, not a survey. Sources: Met Council road centerlines (2026-10-08), Generalized Land Use 2025 and active railroads; the regional parcel dataset (2026-07-20); NWI wetlands and DNR public waters; the UMN 2015 1-m tree canopy. Elevation: the MN DNR LiDAR 1 m bare-earth elevation model (metro collection, validated October 2012), data contributed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Walkout and lookout potential are a builder rule of thumb, not a survey.
All site signals below are preliminary site signals — not a determination. Verify before you rely on them.
Data confidence
A plain-language status — not a score. This page documents 3 facts from public records, estimates 2 more from models, relies on 7 unverified screening defaults, and lists 8 things to verify before you rely on it.
- What we know
- 3 documented signals (parcel boundary, jurisdiction, market status) — each carries its source and as-of date below.
- What we estimate
- 2 modeled values (preliminary setback envelope (uniform conservative buffer — edges not classified), sewer proximity (estimated)) — modeled, not measured; treat as screening only.
- What needs verification
- 8 items only a professional or the city can confirm — the full checklist is below.
- Rules basis
- Regional/state screening defaults (unverified) — Some rules shown use a regional screening default — the Sand Creek Township ordinance is not yet loaded for them; verify locally before relying on any number.
Plain-English summary
This parcel in Sand Creek Township sits in the Jordan Public Schools (ISD 717) school district. Part of the parcel is mapped in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, so flood insurance and elevation requirements likely apply. No wetlands are mapped on the parcel in screening data, though small basins can go unmapped and a delineation is still recommended before construction. On utilities, water service is undocumented and sewer service is inside the regional service area — a connection is not confirmed until the city or utility confirms it, so budget time to verify location and fees. Tree cover is substantial — most of the lot sits under canopy in the 2015 modeled estimate, so plan for clearing and tree-preservation choices. We do not yet have data on terrain, water service, and shoreland status — on this page, unknown never means "no concern."
Rules applied: Regional/state screening defaults (unverified) Some rules shown use a regional screening default — the Sand Creek Township ordinance is not yet loaded for them; verify locally before relying on any number.
What we know, what we estimate, what you must verify
What we know
Recorded, authoritative facts.
- Parcel boundaryRecorded county GIS parcel on file (not a survey)
Source: County GIS
- JurisdictionSand Creek Township, Scott County
Source: County GIS
- Market statusPotential build site — identified from county GIS
What we estimate
Modeled or preliminary — useful for screening, not decisions.
What you must verify
Professional and municipal confirmations before you build.
- Boundary survey (a recorded GIS boundary is not a survey)
- Wetland delineation by a certified delineator
- Soil borings & septic feasibility (if no municipal sewer)
- Utility connection points, capacity and SAC/WAC fees with the city or utility
- Permit eligibility and any overlay/PUD conditions with the jurisdiction
- Easements, covenants and title work
- Final setbacks and buildable area per the current local ordinance
- Actual construction cost from builder quotes
What each signal means
Written for homeowners; open “the details” on any card for the builder view and the raw measurement behind it.
Slope & terrain: not yet evaluated — unknown is not the same as no concern. no slope statistics
The details
Builder view: Slope & terrain: no qualifying evidence in the current dataset (no slope statistics); treat as unresolved, not as clear.
No underlying measurement on file for this signal.
- Unknown ≠ clear: absence of data is never treated as "no concern".
0% confidence
Part of this parcel is mapped in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (zone AE); flood insurance and elevation requirements likely apply — confirm with the city and a surveyor.
The details
Builder view: FEMA zone AE (SFHA) per current NFHL data; floodplain ordinance and base flood elevation requirements apply — elevation certificate and local floodplain review required.
- Zone boundary is map-scale; a surveyed elevation governs.
90% confidence · source: FEMA NFHL flood hazard zones (MN DNR GDRS mirror) · as of 10/12/2026
Wetland indicators
✓ ClearNo mapped wetland/public-water indicators on this parcel in the current screening datasets; small or unmapped wetlands can still exist — a wetland delineation is recommended before design or purchase decisions.
Uses a regional screening default — the local ordinance is not yet loaded. Verify locally.
The details
Builder view: No NWI/PWI overlap in current screening data; datasets under-map small basins — a wetland delineation is recommended before design or purchase decisions where soils/vegetation suggest hydrology. A 50 ft screening buffer applies (screening default).
- Screening-level mapping only; absence in the dataset is not a delineation.
- regional/state screening default (unverified) — not the local ordinance; verify with the jurisdiction
50% confidence · rule tier: regional screening default (unverified) · source: Updated MN National Wetlands Inventory; DNR Public Waters Inventory basins · as of 10/12/2026
Sanitary sewer
i Info ModeledPublic utilities may be available nearby; connection location & fees require confirmation
Uses a regional screening default — the local ordinance is not yet loaded. Verify locally.
The details
Builder view: sanitary sewer: inside the regional wastewater service area (MUSA) — membership is a planning designation, NOT a connection at the boundary; timing unknown, confirm staging with the city.
- Sewer service state: Inside planned regional wastewater service area — not a sewer connection
- Service-area membership is modeled from regional GIS, not utility records.
- Without a municipal sewer connection, an on-site septic system (SSTS) is required, including a primary and alternate drainfield site (regional/state screening default (unverified) — not the local ordinance; verify with the jurisdiction).
55% confidence · rule tier: regional screening default (unverified)
Water service: not yet evaluated — unknown is not the same as no concern. water service not documented
The details
Builder view: Water service: no qualifying evidence in the current dataset (water service not documented); treat as unresolved, not as clear.
No underlying measurement on file for this signal.
- Unknown ≠ clear: absence of data is never treated as "no concern".
0% confidence
This parcel is in the Jordan Public Schools (ISD 717) school district per current boundary data.
The details
Builder view: School district: Jordan Public Schools (ISD 717) — MDE boundary data; boundaries can change, so verify for enrollment decisions.
90% confidence · source: MDE School District Boundaries, SY2025-26 · as of 10/12/2026
Setback & frontage envelope
i InfoRoom for a typical house: yes. This is acreage, not a single homesite. Setbacks leave about 2.9 acres buildable — far more than any house uses, so zoning is not the practical limit here. Site conditions, access, utilities and budget govern what is practical. Based on regional/state screening default (unverified) — not the local ordinance; verify with the jurisdiction setbacks; confirm your parcel's zoning.
Uses a regional screening default — the local ordinance is not yet loaded. Verify locally.
The details
Builder view: Regulatory maximum footprint ≈ 127,434 sq ft — the legal ceiling, not a house size (setback-derived; setbacks alone allow ≈ 127,434 sq ft). Regulation is not the binding constraint at this parcel size. Based on regional/state screening default (unverified) — not the local ordinance; verify with the jurisdiction setbacks; confirm your parcel's zoning.
No underlying measurement on file for this signal.
- Regulatory maximum — not a suggested or typical house size.
- Confidence is limited by: the rules basis is an unverified regional screening default, not the local ordinance.
- Setback-derived figure is a conservative uniform-buffer approximation — irrelevant to house size at this parcel scale either way.
- Rules basis is a generic screening default — it has no source currency date.
- regional/state screening default (unverified) — not the local ordinance; verify with the jurisdiction
45% confidence · rule tier: regional screening default (unverified) · source: Generic MN residential screening defaults — UNVERIFIED DEFAULT VALUES, not an adopted ordinance (conservative statewide screening basis; MN Rules 6120 shoreland / 7080 SSTS used as reference points only)
Shoreland status
? UnknownThis lot is near a mapped public water, but its shoreland classification is not available in the current dataset — shoreland setbacks remain unresolved (never guessed); confirm with the DNR and the city.
The details
Builder view: Within statutory shoreland distance of a public water with no available DNR management class; OHWL/bluff/impervious standards unresolved — confirm the classification before design.
- Unknown ≠ clear: absence of data is never treated as "no concern".
- Within the MN statutory shoreland distance of a mapped public water whose DNR shoreland classification is not available in the current dataset — shoreland standards remain unresolved, never guessed.
50% confidence · source: DNR Public Waters Inventory basins · as of 10/12/2026
Trees & canopy
i Info ModeledThis lot reads as wooded — about 51.4% of it sits under tree canopy (2015 modeled estimate). Expect real trees, and real tree-clearing decisions.
The details
Builder view: Tree canopy ≈ 51.4% of parcel area (Wooded; bands: wooded ≥ 50%, partially wooded 20–50%). Source: 2015 UMN 1-m urban tree canopy (deciduous + coniferous classes); verify current conditions on site — clearing, storms and growth since 2015 are not reflected.
- Modeled from the 2015 UMN 1-m urban tree canopy raster; canopy may have changed since 2015. Screening only, not a survey.
- Modeled from the 2015 UMN 1-m urban tree canopy raster (deciduous + coniferous classes); canopy may have changed since 2015. Screening only, not a survey.
60% confidence · source: UMN 2015 TCMA Urban Tree Canopy (1 m, RSGAL/DRUM) · as of 10/13/2026
Build on this lot
A builder can turn the verify list above into answers — ask about this lot with no obligation.
Site signals
The raw per-field record behind the interpretation above — the same rights-filtered fields, each with its own source and last-verified date.
School districti Info Verified
Jordan Public Schools (ISD 717)
Source & last verified
Source: MDE School District Boundaries, SY2025-26. Last verified: 10/12/2026.
Flood zone! Concern Verified
Zone AE (FEMA special flood hazard area) Preliminary site signal — not a determination.
Source & last verified
Source: FEMA NFHL flood hazard zones (MN DNR GDRS mirror). Last verified: 10/12/2026.
Wetland presence✓ Clear Verified
No NWI is a planning tool; preliminary, not a delineation.
Source & last verified
Source: Updated MN National Wetlands Inventory. Last verified: 10/12/2026.
DNR public waters✓ Clear Verified
No
Source & last verified
Source: DNR Public Waters Inventory basins. Last verified: 10/12/2026.
DNR shoreland classification? Unknown Verified
Unknown — verify Within the MN statutory shoreland distance of a mapped public water whose DNR shoreland classification is not available in the current dataset — shoreland standards remain unresolved, never guessed.
Source & last verified
Source: DNR Public Waters Inventory basins. Last verified: 10/12/2026.
Tree canopy coverage (%)i Info Modeled
51.4% Modeled from the 2015 UMN 1-m urban tree canopy raster (deciduous + coniferous classes); canopy may have changed since 2015. Screening only, not a survey.
Source & last verified
Source: UMN 2015 TCMA Urban Tree Canopy (1 m, RSGAL/DRUM). Last verified: 10/13/2026.
Utilities
Seweri Info Modeled
Inside planned regional wastewater service area — not a sewer connection
Nearby sites in Sand Creek Township
Other potential building sites near this one — straight-line distance between parcel centres. Same preliminary signals, same caveats.
- 0 · 0.96 ac · 155 m away
- 0 · 4.17 ac · 209 m away
- 0 · 1.74 ac · 274 m away
- 0 · 1.1 ac · 401 m away
- 3056 Bluff Drive · 67.37 ac · 809 m away
- 0 · 5.15 ac · 998 m away