Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/17/2025Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, November 17, 2025 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Planning Commission Members: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Minutes A. Approval of the minutes for Planning Commission Meeting held on September 22, 2025. V. Public Hearing A. Code Amendment – Shoreland Ordinance (2025-02CA) 1. Amendment to Chapter 11, section 11.50 Shoreland Regulations B. Code Amendment – Site Plan Review (2025-03CA) 1. Amendment to Chapter 11, section 11.47 related to site plan approval VI. Planner’s Report VII. Members’ Reports VIII. Adjournment UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Trisha Duncan, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Shulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks and Natural Resources Manager; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Vice Chair Duncan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission member Pieper, Farr, Weber and Taylor were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Sivilay moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of July 28, 2025. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VALLEY VIEW HOTEL DEVELOPMENT (2025-07) • Guide Plan Change on 59.6 acres • Zone Change on 59.6 acres • Preliminary Plat on 59.6 acres • PUD Concept Review on 6.59 acres • PUD District Review w/ Waivers on 6.59 acres • Site Plan Review on 6.59 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 22, 2025 Page 2 John Ferrier, Vice President of CSM Development, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He introduced staff from the design team, Scott Cross, current general manager of Residence Inn, and Terry Brunhagen, Principal at ESG Architects, and CSM Development Analyst John Carlen. Ferrier explained the current Residence Inn which the first-generation prototype is built in 1984. The Inn had a separate clubhouse with amenities and also 16 8 eight-unit separated guestroom buildings. Marriott had decided this Residence Inn concept was obsolete and need to be replaced. Rather than convert the existing site to a new prototype, the Inn would remain open during construction as this was a high performing hotel. Ferrier displayed aerial views of the site, showing nearby Bryant Lake and the surrounding context. The hotel and restaurant are proposed on 6.9 acres, a small part of the total parcel of 59.55 acres toward the south. Waivers requested were to increase the building height from 40 feet to 52 feet two inches; reduce the shoreline setback from 200 to 100 feet from Supervalu Pond; remove vegetation in the shore impact zone, and a parking setback reduction from 10 feet to 0 feet, because the hotel and restaurant shared parking. The parking generation study showed the hotel’s parking was underutilized even during sell- out days. A zoning change was requested. The current zoning was Rural, and the applicant proposed to rezone the restaurant and Residence Inn site Commercial-Regional Service. The northern undeveloped parcel would be Parks and Open Space. A land use change was also requested, changing from office, medium high density residential and parks and open space to commercial and parks and open space. The proposed undeveloped parks and open space was actually being increased. The office market was in sharp decline, approaching 25, and expected to reach 30 percent by 2028. There was a negative office absorption rate for 17 or 18 quarters. Ferrier displayed the site plan showing a five-story Residence Inn with 157 keys and a restaurant. No heritage trees would be removed. The traffic study showed no significant delays, impacts or queueing issues with the proposed development. The current right-in only entrance and exit would be increased to include a left-in, left-out. The applicant had conducted a neighborhood meeting and showed few impacts at a distance of 2,900 feet from Bryant Lake and 3,000 feet from Beach Road. There would be bluff screening and 50 acres of undeveloped land. The View Corridor studies showed the screened view across Bryant Lake and no visibility from points on the lake. He displayed elevations and stated the materials would consist of over 75 percent Class One materials, such as brick and cultured stone, and glass. The view from 494 showed only the top of the Inn. He added he had placed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 22, 2025 Page 3 this development where it would have least impact. This was a popular hotel brand that would be kept in Eden Prairie. Sherwood asked for and received confirmation there would be meeting space open to residents. Barnhart presented the staff report. A similar waiver for building height had been approved in the past, providing feasible development while preserving slopes and adjacent water bodies. The setback waiver was in keeping with the neighboring public school building, preserving the existing features of the site, steep slopes and other natural features, and was in keeping with the overall goal of the Ordinance. The shoreline setback staff supported for same reason. The parking itself was not a waiver, as the number of stalls met the requirement, but Code required sharing, so this was a parking setback requirement, as the property line fell along a driveway. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff report; there was still work to be done on small details before this came before the City Council. Eric Wessel, resident at 12762 Gordon Drive, asked if the Department of Fish and Wildlife had been contacted regarding the eagle’s nest he’s watched for a decade (as the DNR was not involved). He requested that a minimum foot requirement be determined to leave the nest protected. He also asked in a town of 60,000 people what the demand was for another hotel. He questioned the parking study’s conclusions and asked if the applicant had consulted with others in the hospitality industry. Joe Docter, resident at 7032 Willow Creek Road, asked two questions: the proposed lighting for the parking lot, building, and restaurant, and who would own the newly zoned parks and open space, how this would be taxed, the restrictions of further zoning, and how this development would open this property up for residents’ use. He added the elevation at the top of the proposed building was actually 947 feet 6 inches, higher than highest peak and would be more prominent than shown in the renderings. Barnhart replied the lighting plan requirements would not exceed 0.5-foot candles beyond the property line and this development met the Code Requirements regarding this and light pole height (25 feet above a three-foot base). The City is working toward acquisition of the rest of the parcel of land (Outlot A) for City use. The height of the building is measured at average grade around the property to the top of parapet, and the building would be embedded into the grade, lowering the top of the building compared to the surrounding area. The true height from the lowest grade to the top would be between 56-58 feet. The grading and elevation plans were available online, and the average grades would account for the 6-foot difference. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 22, 2025 Page 4 Mark Kronbeck, of Alliant Engineering, replied the eagle’s nest was new information to the applicants, and wished to see it on a map. Scott Cross added the applicant was not adding a new hotel but replacing the hotel yet adding keys to market. The hotel had a 94 percent occupancy rate, so there was an absolute demand. The applicant was undecided what to do with existing hotel once the new one was built. Wessel stated there was vegetation on the trees for three months of the year, and Docter stated from his house he would see the hotel, especially with leaves off the trees, even above the mound. There were four or five houses that would see the hotel, especially during winter. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Grote to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Kirk stated he had taken notes of the public’s comments. He commended the mention of an eagle’s nest and asked the developer to gather information to minimize impact on this nest. The site was beautiful; minimizing the impact and maximizing the open space to be acquired by the City had great potential for access to another park/conservation area. Keeping an existing business in Eden Prairie was ideal and an upgrade was understandable. The sightlines he considered an issue; in his many years on the commission, he saw that answers were often a compromise and not perfect. Grote reiterated the proposed building would be built below grade and the height would not be as much as it would be if built on grade. Sherwood commended the applicant on its analysis of office demand; hospitality was rising and would continue to improve. Duncan commended the proposal for meeting a long list of conditions to be met, and stated staff had been diligent in approach. Duncan asked if an environmental analysis would this have caught the eagle’s nest. Barnhart replied one had been completed; a nest was not flagged, and staff and the applicant would work together to address this. He added the lighting plan would be part of the Exhibit B plans presented to the City Council. There was presently no restaurant tenant. Ferrier stated the applicant would start marketing to secure a restaurant tenant once the development was approved. Kirk stated one commission member who could not attend tonight would have closely looked at the waivers; he himself found the height not an extreme waiver, as the commission had allowed similar, the parking setback to be a nonissue, and the shoreline setback not extreme. In all, these were mainline waiver requests. He commended the fantastic discussion as a result of citizen input, stating this was the purpose of the commission—to provide advice to the City Council. Input was important, as the City Council would make the ultimate decision, and the Council Members listened to these meetings on video in order to hear the residents’ concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 22, 2025 Page 5 MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change on 59.6 acres; Zone Change on 59.6 acres; Preliminary Plat on 59.6 acres; PUD Concept Review on 6.59 acres; PUD District Review with Waivers on 6.59 acres; and Site Plan Review on 6.59 acres as recommended by the staff report dated September 22, 2025. Motion carried 5-0. B. Roers Eden Prairie Apartments (2025-06) • Guide Plan Change on 5.86 acres • Zone Change on 5.86 acres • PUD Concept Review on 5.86 acres • PUD District Review w/ Waivers on 5.86 acres • Site Plan Review on 5.86 acres Nick Asta, of Roers Companies, presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He stated he had held two neighborhood meetings, with zero attendance, and had undergone an extensive approval process with the condominium association, and the neighbors were in favor of the development. Justin Merkovich, of JLG Architects, stated this was a 195-dwelling unit development, and was currently zoned Industrial flex tech. The land use proposed was medium density residential, with a zoning change from Office to RM-2.5. This would consist of a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units, with 117 surface parking stalls and landscaping. He showed the site, with industrial in the Golden Triangle to the west, and city station to the north. Waivers: the applicant proposed a waiver for a density of 33.26 instead of 17.4, as the development was adjacent to a highway and the Southwest Light Rail. Another waiver would decrease the front yard setback to 24 feet. The height waiver requested a height of 69 feet to accommodate a grade change. The parking waiver requested 207 stalls and 117 surface stalls. The landscaping met the Code requirements. The site analysis showed view sheds and an overview of the development. Merkovich also presented the historical context of the site (“The Old Farm”) over time. Materials would be Class One brick, cement fiber board, metal and glass. He displayed renderings of the proposed development giving more context and drawing upon the historical elements (especially with the curved main entry inspired by the grain silo). He also displayed residential amenities and a connection to the future light rail. Barnhart presented the staff report. He commended the design of this infill project and stated this would replace an office building dating from 1986. The building was required to meet the Sustainable Building standards and is proposing electric heating. The waivers were in keeping with the land use guidance and the surrounding area. Access was via City West Parkway, and Highway 212 ran in front of the site, making the setback a nonissue. The Comprehensive Plan established a range of density, and this was a candidate for higher density, being PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 22, 2025 Page 6 close to the LRT. The parking ratio proposed was 324 parking spaces for 195 units (1.66 spaces per unit) while this is in the lower range of ratios approved by the city, the developer feels confident the parking will meet their needs. Staff expect this development to be completed around the time the Southwest Light Rail station begins operation. The landscaping plan met the requirements for both landscaping and tree replacement. There would be additional landscaping south of the development to screen the development. The architecture and materials exceeded requirements. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of the staff report. Grote asked for a date of the southwest light rail opening, and Barnhart estimated it would be in 2027. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Sivilay commended the design. Kirk stated he found this was a positive development, and praised the historical perspective included. He took no issue with the waivers, though density and parking waivers could trouble him, yet any that have been approved have followed through with their promises. Duncan echoed Kirk’s appreciation of the historical element, as well as the developer’s work with the neighbors. She asked for clarification on the distance between this property and light rail, and any resulting safety concerns. Barnhart replied there was a current half-mile pathway on existing trails to reach the station; the City was also working on plans to create a direct trail north through the wooded area. He had no timeline, but the need was recognized and would be improved, though facilitated at present through existing trails. Duncan echoed the praise for the historical research and echoing of that in the design. She praised the applicant for conducting the neighborhood meetings. She asked for more information regarding the distance to the light rail and any safety concerns that might arise. Barnhart replied there was currently a half-mile pathway to the light rail via existing trails, and the City was already working on plans to construct a direct trail through the wooded area. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the applicant was providing easement to create a direct trail, and there was space for this between the property and Highway 212. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change on 5.86 acres; Zone Change on 5.86 acres; PUD Concept Review on 5.86 acres; PUD District Review w/ Waivers on 5.86 acres; and Site Plan Review on 5.86 acres as recommended by the staff report dated September 22, 2025. Motion carried 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 22, 2025 Page 7 PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Planning Commission Agenda Staff Report Date: November 17, 2025 Subject: Shoreland Ordinance Revision (Section 11.50 of Eden Prairie City Code) From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator ITEM DESCRIPTION City staff proposes to improve the alignment between the model shoreland ordinance (2022) of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Eden Prairie City Code by repealing existing City Code Section 11.50 in its entirety and replacing it with the new City Code Section 11.50 (Attachment 1). REQUESTED ACTION Approve revised Shoreland Ordinance, repealing City Code Section 11.50 in its entirety and replacing it with new City Code Section 11.50 as attached (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND The City of Eden Prairie first adopted its shoreland ordinance in 1982. Prior to that time, the City used the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) model ordinance and City's draft Code to review development proposals around water bodies and creeks. Minor revisions were made to the shoreland code in 1996 and 2004. In April 2022, DNR issued a new model shoreland ordinance, with instruction to cities to amend their code to be consistent with the model. The draft ordinance meets this objective, with modifications accepted by the DNR. PROPOSED CHANGES TO CODE In incorporating the DNR’s model ordinance, many of the changes proposed clarify existing requirements or codify existing practice. • Provide additional examples of impervious surface in definition, including decks • Add Ordinary High Water Levels (OHWL) for lakes • Incorporate correct DNR river and stream classifications • Allow decreased deck setbacks without a variance under certain conditions • Align water-oriented accessory structure requirements with DNR standards • Codify Vegetation Management Plan requirement for work within Shore and Bluff Impact Zones • Increase impervious surface limit to 70% for lots not zoned Rural or R-1 DNR REVIEW City staff met with DNR on March 11, 2024, August 21, 2024, and August 25, 2025. As a result of the meetings, 4 deliverables (Attachments 3 through 6) were requested by DNR: 1. A tabulation of public ownership of shoreline in Eden Prairie since the City has more shoreline in public ownership than many surrounding communities; Staff report – Shoreland Code Update November 17, 2025 Page 2 2. A tabular representation of land use within each waterbody’s shoreland buffer; 3. An analysis of impervious surface coverage within each waterbody’s shoreland buffer; and 4. A list of proposed deviations from the model ordinance alongside a list of proposed provisions more stringent than the model ordinance. Of initial concern to DNR was the proposal to increase the impervious surface limit from 30% (existing City Code) to 70% for shoreland parcels not zoned Rural or R-1. The City’s history of shoreland preservation through land and easement acquisition led to protection of water resources, riparian areas, and shoreland zones uncharacteristic of similarly developed communities (Attachments 7 through 9). Additionally, many shoreland parcels not zoned Rural or R-1 have already been developed with higher impervious surface coverage amounts. Documentation provided by the City addressed DNR concerns, resulting in DNR support of increased impervious surface limits in areas not zoned Rural or R-1. This will better reflect the pattern of development that currently exists within the city. DNR requires local governments to request conditional approval review of near final draft ordinances. DNR provided Conditional Approval on October 1, 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the ordinance as drafted, repealing City Code Section 11.50 in its entirety and replacing it with new City Code Section 11.50 as attached ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Ordinance Proposed City Code Section 11.50 2. Conditional Approval of Eden Prairie’s Shoreland Ordinance, dated 10/1/25 3. Table: Public vs. Private Ownership of Shoreline in Eden Prairie 4. Table: Land Use by Subwatershed in Eden Prairie Shoreland Zones 5. Table: Percent Imperviousness by Subwatershed 6. Proposed Deviations from Model Ordinance and Proposed Offsets 7. Shoreland Analysis, dated 8/11/25 8. Map: Riparian Public Land, dated 8/5/25 9. Map: Shoreland Zoning + Protected Land, dated 8/26/25 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ____-2026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.50 RELATING TO SHORELAND MANAGEMENT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: SECTION 11.50 – SHORELAND MANAGEMENT Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization and Policy. A. Statutory Authorization. This section is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F, Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500–6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462. B. Policy. The Minnesota Legislature has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use, and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by and adopted as the policy of the City of Eden Prairie. Subd. 2. General Provisions and Definitions. A. Jurisdiction and Scope. The provisions of this section apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in subdivision 4. Any lake, pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in size is exempt from the requirements of this section. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the City Council, be exempt from this section. B. Enforcement. The City is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this section. Any violation of the provisions of this section or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances) constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. C. Severability. If any subdivision, clause, provision, or portion of this section is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this section will not be affected thereby. D. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. It is further not the intention of this section to interfere with any other provision of the City Code, however, where this section imposes a greater restriction upon the use or improvement of any premises than those imposed or required by other City Code provisions, rules, regulations or permits of the City, State, or appropriate watershed district, the provisions of this section will govern. E. Definitions. Unless specifically defined here or in Sections 11.02 or 11.55, words or phrases used in this section must be interpreted to give them the same meaning they have in common usage and to give this section its most reasonable application. All distances, unless otherwise specified, are measured horizontally. Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics: a. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; b. The slope must drain toward a public water; c. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level; and d. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater (see Figure 1), except that an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of at least 50 feet shall not be considered part of the bluff (see Figure 2). Figure 1. Illustration of Bluff Figure 2. Exception to Bluff Bluff impact zone means a bluff and land located within 20 feet of the top of a bluff (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Bluff Impact Zone and Top of Bluff Bluff, Toe of means the lower point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent or the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher. Bluff, Top of means, for the purposes of measuring setbacks, establishing bluff impact zones, and administering vegetation management standards, the higher point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent (see Figure 3). Boathouse has the meaning given in Minn. Stat. § 103G.245. Buffer has the meaning given in Minn. Stat. § 103F.48. Building line means a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Commissioner means the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources or their designated representative. Deck means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site and at any point extending more than three feet above ground. Impervious surface means a constructed hard surface that prevents or slows entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development, including rooftops; decks; sidewalks; patios; swimming pools; parking lots; concrete, asphalt, gravel driveways, or permeable pavers; sport courts; retaining walls; synthetic turf; and other similar surfaces. Intensive vegetation clearing means the complete removal of any vegetation in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Maintenance and repair means upkeep or preservation of an existing structure or accessory structure against normal wear and tear or degradation over time that does not change exterior dimensions. Examples include rehabilitation or replacement of windows, siding, or roof, or exterior finishes such as paint or stain. Ordinary high water level and OHWL means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and is an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. Public waters has the meaning given in Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, Subd. 15. Riparian lot means a lot adjacent to a lake, river, or stream identified in subdivision 5.C– D. Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Sewage treatment system has the same meaning as “subsurface sewage treatment system or SSTS” as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 7080.1100, subpart 82. Sewer system means pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force mains, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other waste to a point of ultimate disposal. Shore impact zone means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Shore Impact Zone Shoreland means land located within the following distances from public waters: a. 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and b. 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a regulated floodplain on a river or stream, whichever is greater (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Definition of Shoreland Steep slope means a slope of over twelve percent (12%) and of elevation difference of thirty (30) feet or more on a given parcel. Subdivision means land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including planned unit developments that involve the division of land. Suitability analysis means an evaluation of land to determine if it is appropriate for the proposed use that considers factors relevant to the proposed use and may include the following features: susceptibility to flooding; existence of wetlands; soils and erosion potential; slope steepness; water supply; sewage treatment capabilities; water depth; depth to groundwater and bedrock; vegetation; near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation; fish and wildlife habitat; presence of historic preservation sites or historic properties; or any other relevant feature of the natural land. Vegetation management plan means a plan detailing proposed alterations to vegetation within areas where vegetation alteration must receive prior written approval from the City. Water-oriented accessory structure means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to surface water, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures include watercraft and watercraft equipment storage structures, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, patios, fire pits, play structures, and detached decks. Water-dependent use means the use of land for commercial, industrial, public or semi-public purposes, where access to and use of a public water is an integral part of the normal conduct of operation. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of water-dependent uses typically found in shoreland areas. Wetland has the meaning given in Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0111. Subd. 3. Administration. A. Permits and Approvals. 1. A permit is required for the construction of buildings or building additions (including construction of decks and signs), the installation or alteration of sewage treatment systems, and those land alteration activities not exempted by subdivision 9.C of this section. 2. A certificate of compliance, consistent with Minnesota Rules Part 7082.0700, subpart 3, is required for sewage treatment systems whenever a permit, waiver, or variance of any type is requested or required for any improvement on or use of the property that increases occupancy. Such improvements include but are not limited to the addition of bedrooms. A sewage treatment system will be considered compliant if the only deficiency is the system’s legally nonconforming setback from the ordinary high water level. 3. No removal or alteration of vegetation in the shore impact zone, bluff impact zone, or on steep slopes is permitted unless a vegetation management plan has been approved by the City Manager or their designee in accordance with the vegetation management provisions set forth in subdivision 9.A of this section. B. Variances. Variances from the requirements of this section may only be granted in accordance with City Code Section 11.76 and Minn. Stat. § 462.357, and are subject to the following: 1. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this section; and 2. For properties with existing sewage treatment systems, a certificate of compliance, consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7082.0700, subpart 3, is required for variance approval. No variance is required for a sewage treatment system if the only deficiency is the system’s legally nonconforming setback from the ordinary high water level. C. Mitigation. 1. All zoning and building permit applications subject to this section must address the following elements and conditions as applicable to the proposed improvements, to meet the purposes of this section and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest: a. Advanced stormwater runoff management treatment; b. Reducing impervious surfaces; c. Prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; d. Increasing setbacks from the ordinary high water level; e. Restoration of wetlands; f. Limiting vegetation removal and riparian vegetation restoration; g. Visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters; h. Compatibility of types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate those watercraft; i. Provisions for the location, design, and use of structures, sewage treatment systems, water supply systems, watercraft launching and docking areas, and parking areas; and j. Other conditions as deemed necessary by the City Planner or City Engineer. 2. Permits to construct sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes may be subject to conditions, at the discretion of the City Engineer or their designee, to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. D. Nonconforming Uses. All legally established nonconforming uses under this section, existing as of January 6, 2026, may continue but will be managed according to Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e and City Code Section 11.75. E. Shoreland Boundary Modifications. Any request to reduce the boundaries of shorelands of public waters within the City must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner’s designated representative for approval and must include a resolution and supporting data The boundaries of shorelands may be reduced when the shoreland of water bodies with different classifications overlap. In these cases, the topographic divide between the water bodies shall be used for adjusting the boundaries. Subd. 4. Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources. A. All amendments to this section must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for review and approval for compliance with the statewide shoreland management rules. The proposed amendments will be submitted to the commissioner at least 30 days before any scheduled public hearings. B. All notices of public hearings to consider variances, amendments, subdivisions, or planned unit developments for shoreland regulated by this section must be sent to the commissioner at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions or planned unit developments must include copies of the preliminary plat or planned unit development application materials. C. All approved amendments, subdivisions, planned unit developments, and final decisions approving variances or conditional uses for shoreland regulated by this section must be sent to the commissioner and postmarked within ten days of final action. If the City approves a variance after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the documentation of the approved variance shall also include the summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the City’s approval of the variance. D. Any request to change the shoreland management classification of public waters within the City must be sent to the commissioner for approval, and must include a resolution and supporting data as required by Minnesota Rules, part 6120.3000, subp. 4. E. Any request to reduce the boundaries of shorelands of public waters within the City must be sent to the commissioner for approval and must include a resolution and supporting data. The boundaries of shorelands may be reduced when the shoreland of water bodies with different classifications overlap. In these cases, the topographic divide between the water bodies shall be used for adjusting the boundaries. Subd. 5. Shoreland Classification System A. The purpose of this shoreland classification system is to ensure that shoreland development on the public waters of the City is regulated consistent with the classifications assigned by the commissioner under Minnesota Rules, Part 6120.3300. B. The shoreland areas for the waterbodies listed in subsections C and D of this subdivision 5 are designated in the definition of “shoreland” contained in subdivision 2.E and are shown on the City’s Zoning Map. C. Lakes are classified as follows: 1. Recreational development (RD). Lake Name DNR Public Waters I.D. # OHWL (NGVD 1929) Anderson Lake (N + SW) 27-62P 839.0 Birch Island Lake 27-81P 882.1 Bryant Lake 27-67P 852.6 Duck Lake 27-69P 915.3 Idlewild Lake 27-74P 856.0 Lotus Lake 10-6P 896.3 Riley Lake 10-2P 865.3 Red Rock Lake 27-76P 840.5 Staring Lake 27-78P 815.3 2. Natural environment (NE). Lake Name DNR Public Waters I.D. # OHWL (NGVD 1929) Grass Lake 27-80P 697.1 McCoy Lake 27-77W 824.5 Mitchell Lake 27-70P 871.5 Neill Lake 27-79P - Rice Marsh Lake 10-1P 877.0 Rice Lake 27-132P 699.2 Round Lake 27-71W 880.8 School Pond 27-75W 851.9 Lake Name DNR Public Waters I.D. # OHWL (NGVD 1929) Smetana Lake 27-73W 835.2 Super Valu (Round) Pond 27-72P - 3. Any lake without an OHWL listed in this subdivision 5.C does not have an official OHWL established. The OHWL will be determined on-site using practices consistent with those employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. D. Rivers and Streams are classified as follows: 1. Transition. River Name Legal Description Minnesota River From T116-R22-S31 (city limit) to T116-R22-S36 (city limit) 2. Tributary. River Name Legal Description Nine Mile Creek From T116-R22-S02 (city limit) to T116-R22-S12 (city limit) and T116- R22-S03 (city limit) to T116-R22-S02 (27-67-P) Purgatory Creek From T116-R22-S06 (city limit) to T116-R22-S06 (city limit) and T116-R22-S05 (city limit) to T116-R22-S36 (Minnesota River) Riley Creek From T116-R22-S18 (10-1P) to T116-R22-S32 (Minnesota River) Bluff Creek From T116-R22-S31 (city limit) to T116-R22-S32 (confluence with the Minnesota River) 3. All public rivers and streams shown on the Public Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County, a copy of which is adopted by reference, not given a classification in this subdivision 5.D will be considered “Tributary.” Subd. 6. Special Land Use Provisions A. Commercial, Industrial, Public, and Semi-Public Uses. 1. Commercial, industrial, public, and semi-public water-dependent uses may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters, provided that: a. The use complies with the provisions of subdivision 7 of this section; b. The use is designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas and structures; and c. Uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize these facilities and design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need. 2. Commercial, industrial, public, and semi-public uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. B. Agricultural Use Buffers. Agricultural uses permitted in the R-Rural zoning district must comply with the following buffer requirements: 1. The shore impact zone for parcels with permitted agricultural land uses is equal to a line parallel to and 50 feet from the ordinary high water level. 2. General cultivation farming is a permitted use if steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones are maintained in perennial vegetation or operated under an approved conservation plan that includes practices consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district or the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and as approved by the local soil and water conservation district. Subd. 7. Dimensional and General Performance Standards. A. Lot Area and Width Standards. After January 6, 2026, all new riparian lots must meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements set forth in subsection B below, subject to the following standards: 1. Only lands above the ordinary high water level and excluding right-of-way can be used to meet lot area and width standards; 2. Lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line; and 3. The sewer lot area dimensions can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. B. Lake Minimum Lot Area and Width Standards. 1. Recreational development lake—No sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area (acres) Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single-Family Detached Dwelling 10 300 2. Recreational development lake—Sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single-Family Detached Dwelling 20,000 sf 120 Multiple-Family Dwelling 15,000 sf per unit 120 Office Public 5 acres 200 Commercial Industrial 10 acres 200 3. Natural environment lake—No sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single-Family Detached Dwelling 10 acres 300 4. Natural environment lake—Sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single-Family Detached Dwelling 40,000 sf 150 Multiple-Family Dwelling 30,000 sf per dwelling unit 150 Office Public 10 acres 200 Commercial Industrial 10 acres 200 C. Rivers and Streams Lot Area and Width Standards. 1. Transition - Sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single- Family 13,500 sf 120 Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Detached Dwelling Multiple-Family Dwelling 10,000 sf per dwelling unit 120 Office Public Commercial 2 acres 150 Industrial 5 acres 150 2. Tributary—No sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single-Family Detached Dwelling 5 acres 120 3. Tributary—Sewer Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Single-Family Detached Dwelling 13,500 sf 120 Use Type Riparian Lot Area Riparian Lot Width (ft) Multiple-Family Dwelling 10,000 sf per dwelling unit 120 Office Public Commercia l 2 acres 150 Industrial 5 acres 150 D. Access Easements. Easements providing access to boat docking and mooring facilities to non-riparian property owners are prohibited. Easements recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office prior to January 6, 2026 will be considered nonconforming uses. E. Placement, Height, and Design of Structures. 1. OHWL Setback for Structures and Sewage Treatment Systems. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks and comply with the following OHWL setback provisions. The structure setback standards for sewered properties can only be used if the City sewer service is available. Waterbody Classification Structures with No Sewer (ft) Structures with Sewer (ft) Sewage Treatment Systems (ft) Recreational Development Lakes 100 100 100 Natural Environment Lakes 150 150 150 Transition Rivers and Streams 150 150 100 Tributary Rivers and Streams 100 50 75 a. OHWL Setbacks. Structures (other than stairways, lifts, and landings, which are addressed in subdivision 8.B) impervious surfaces, and sewage treatment systems must meet setbacks in the table above, except that water- oriented accessory structures meeting the requirements of subdivision 8.C may be set back a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the OHWL. b. Setback Averaging. Where principal structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining principal structure setbacks from the OHWL, provided the proposed structure is not located in a shore impact zone or bluff impact zone (see Figure 6). Figure 6. Structure Setback Averaging c. Setback of Decks. Decks and deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a legally nonconforming structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The impervious surface does not exceed the limit in subdivision 9.D.4; (2) The structure is legally nonconforming and existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; (3) A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing OHWL setback of the structure; (4) The deck encroachment toward the OHWL does not exceed 15 percent (15%) of the existing setback of the structure from the OHWL or is no closer than thirty (30) feet from the OWHL, whichever is more restrictive; (5) The deck is not roofed or screened (see Figure 7). Figure 7. Deck Encroachment d. Additional Structure Setbacks. Structures must also meet the following setbacks, regardless of the waterbody classification: Setback from: Setback (ft) Top of bluff 30 Unplatted cemetery 50 Right-of-way line of federal, state, or county highway 50 Right-of-way line of town road, public street, or other roads not classified 20 e. Bluff Impact Zones. Structures, impervious surfaces, and accessory structures, except stairways, lifts, and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. 2. Height of Structures. All structures in residential districts, except places of worship, may not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. 3. Lowest Floor Elevation. a. Buildings must be placed such that the lowest floor elevation is at least two (2) feet above the 100-Year Frequency Flood Level. b. In addition to the lowest floor, all service utilities must be elevated or water- tight to the elevation at least two (2) feet above the 100-Year Frequency Flood Level. c. If elevation methods involving fill would result in filling in the shore impact zone, then buildings must instead be elevated through floodproofing methods in accordance with the following item d. d. To be floodproofed, a building must be built to resist hydrostatic pressure through elevation methods such as blocks, pilings, filled stem walls, elevated concrete pad, internally flooded enclosed areas, or through other accepted engineering practices consistent with FEMA technical bulletins 1, 2, and 3. F. Water Supply and Sewage Treatment. 1. Water Supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2. Sewage Treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be connected to a publicly owned sewer system where available, or comply with Minnesota Rules Chapters 7080–7081. Subd. 8. Performance Standards for Public and Private Facilities. A. Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening as viewed from public waters and comply with the following standards: 1. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones or shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts; 2. Watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met; 3. Private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas are prohibited; and 4. For public roads, driveways, and parking areas, documentation must be provided by a registered landscape architect or registered professional engineer that such facilities are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. B. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts, and landings must meet the following design requirements: 1. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties and public recreational uses; 2. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for commercial properties and public recreational uses; 3. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; 4. Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; 5. Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical; and 6. Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, if they are consistent with the dimensional and performance standards of this subdivision 8.B and the requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapter 1341. C. Water-Oriented Accessory Structures. Each residential lot may have up to two water- oriented structures that do not meet the required structure setback if they comply with the following provisions: 1. Any water-oriented accessory structure must not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails; 2. Only one water-oriented accessory structure per residential lot may have a roof; 3. The combined area of any water-oriented accessory structures must not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet; 4. All water-oriented accessory structures must be outside the bluff impact zones and bluff setbacks; 5. The setback from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten (10) feet; 6. The water-oriented accessory structure is not a boathouse or boat storage structure as defined under Minn. Stat. § 103G.245; 7. Any water-oriented accessory structure must be screened to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; 8. A roof may be used as an open-air deck with safety rails, but may not be enclosed or used as a storage area; 9. Any water-oriented accessory structure must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and 10. Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation specified in subdivision 7.E.3 if the structure is designed to accommodate internal flooding, constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. 11. Lots located within the Park and Open Space zoning district may have up to one water-oriented accessory structure per two hundred (200) feet of shoreline. D. Fences. Fences are allowed subject to the requirements of this chapter and City Code Section 9.76. Subd. 9. Vegetation and Land Alterations. A. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations regarding alterations of vegetation and topography is to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, sustain water quality, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. B. Vegetation Management. 1. Vegetation management plan approval by the City Manager or their designee is required prior to vegetation removal or alteration in the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone and on steep slopes. No such work is allowed until a plan is submitted and approved consistent with these vegetation management provisions. 2. Removal or alteration of vegetation must comply with the provisions of this subsection except for: a. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems under validly issued permits for these facilities; b. The construction of public roads and parking areas if consistent with subdivision 8.A; and c. Agricultural uses consistent with subdivision 6.B. 3. Intensive vegetation clearing and/or removal of healthy native trees and shrubs in the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone and on steep slopes is prohibited without prior approval of a vegetation management plan. 4. Limited clearing and trimming of healthy native trees and shrubs in the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone and on steep slopes to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures may be permitted with prior approval of a vegetation management plan, provided that: a. Vegetation is maintained to screen structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. b. The maximum view corridor is less than fifty (50) feet or one-third (1/3) of the parcel width, whichever is less; c. Existing shading of water surfaces along rivers is preserved; d. Cutting debris or slash must be scattered and not mounded on the ground; e. Perennial ground cover is retained; and f. Picnic areas, access paths, livestock watering areas, beaches and watercraft access areas are prohibited in bluff impact zones. C. Land Alterations. 1. Land alteration activities must comply with the provisions of this subdivision 9.C except for the construction of public roads and parking areas if consistent with subdivision 8.A. 2. A land alteration permit is required for: a. The movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within a shore impact zone or bluff impact zone; b. The movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore impact zones and bluff impact zones; and c. Placement of retaining walls, including boulder walls within the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone. 3. Land alteration activities must meet the following standards: a. Grading or filling of any wetland must meet or exceed the wetland protection standards under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 and any other permits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as watershed districts, the DNR, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; b. Land alterations must be designed and implemented to consistently minimize the amount of erosion and sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction by: (1) Limiting the amount and time of bare ground exposure; (2) Using temporary ground covers such as mulches or similar materials; (3) Establishing permanent, deep-rooted and dense vegetation cover as soon as possible; (4) Using sediment traps, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques; (5) Stabilizing altered areas to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the soil and water conservation district; (6) Not placing fill or excavated material in a manner that creates unstable slopes. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of thirty percent (30%) or greater; (7) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; (8) Minimizing discharge of water from storm sewers, downspouts, drain tiles, sump pumps, pool drainage, and the like into bluff impact zones to the greatest extent practicable; (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103G; and (10) Alterations of topography are only allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties. c. Excavations to connect boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors to public waters require a public waters permit from the DNR and must comply with Minnesota Rules Chapter 6115. d. New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must be consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 6115. D. Impervious Surface. 1. For lots located within the Rural or R-1 zoning districts, impervious surface coverage must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the lot area or the percent coverage of the lot area that existed on January 6, 2026, whichever is greater. 2. For lots located in a zoning district other than Rural or R-1, impervious surface coverage must not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the lot area or the percent coverage of the lot area that existed on January 6, 2026, whichever is greater. 3. Detailed calculations of existing and proposed impervious surface coverage percentages must be submitted with land use applications and during the building permit process for any application showing alteration to impervious surface coverage for any lot. E. Violations. If a violation occurs of the vegetation or land alteration standards set forth in this subdivision 9, the responsible party and/or property owner may, at the discretion of the City Engineer or their designee, be required to restore the affected area. Any restoration must be first approved through the vegetation management plan process and must include a vegetation management plan and a three-year maintenance plan. Subd. 10. Subdivision/Platting Provisions A. Purpose. The purpose of these subdivision and platting provisions is to ensure that new development minimizes impacts to shoreland resources and is safe and functional. B. Land Suitability. Each lot created through subdivision, including planned unit developments authorized under Section 11.40 that involve the subdivision of land, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration A suitability analysis must be conducted for each proposed subdivision to determine if the subdivision is suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration and whether any feature of the land is likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. C. Water and Sewage Design Standards. 1. A potable water supply and a sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080–7081 must be provided for every lot. 2. Each lot must include at least two soil treatment and dispersal areas that support systems described in Minnesota Rules, Parts 7080.2200 to 7080.223 or site conditions described in Part 7081.0270, subparts 3 to 7, as applicable. 3. Lots that would require use of holding tanks are prohibited. D. Information Requirements. Proposed subdivisions must comply with all requirements of Chapter 12 and include the following information: 1. Topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less from United States Geological Survey maps or more current sources, showing limiting site characteristics; 2. The surface water features required in Minn. Stat. § 505.021, Subd. 1, to be shown on plats, obtained from United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic maps or more current sources; 3. Adequate soils information to determine suitability for building and sewage treatment capabilities for every lot from the most current existing sources or from field investigations such as soil borings, percolation tests, or other methods; 4. Information regarding adequacy of domestic water supply; extent of anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations; near-shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments, and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling stormwater runoff and erosion, both during and after construction activities; 5. Location of 100-year flood plain areas and floodway districts from existing adopted maps or data; and 6. A line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the “toe” and the “top” of bluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from the top of the bluff and the public water. E. Dedications. When a land or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision approval, the approval must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas for management of stormwater and significant wetlands. F. Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUDs within the shoreland zone must meet the requirements of Section 11.40 and comply with all terms and conditions and requirements of PUD approval. Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.55, Subdivision 2, is amended in the definition of “Land Alteration Permit” to delete the second sentence of the definition. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 11.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance will become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the ___ day of _________________, 2025, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _____ day of _______________, 2026. _________________________________ _________________________________ David Teigland City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor Published in the Sun Sailor on the ____ day of ______________, 2026. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN, 55106 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ecological and Water Resources Division Central Region Headquarters 1200 Warner Road, St Paul MN 55106 October 1, 2025 Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchel Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Conditional Approval of Eden Prairie’s Shoreland Ordinance Dear Ms. Haak: Thank you for sending the City of Eden Prairie’s proposed shoreland ordinance to the DNR for conditional approval review. I am pleased to inform you that the attached proposed ordinance is substantially compliant with the statewide rules and hereby approved, provided all of the conditions of approval in this letter are met. We have reviewed the ordinance received by email on September 23, 2025 resulting from multiple discussions regarding an appropriate update to the 1996 DNR-approved ordinance. We appreciate your time and effort to answer our questions and document the city’s development pattern and existing strategies to protect the city’s riparian resources. The City is proposing a number of deviations or flexibility to shoreland standards identified by blue comments on the attached proposed ordinance. Many of these deviations are carry overs from the 1996 DNR-approved ordinance. Offsetting these lower standards are many higher standards identified by green comments on the attached ordinance. The most significant deviation is a request for up to 70% impervious surface for zoning districts other than Rural or R-1. The affected zoning districts, approximately 20% of the city’s land area, are largely developed. Development in these areas was approved through the City’s PUD ordinance, which the DNR approved in 1996. Allowing a 70% impervious surface limit recognizes the existing development status of these areas. While a high amount of impervious surface exists, the city has historically administered many conservation policies in these highly developed areas. These include requiring riparian buffers, either dedicated to the city or protected with conservation easements. Other programs include a partnership with watershed districts and metro Blooms to encourage shoreline restorations, among other initiatives. We have reviewed your proposed ordinance and requested flexibility for compliance with the state shoreland rules (MR 6120.2500 – 6120.3900) and are providing conditional approval as follows: Conditions of Approval The following conditions must be met before the DNR will issue final approval: 1. Return the attached “Ordinance Processing Checklist” and documents identified on the checklist after final adoption by the City Council. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN, 55106 2. Ongoing compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. If any of the offsetting higher standards are eliminated or deviations modified in future ordinance amendments without DNR approval, approval of implementation flexibility is rescinded. The authority and process under which the DNR evaluates and approves deviations is outlined in Minnesota Rule 6120.2800, Subp 3. Next Steps Following are the steps for completing and receiving final DNR approval for your ordinance: 1. The City Council adopts the ordinance revised according to the listed conditions. 2. Email the completed Ordinance Processing Checklist (attached) and the documents identified on the checklist within 10 days of City council adoption to: a. Ryan Toot, ryan.toot@state.mn.us b. Ordinance.review.dnr@state.mn.us 3. We will review the ordinance adopted by the City Council for consistency with the above conditions and the terms of implementation flexibility. 4. If the adopted amendments are consistent with the conditions and terms of implementation flexibility, we will send you a “final approval” letter. The ordinance will not be effective until the DNR provides final approval. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you in developing the City’s shoreland ordinance. Ryan Toot (Phone: 651-259-5822) will be available to help the City administer the ordinance and to consult with you on other water-related projects and plans, and their implementation. Sincerely, Megan Moore Region 3 South District Manager Attachments: City of Eden Prairie Proposed Shoreland Ordinance Ordinance processing checklist cc: Ryan Toot, DNR Area Hydrologist Dan Petrik, DNR Land Use Specialist Jack Gleason, DNR So. District Hydro Supervisor Public vs. Private Ownership of Shoreline in Eden Prairie Lake Name Ownership Perimeter Length by Owner Perimeter Percent by Owner Lake Perimeter Anderson Lake NW 34,438.70 Anderson Lake NW Private 800.90 2.33 Anderson Lake NW Public 33,637.80 97.67 Anderson Lake SE 17,646.11 Anderson Lake SE Public 17,646.11 100 Birch Island Lake 6,177.42 Birch Island Lake Private 3,293.40 53.31 Birch Island Lake Public 2,884.03 46.69 Bryant Lake 22,919.64 Bryant Lake Private 17,683.29 77.15 Bryant Lake Public 5,236.35 22.85 Duck Lake 10,963.55 Duck Lake Private 8,744.77 79.76 Duck Lake Public 2,218.78 20.23 Grass Lake 25,994.67 Grass Lake Public/Open Space 25,994.67 100 Lake Idlewild 3,729.18 Lake Idlewild Private 2,905.73 77.92 Lake Idlewild Public 823.45 22.08 Little Rice Lake 7,238.86 Little Rice Lake Public/Open Space 7,238.86 100 McCoy Lake 3,289.89 McCoy Lake Private 817.46 24.85 McCoy Lake Public 2,472.43 75.15 Mitchell Lake 21,557.15 Mitchell Lake Private 16,062.24 74.51 Mitchell Lake Public 5,494.92 25.49 Neill Lake 23,002.44 Neill Lake Private 23,002.44 100 Red Rock Lake 19,727.11 Red Rock Lake Private 12,620.90 63.98 Red Rock Lake Public 7,106.21 36.03 Rice Lake 16,019.41 Rice Lake Public/Open Space 16,019.41 100 Riley Lake 10,397.77 Riley Lake Private 6,964.68 66.98 Riley Lake Public 3,433.09 33.02 Round Lake Park 4,281.74 Round Lake Park Public 4,281.74 100 School Pond 3,893.86 School Pond Private 2,681.37 68.86 School Pond Public 1,212.49 31.14 Lake Smetana 7,893.19 Lake Smetana Private 1,833.62 23.23 Lake Smetana Public 6,059.58 76.77 Staring Lake 10,723.02 Staring Lake Private 950.96 8.87 Staring Lake Public 9,772.06 91.13 Super Valu Pond 3,837.70 Super Valu Pond Private 1,531.58 39.90 Super Valu Pond Public 2,306.12 60.10 TOTAL PUBLIC SHORELINE 153,838.10 61% 253,731.44 “___” = Public/Open Space >50% of shoreline Land Use by Subwatershed in Eden Prairie Shoreland Zones Rural Single Family Res. Multi- Family Res. Office Commer. Town Center Indust. Public Golf Course Airport Park & Open Space ROW Notes Anderson NW 8.79 2.35 3.86 18.74 5.77 0.88 4.14 0.08 11.85 Some shoreland outside EP Anderson SE 23.72 13.45 6.63 1.62 0.33 10.11 0.02 0.33 6.99 Some shoreland outside EP Birch Island 3.30 21.97 7.88 34.04 13.87 13.33 6.05 Bryant 22.54 16.22 0.29 1.87 0.18 2.22 5.93 6.11 16.53 Duck 1.95 52.30 14.11 3.96 13.91 Idlewild 0.32 0.74 30.38 3.27 22.41 0.72 39.20 Lower MN/Rice/ Grass Lakes 57.89 0.94 3.74 2.03 Some shoreland outside EP McCoy 11.67 55.66 10.94 0.52 4.00 15.46 Mitchell 0.01 33.67 12.50 1.04 1.47 1.28 0.40 13.65 17.03 Neill 19.90 22.80 17.94 0.04 20.57 1.07 9.30 Nine Mile Creek (BL to LS) 2.54 0.12 0.13 22.68 16.74 44.96 12.82 Nine Mile Creek (East) 11.60 52.29 20.44 2.01 Some shoreland outside EP Nine Mile Creek (North) 68.23 0.08 14.48 2.68 Some shoreland outside EP Nine Mile Creek (West) 2.93 10.97 12.93 20.33 2.62 39.44 8.32 Purgatory Creek (Edenvale) 0.45 12.93 1.39 77.22 4.36 Purgatory Creek (Main) 4.66 11.73 4.33 2.66 2.03 7.04 2.01 4.89 51.67 9.15 Purgatory Creek (SL to MNR) 19.20 25.30 2.72 0.19 4.70 41.39 8.28 Red Rock 0.98 46.09 0.79 7.98 2.05 20.54 Rice Marsh 16.98 0.43 1.02 12.38 25.58 Some shoreland outside EP Riley Creek (RL to MNR) 31.34 25.30 2.60 0.03 1.53 3.48 30.49 5.15 Riley Creek (RML to RL) 0.03 35.00 4.46 60.51 Riley 5.89 14.36 0.47 2.09 7.48 8.12 6.66 Some shoreland outside EP Round 22.25 1.51 15.47 53.67 6.15 School Pond 10.44 27.64 0.40 14.84 54.45 11.91 Smetana 1.38 2.13 24.24 5.17 12.95 31.18 22.95 Staring 1.91 12.28 5.88 15.75 25.50 5.60 Super Valu 25.34 3.48 1.13 20.39 16.32 11.38 *Totals do not add up to 100% due to por�ons of the shoreland zone outside of Eden Prairie. Percent Imperviousness by Subwatershed Waterbody Impervious % Impervious Acres Anderson NW 25.06 166.3 Anderson SE 8.88 48.3 Birch Island 10.19 25.4 Bryant 15.66 123.9 Duck 21.29 68.4 Idlewild 54.37 91.4 Lower Minnesota/Rice/Grass Lakes 1.37 39.7 McCoy 24.42 39.4 Mitchell 24.83 135.7 Neill 15.54 68.2 Nine Mile Creek (BL to LS) 11.45 7.1 Nine Mile Creek (East) 13.51 3.3 Nine Mile Creek (North) 11.86 2.7 Nine Mile Creek (West) 20.79 27.3 Purgatory Creek (Edenvale) 5.02 11.5 Purgatory Creek (Main) 7.79 51.9 Purgatory Creek (SL to MNR) 9.62 33.2 Red Rock 19.81 102.5 Rice Marsh 10.56 32.7 Riley Creek (RL to MNR) 7.64 19.4 Riley Creek (RML to RL) 11.40 3.7 Riley 10.16 42.7 Round 31.47 63.3 School 35.18 46.9 Smetana 40.59 115.5 Staring 10.33 49.0 Super Valu 17.45 29.0 Grand Total Mean = 17.6% 1,448.4 “____“ = exceeds 25% for subwatershed Proposed Devia�ons from Model Ordinance and Proposed Offsets Devia�ons from Model Ordinance • No shoreland PUD provisions • Allow some prohibited uses around Natural Environment lakes • No �ered system for PUDs • No CUPs required • Increase impervious limit to 70% on all proper�es not zoned Rural + R-1; 30% limit on proper�es zoned Rural + R-1 Proposed Offsets from Proposed Ordinance • Bluffs extend to end of bluff feature, not to end of shoreland zone • All decks, pa�os, synthe�c turf, and pervious paver-type surfaces are considered impervious • Lots of green/open space owned by City/TRPD/state within shoreland zone • No new controlled access lots • Currently requiring salt and snow storage plans; future chloride reduc�on provisions • Addi�onal site-specific oversight through Vegeta�on Management Plan (VMP) process • Prior VMP approval required for work in/on bluffs, CEs, City property, shorelines, steep slopes • Conserva�on easements over many wetlands/buffers • Larger minimum lot sizes, setbacks, lot widths than required by model ordinance in most zoning districts • No structures (principal or accessory) allowed within en�re bluff setback (not just bluff impact zone) • En�rety of lots touched by shoreland zone are subject to impervious restric�ons • Lot area and width requirements for streams • No guest cotages permited • Addi�onal shoreland fence restric�ons included in City Code Sec�on 9.76. • Impervious surfaces must meet OHWL setbacks (except water-oriented accessory structures) • Prohibit private boat accesses, etc. • Watershed districts oversee riprap, so not widely used Shoreland Analysis 8/11/2025 Of Eden Prairie’s approximately 23,040 acres (36 square miles), about 47.5% (10,944.17 acres) is within the shoreland zone. The 10,944 acres within the shoreland zone are zoned as follows: Zoning Shoreland Area (sf) Percent Zones Public 201,765,933.5 42.32 Lake, PUB, Park & Open Space, City, GC Rural & R1 181,219,618.1 38.01 Rural, R1 All other 93,742,283.5 19.66 TC-C, TC-MU, ROW, RM 2.5, RM 6.5, OFC, N-Com, I- GEN, I-2, C-REG-SER, C-REG, C-HWY, C -COM, A-O DuckLakeRd 62 101 DellRd D ell R d Valley V iew Rd 1 101 5 212 Pioneer Trl 1StAve W Flyin g Clo ud D r 101 17 14 69 61 1 101 Edenvale Blvd TownLineRd CountyRoad62 4 62 62 EdenPrairieRd Technology Dr Technolo gy Dr RobertsDr BakerRd PrairieCenterDr ValleyVie w Rd MitchellRd MitchellRd AndersonLakes P k w y St a ring LakePkwy 4 1 60 39 61 5 212 494 RiverviewRd FlyingCloudDr EdenPrairieRd 1 4 101 61 83 Gleason Rd RowlandRd 62212 PrairieCenter Dr W78ThSt Anderson LakesPkw y 61 39 169 212 494 FranloRd OldShakopeeRdW RiverviewRd HomewardHillsRd 28 1 101 169 edenprairie.org Publicly Owned Riparian Parcels Publicly Owned Riparian Parcels ²1 inch equals 0.35 miles LegendLegend Riparian Public Porperty DuckLakeRd 62 101 DellRd D ellR d Valley ViewRd 1 5 212 Pio n e e r T rl Flying Clou d D r 61 1 Edenvale Blvd TownLineRd CountyRoad62 4 62 62 EdenPrairieRd Technology Dr Technolog y Dr RobertsDr BakerRd PrairieCenterDr ValleyView Rd MitchellRd MitchellRd AndersonLakesPk w y Sta ring LakePkwy 4 1 60 39 61 5 212 494 RiverviewRd FlyingCloudDr EdenPrairieRd 1 4 61 Gleason Rd RowlandRd 62212 PrairieCenterDr W78ThSt Anderson La kesPkwy 61 39 169 212 494 FranloRd OldShakopeeRdW RiverviewRd HomewardHillsRd 1 169 edenprairie.org Protected LandProtected Land ²1 inch equals 0.32 miles LegendLegend Shoreland Buffer Riparian Public Porperty Scenic & Conservation Easements in Buffer Water Features Zoning Districts RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial TC-C TC-MU Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Parks Public Golf Course Water Airport Office Right of Way Planning Commission Agenda Cover Memo Date: November 17, 2025 Location: Subject: Code Amendment - Administrative Site Plan Review From: Sarah Strain, Planner II ITEM DESCRIPTION City Code Section 11.47, Subd. 4 establishes the site plan review process for building additions, façade improvements, and other site alterations. There are three (3) levels of review offered: administrative review, minor review, which is reviewed by City Council only, and full review, which requires public hearings with both Planning Commission and City Council. Staff is proposing an amendment to the Code’s Site Plan Review Process to allow more code- compliant improvements and alterations to be reviewed administratively and to require a higher degree of alteration before the project is reviewed by City Council and the Planning Commission, aligning Eden Prairie with practices in peer cities. REQUESTED ACTIONS • Approval of the ordinance as drafted BACKGROUND CODE AMENDMENT Currently in City Code, the only administrative site plan reviews permitted are code-compliant parking lot configurations and landscaping modifications. Parking lot configurations may include restriping or reduction in the number of parking spaces, so long as no new impervious surface is added to the site. Similarly, Minor Site Plan Amendments allow projects to be reviewed by City Council only, bypassing review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. City Code currently allows building alterations that are 10% of the GFA or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less, to be reviewed through a Minor Site Plan Amendment. Façade remodels which are code- compliant are also allowed to be reviewed by City Council only. All other site improvements require review by both Planning Commission and City Council, even if the improvements or alterations meet all City Code requirements. As part of Eden Prairie’s goals to provide clear communication and efficient, fair processes to all property owners, staff reviewed City Code and site plan review processes in peer cities and found that Eden Prairie was the most restrictive in site plan review processes. Requiring minor, code- compliant projects to be reviewed by Planning Commission and/or City Council adds time and cost to site improvement projects, such as façade upgrades that meet Code Architectural Standards and minor, code-compliant building additions. Staff report – Code Amendment - Administrative Site Plan Review November 17, 2025 Page 2 To align Eden Prairie’s Site Plan Review process with the practices of peer cities, staff is proposing the attached amendment to the Code’s Site Plan Review Process. Below is a summary of the changes: Staff approval Minor Site Plan (No PC) Full Review (PC & CC) Façade Change Class 1 for Class 1 x Façade Change (conforming) x Conforming Parking lot reconfiguration x Conforming Landscaping changes x Parking lot/ landscaping changes with waivers x New Development/ Redevelopment w/ or w/o waivers x Conforming Building Expansions up to 10% GFA Additions between 10- 50% GFA Expansions greater than 50% GFA Building expansions requiring waivers x Lot Combinations x Lot Split x Subdivisions (resulting in 3 or more lots) x Lot line Adjustment x Building Demolition up to 10% of GFA greater than 10% of GFA Telecommunications Towers up to 80 feet, towers greater than 80 ft Proposed Changes Current Code GFA = Gross Floor Area These proposed changes would allow some of projects Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed in recent years to be reviewed administratively. Examples include the pool addition at the Holiday Inn Express, which added 4% to the GFA, and the Wunderlich addition, which added 15% to the GFA. Both additions met all City-Code requirements. Any changes not meeting City Code requirements, needing either a variance or a Planned Unit Development (PUD) waiver, will require public hearings with Planning Commission and City Council as currently outlined in City Code. For example, projects like the Menards gate expansion and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District addition were both small, but both required PUD waivers or amendments, requiring the full review process with Planning Commission and City Council. Staff report – Code Amendment - Administrative Site Plan Review November 17, 2025 Page 3 Any property that does not have a site plan, either due to the age of the property or the redevelopment of the site, will be required to undergo the full Site Plan Review process to approve a site plan for the site. There are no proposed changes to the review processes for lot subdivisions, combinations, lot line adjustments, or telecommunications towers and antenna. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission move to recommend to the City Council that City Code Section 11.47, Subd. 4 be amended as represented in the November 17, 2025 staff report and the attached draft language. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Ordinance Proposed City Code Section 11.47 2. Redline of Proposed Amendment to City Code Section 11.47 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ____-2026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.47 RELATING TO SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.47 is amended by deleting Subdivision 4 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: Subd. 4. Application and Level of Review. A. The owner of property for which approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Design is required by this subdivision may apply for Site Plan and Architectural Design review and approval by filing an application with the City Planner on the form provided by the City Planner and containing the information required by such form accompanied by a Site Plan and Architectural Design, together with such further information as may reasonably be required by the City Planner. The City Planner will determine the level of review required for a new or amended Site Plan and Architectural Design based on the criteria set forth below. The City Planner may determine to refer an application to the City multi-department staff "Development Review Committee" for review and recommendation to the City Planner. In all cases, a new or amended Site Plan and Architectural Design will not be approved unless it meets all City Code requirements. B. The following are considered administrative amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and are subject to review and approval by the City Planner: 1. Reduction or reconfiguration of parking. 2. Changes to landscaping type, location and species. 3. Façade remodels or alterations. 4. Expansions, structural alterations, or demolitions that are ten percent (10%) or less of the Gross Floor Area of the building. C. The following are considered minor amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and are subject to review and consideration for approval by the City Council only without referral to the Planning Commission: 1. Expansions or structural alterations that are ten percent (10%) to fifty percent (50%) of the Gross Floor Area of the building. 2. Demolitions that are ten percent (10%) or more of the Gross Floor Area of a building that has an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design. D. No review is required to demolish or reconstruct a structure that has been identified by the Fire Chief, Building Official, or other appropriate City official as a hazardous building or hazardous property so long as the reconstruction is completed in accordance with an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and all necessary permits from the City. E. All other amendments and alterations to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design are considered major amendments and are subject to review in accordance with Subdivisions 5 and 6. F. All new buildings, structures, and parking areas and all alterations to existing buildings, structures and parking areas that do not have an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design are subject to review in accordance with Subdivisions 5 and 6. G. A Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy may be required in accordance with City Code Section 11.77. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled “General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation” and Section 11.99 entitled “Violation a Misdemeanor” are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance will become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the ___ day of _________________, 2026, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _____ day of _______________, 2026. _________________________________ _________________________________ David Teigland City Clerk Ronald A. Case, Mayor Published in the Sun Sailor on the ____ day of ______________, 2026 Chapter 11, Section 11.47 Subd. 4. Application and Level of Review. A. The owner of property for which approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Design is required by this subdivision may apply for Site Plan and Architectural Design review and approval by filing an application with the City Planner on the form provided by the City Planner and containing the information required by such form accompanied by a Site Plan and Architectural Design, together with such further information as may reasonably be required by the City Planner. The City Planner will determine the level of review required for a new or amended Site Plan and Architectural Design based on the criteria set forth below. The City Planner may determine to refer an application to the City multi-department staff "Development Review Committee" for review and recommendation to the City Planner. In all cases, a new or amended Site Plan and Architectural Design will not be approved unless it meets all City Code requirements. B. The following are considered administrative amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and are subject to review and approval by the City Planner 1. Reduction or reconfiguration of parking. 2. Changes to landscaping type, location, and species. 3. Façade remodels or alterations. 3.4. Expansions, structural alterations, or demolitions that are ten percent (10%) or less of the Gross Floor Area of the building. C. The following are considered minor amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and are subject to review and consideration for approval by the City Council only without referral to the Planning Commission, : 1. Expansions or structural alterations that are ten percent (10%) to fifty percent (50%) of the Gross Floor Area of the building. 1.2. Demolitions that are ten percent (10%) or more of the Gross Floor Area of a building that has an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design. D. No review is required to demolish or reconstruct a structure that has been identified by the Fire Chief, Building Official or other appropriate City officials as a hazardous building or hazardous property so long as the reconstruction is completed in accordance with an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and all necessary permits from the City. C. The following are considered minor amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and are subject to review and consideration for approval by the City Council only without referral to the Planning Commission: 1. Alterations which are code compliant and are ten percent (10%) or less of the Gross Floor Area of a building or two thousand (2,000) square feet whichever is less. The expansion or reduction shall be the cumulative total and/or cumulative reduction after January 5, 2016; and 2. Facade remodels which are code compliant. D. All other amendments and alterations to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design, are considered major amendments and are subject to review in accordance with Subdivisions 5 and 6. E. All new buildings, structures, and parking areas and all alterations to existing buildings, structures, and parking areas that do not have an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design are subject to review in accordance with Subdivisions 5 and 6. F. A Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy aremay be required in accordance with City Code Section 11.77.