HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/25/2019 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 25, 2019 - 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed
MEMBERS: Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole
Mette
STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the March 11, 2019 meeting
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE #2019-01
Location: 15363 Mason's Point
Request to:
• Permit a retaining wall and land alteration 82 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level
from Red Rock Lake. City Code requires a 100-foot setback
• Permit land alteration and vegetation alterations within the shore impact zone
VI. PLANNERS' REPORT
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,MARCH 11, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner;
Matthew Bourne, Parks and Natural Resources
Manager; Carter Schulze, Assistant City Engineer;
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
A. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent were commission
members Pieper and Weber.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
D. MINUTES
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of February
11, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
E. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
F. PUBLIC MEETINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BEVERLY HILL
Location: 9800 Eden Prairie Rd and 16540 Beverly Drive
Request for:
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into seventeen lots and two outlots on 6.86
acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 2
John Anderson, project manager, displayed a PowerPoint and explained the
application. Mark Gergen, also present, was the proposed owner of the property
and Great Oakes 2nd, LLC, the developer. The application called for a 17-lot
single family detached subdivision north of Beverly Drive and west of Eden
Prairie Road. The 15-foot strip of land to the north was owned by D. R. Horton,
developer of High Pointe at Riley Creek. The Minnesota Airport Commission
(MAC)property also sat to the north. An existing house along Eden Prairie Road
would remain,but two other structures, one along Beverly Lane and the other at
the center of the parcel where the cul-de-sac would be located would be
demolished. Anderson displayed the preliminary plat and explained the street had
yet to be named. In addition to the 11 lots on the cul-de-sac, there would be three
lots along Beverly Drive and three along Eden Prairie Road(plus the remaining
northern lot). A storm water pond/retention and infiltration area would be
constructed on a triangular parcel to the northwest, and another infiltration basin
would lie along Eden Prairie Road.
The site plan showed the placements of the houses and the basins, as well as the
existing house that would remain. The grading plan showed most of the houses
would be walk-out structures on the cul-de-sac, with flat lots along Eden Prairie
Road and Beverly Drive. Constructing a cul-de-sac allowed the developer to
retain many of the trees in this wooded area. The landscape plan called for
replacement plantings of 150 trees that would be removed, but even more trees
would need to be removed were a through street constructed instead of a cul-de-
sac. Anderson explained how the development conformed to the City's lot
standards and zoning; lot sizes were variable to accommodate the grading and
frontages of the site. Covenants and architectural guidelines would apply to home
construction and would be submitted with the application. All homes would be
constructed by custom builders, be a mix of two-story and rambler styles, and
range in price from approximately$500,000.00 to $900,000.00, or even higher on
the cul-de-sac. Anderson stated he and the owner took no issue with the
conditions in the staff report, and they were working with D.R. Horton on an
agreement about the easement to the north to construct a sidewalk from the cul-
de-sac to Prospect Road.
Mette asked if Anderson's company was the custom builder. Anderson replied
Great Oakes 2nd, LLC would hire the contractor and sell lots to a custom builder.
He was in communication with local builders with whom he had previously
worked. He envisioned one or two builders for the development.
Farr asked if lot eight on the preliminary plat had a utility easement which seemed
to contradict the site plan. Anderson replied in the original submittal and on the
grading plan lots eight, nine, 13, and 14 had a water collection basin utility
easement originally planned to have an outlet to the pond, but after the last round
of comments, this easement would be eliminated, and the development would be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 3
able to drain along Beverly Drive instead. Farr noted this would save a heritage
30-inch red cedar(tree 71)previously slated for removal and commended the
change. Farr stated tree 75 was another heritage tree slated for removal in lot 14
and asked if this could also be saved. Anderson agreed to look at this possibility;
there were tight grades on this location but he could speak to the engineer about
shortening the wall.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant requested a rezoning and a
preliminary plat for 17 detached, single family residential lots to be known as
Beverly Hill. The site was approximately 6.8 acres and consisted of two existing
single family homes and accessory structures. The proposal complied with all
zoning, setback, and lot size requirements and was consistent with the guiding for
low density residential development. The proposed density was 2.47 units per
acre. No PUD approval or waivers are requested as a part of the applications.
Staff and the developer were working to provide a pedestrian connection between
lots three and four to Prospect Road. City staff consistently recommended to
potential developer the assembly of properties and looking at economies of scale
and roadway connections in developments in this area. Architectural guidelines
were included in the staff report, and the applicant was proposing restrictive
covenants.
Staff had received comments from MAC, due to its proximity; no alarms were
raised, and conditions included noise attenuation, (non-fruit bearing)tree planting,
et cetera. There could be additional conditions set prior to the City Council
meeting, but nothing out of the ordinary. The staff report included language on
inclusionary housing, although the Planning Commission was not being asked to
make a recommendation on this at this time; this was, rather, an opportunity to
initiate this conversation with the developer.
Villarreal asked if there was anything to stop this developer from asking for
duplexes. Klima replied the site was guided for low density, and attached
duplexes not allowed in the R-1 zoning districts. Villarreal suggested there was an
opportunity to expand the type of housing constructed on these open spaces to
make the best use of acreage. DeSanctis asked what would give access to the new
city park to the northeast of the development. Bourne replied there was a trail and
a sidewalk along Eden Prairie Road, perhaps a quarter or half of a mile in length.
Farr asked if best efforts had been made to assemble multiple properties and
Klima reiterated staff's message has been consistent that assembly is preferred
and of mutual benefit to the City and developers, and she was confident this had
been explored.
Chris Bunn, of 9850 Eden Prairie Road, stated he was a resident since 1998 and
was not aware of this development until October, 2018 when he reached out to
Gergen. He stated the lots proposed were inconsistent with the lots in the area.
Whereas the average did not show this, the standard deviation, i.e., having both
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 4
very small and very large lots, was large and would have a disparate impact on the
area. The setbacks were also inconsistent with the zoning, and to his mind the
developer was making the greatest use of the land at his expense, since no other
neighbor was as close as he was to this development. Two additional units were
never accounted for in the assessments, and these would be subsidized by current
property owners. This development seemed similar to Stable Path, but no builder
was identified and he was concerned about what kind of architecture and housing
values would go into these lots without more details provided up front. He also
did not see how such small lots as called for in this development met the "2.5
units per acre"requirement of the guiding.
Dan Blake, of 16831 Cedar Crest Drive and owner of Pemtom Land Company,
stated the developer never contacted him about the assembly. He asked if there
was a mechanism for a discussion about and enforcement of architectural
guidelines and dedicated builders outside of a PUD. He was also concerned about
the zoning, this parcel being R1-9.5 whereas surrounding parcels were zoned R1-
13.5. Transitions could be important or not, but they were not discussed.
Otherwise, he had no opposition to this development. He agreed with no northerly
extension of the street through the site; however, to his mind this reduced options
in the future for Prospect Road connections.
Farr clarified Blake owned the 1.6 to 1.8 acres north of the development site and
east of Eden Prairie Road.
Collin Gebhard, of 16723 Beverly Drive, stated he had understood Cirrus Way
would never be connected due to the constraints of MAC,but wanted to urge
consideration of a connection to Prospect Drive.
Meher Medida, of 16627 Beverly Drive, stated he was concerned with traffic.
Prospect Road was already busy in winter, and feared the position of the cul-de-
sac would increase traffic. He urged this development conform to those City
guidelines as well.
Farr asked Schulze to detail the grade and slope of Beverly Drive and the cul-de-
sac. Schulze replied the intersection of the cul-de-sac with Beverly Drive was
within City's standards and could be found elsewhere in the City. There would be
a landing constructed allowing motorists to slow and stop on a less grade. Farr
asked for and received confirmation there was no unusually high volume of
accidents on Beverly Drive, even with the recent harsh winter. Farr asked if the
City ever planned to extend Prospect Road and what options were available.
Schulze replied the City looked at preliminary designs of a connection at Eden
Prairie Road, wrapping the westerly edge of Prospect Road into Cirrus Way, or a
connection of Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road somehow, perhaps with second
cul-de-sac, and added a connection with Cirrus Way was not out of the question.
He did not have a timetable for any of these options.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 5
Mette asked if this property was completely assembled and a blank slate, how
would one provide a connection. Klima replied the City and developers had done
preliminary review and there was no singular option. The concern here was to
preserve and reserve opportunities to make a connection in the future via a
flexible design that accommodated overall City goals and development proposals.
Farr asked for an explanation of the covenants to enforce new construction. Klima
replied private covenants recorded against the property and would not be enforced
by the City but recorded against the property. The zoning ordinance does not have
architectural and building material standards for single family residential
developments as it did for commercial construction. Another option was to have
specific language regarding architectural and material diversity built into the
development agreement, and staff was working on this. Farr asked Klima for
more details on special transitions between different zoning classifications. Klima
replied the City has a variety of single-family zoning districts, and there were
multiple instances of an R1-9.5 abutting an R1-13.5 designation and other R1
districts abutting each other. The City strove to provide transitions where
appropriate. In this case a transition zone was being provided, through a variety of
lot sizes and many factors went into this. All the lot dimensions conformed to the
R-19.5 standards.
Villarreal asked the difference between the mean and the average of the lot sizes.
Klima replied she did not have specific numbers but could provide broader
context as to how density is calculated: Eden Prairie calculated density based on
the gross area of a development site, including storm water treatment areas, park
land, et cetera. Historically this was how all density calculations were done since
the 1980s,perhaps the 1970s, and was done in this case. The number of lots
assembled did fall into the 2.5 units per acre density requirement for this zoning
classification. Farr noted it was not within the commission's prevue to tackle the
assessments issue but asked for comments from staff. Schulze stated when Eden
Prairie Road was being put it this was likely the best determination at the time
based on potential future development. Klima recommended Mr. Bunn contact the
City Engineer's Office if there were further questions.
Villarreal asked Anderson to what extent did he expect these houses to be
developed with or prepared for charging units in the garages for electric vehicles.
Anderson replied this was not a standard at this point,but was also not prohibited.
Each house would be customized for the individual buyer. He and Gergen would
have an ongoing relationship with the development, but the location of the
electrical panels would be based on the locations of the boxes, which would be
based on the location of the utilities. Villarreal replied since Xcel would have to
upgrade the distribution system of neighborhood, and asked who would be
responsible for aligning the construction of the houses to the electrical grid.
Anderson replied the builder would design the house, and he and Gergen who was
also a licensed realtor would work with the builder. The design came from the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 6
electric company, and he had asked staff for a list of utility contacts. Once the
design was received he could look at where the transformers and panels would go,
but typically that came with the design. Villarreal urged having an optimal panel
placement to accommodate electric charging garages. He also asked where and at
what height new trees would go in. Rooftop solar was more beneficial facing
south and southwest, and he urged the developer to consider planning for the
impact of shading. Anderson replied rooftop solar was not part of the
considerations, and there were not many lots that could take advantage of a
south/southwest facing. A variety of trees were to be planted, and a developer
could not do much with the dense tree cover to the west of the development.
Farr asked Anderson to summarize the neighborhood meeting held. Anderson
replied 15-20 residents, mostly within the neighborhood, attended. Most questions
dealt with house size,price points, and possible debris and dirt from construction.
He and Gergen provided business cards and contact information. There had been
additional general questions regarding access and traffic on Beverly Drive during
construction, traffic shut down on Eden Prairie Road(which he did not foresee
happening), et cetera.
Farr replied he received mixed results regarding Anderson's best efforts to contact
other property owners regarding the assemblage and asked Anderson to describe
the larger process and the reaction of the other property owners. Anderson replied
the project began late summer, 2018. He met with City staff to discuss a cul-de-
sac versus a through road. Anderson did not contact Bunn, since he could split his
property nevertheless, nor the property owners to the north, a property that was
not adjacent to this one. The 40-50 foot drop in elevation at lots 6 and 7 downhill
prevented a through road, requiring removing many trees to reconcile elevations.
A cul-de-sac was the better solution. The D. R. Horton site would not benefit the
developer so they did not acquire that site and it would not affect Cirrus Way or
Prospect Road. He added there came a point where one could spend money on
items that looked rational on paper but did not truly benefit the site, especially
since a steep hill was a challenge. Farr asked him to clarify what was meant by a
"barrier lot" on the D. R. Horton site. Anderson replied he spoke to the owners in
2018 and received some possible prices. There was electric, gas and cable in that
lot. He did not know why it was still owned; to his mind it should have been
dedicated as an outlot. Farr asked staff for D. R Horton's existing utilities and the
ability to grade from this property. Schulze replied he was not fully aware of what
was there. However, generally utilities were within four feet of the surface and
would present a challenge for connecting a road. Farr questioned forethought on
development when the utilities went in. Schulze replied a road connection may
have been considered,but the likelihood the utilities were buried deep enough for
this was low.
Bunn approached again for a further comment. He objected to the blanket
approval of lots by the commission and the loose obligations of the builder; the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 7
City had no specific agreement as to what to enforce regarding the style of houses
constructed. The development called for two additional driveways on Eden Prairie
Road. He understood there would be no more driveways on this road; another
property had constructed a long driveway specifically to avoid opening out on
Eden Prairie Road. He was concerned about precedent being set here, and asked if
neighboring parcels such as his could enjoy the same zoning and subdivide his lot.
Farr replied Bunn's property was not subject to this development, but he
encouraged Bunn to contact zoning staff regarding a potential subdivision of his
property. Bunn's site had frontage on two roads: Eden Prairie Road and Beverly
Lane. The commission was voting on a rezoning and preliminary plat only. The
commission was not reviewing a site plan of architectural standards; staff had
worked hard with the developer to make this a voluntary agreement. He asked
staff to comment on the additional driveways to be constructed on Eden Prairie
Road. He understood this to be driven by topographical features. Schulze replied
this section of Eden Prairie Road had relatively low traffic volume and their
addition did not contribute to traffic or safety issues.
DeSanctis stated Flying Cloud Drive was under phased construction and asked for
the anticipated traffic volume once the connector was complete. He asked if a
traffic study was planned. Schulze replied traffic would grow on Flying Cloud
Drive, but traffic had actually decreased in recent years and the addition of 16
units on this cul-de-sac would not make much difference. No traffic study was
planned at this time. Farr asked if any speed limit triggered a recommended a
driveway T-bone instead of backing out. Schulze replied on this 30-mile-an-hour
road this was not needed. Villarreal asked what usually triggered a traffic study.
Schulze replied more commercial type development typically triggered one. The
lowest tier trigger was around 100 trips; this would not rise to that level. This
could change in the future; perhaps an analysis rather than a study would be done.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Villarreal to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Villarreal stated on the whole cul-de-sac made sense to him. Bunn was concerned
there were too many lots shoehorned into this section and added a traffic study
should be considered, being that more houses could be added along Beverly Road
in the future. Higgins noted there were lots across Eden Prairie Road that were
very large, and this development could trigger subdivisions there in the future.
Kirk stated there were always tradeoffs in development, and the commission
strove to find the best balance. He hoped the developer would maintain the R1-
13.5 setbacks. Traffic was always stated an issue, but rarely was it a major one in
a residential area. DeSanctis stated the concept was reasonable, but he aired his
concerns: how this development contributed to affordable housing, and the long
term City plan of sustainability and carbon mitigation. He urged the inclusion of
language to the development agreement for solar, e-vehicles and smart homes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 8
Mette stated this was the best plan for a site which presented unique grade
challenges. She had no problem with the zoning; the lots along Eden Prairie Road
could not be configured differently due to the nature of the site and drove the lot
size disparity. It would generate a tax base while offering a future ability to
connect Prospect Road. She did not see a reason to eliminate two homes.
Affordable housing was not as yet a requirement and was the most challenging
policy to enforce for single family detached units. Higgins noted there had been
adequate effort to satisfy City requirements on a site that had been highly sought
after by developers, and encouraged Bunn to further communicate with City staff.
Farr commended the site plan for preserving trees. He appreciated DeSanctis's
and Villarreal's concerns on sustainability, and had confidence in City
engineering staff to design roads properly, especially in single-family residential
areas. He saw no safety concerns and had no objection to the zoning change.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to recommend approval of the zoning
district change from rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres and the preliminary plat of the
two lots into 17 lots and two outlots on 6.86 acres based on the staff report dated
March 7, 2019 and plans stamp-dated March 1, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-1
with one nay vote (Villarreal).
H. PLANNERS' REPORT
I. MEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CONTINUING BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Villarreal moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0. Chair Farr adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Durham, Planner II
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator
DATE: March 20, 2019
SUBJECT: Variance Request#2019-01
APPLICANT: Schneider's Lawn N Landscape
OWNER: Dave Fabry
LOCATION: 15363 Masons Pointe
REQUEST:
• To permit construction of a retaining wall no closer than 82 feet from the Ordinary High Water
Level (OHWL) of Red Rock Lake and land alteration within the structure setback area. City
Code requires a 100-foot structure setback. The OHWL is the boundary of public waters in
Minnesota established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
• To permit land alteration and vegetation alteration within the Shore Impact Zone (SIZ). The
SIZ is the land located between the OHWL and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the
required structure setback.
BACKGROUND
The property classification by the Comprehensive Guide Plan is Low Density Residential. The
property is zoned R1-13.5.The home was constructed on the property in March 1997. The property
abuts Red Rock Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Water in the City's
shoreland code. Red Rock Lake is part of the Chain of Lakes; therefore, the water level is
controlled and is relatively stable with an OHWL of 840.5. The minimum setback from the OHWL
is 100' for a Recreational Development Water.
Following is the history regarding the property:
• No waiver was granted for the shoreland area in the development agreement. The original plat
(Red Rock Ranch)did have a waiver for front yard and side yard setbacks to allow preservation
of the shoreland. The final plat was the Boulder Pointe Addition.
• The Survey for 15363 Masons Pointe shows two decks, one on the side of the home and one
facing the lake. The lakeside deck is shown as being 100 feet from the property line and 118
feet from the OHWL.
• The building permit for construction of the home was issued in 1997 and included a deck and
porch. The retaining wall was not included on the building permit and no permit or inspections
of the retaining wall were recorded in the building permit file. The retaining wall is over 4 feet
in height and would have required a building permit.
• The retaining wall varies from approximately 82 to 94 feet in distance from the OHWL. The
deck is 98 feet from the OHWL.
Staff Report—Variance #2019-01
March 20, 2019
Page 2
• The 2000 aerial photograph shows the deck, porch and retaining wall in place, as well as a
stairway down to the lakeshore.
• In 2018, the contractor requested a meeting to discuss replacement of the retaining wall and
stairway as well as restoration of the shoreland area. It was determined that the retaining wall
is too close to the footings of the deck, leaving it vulnerable to frost heave. The proposal is to
tear down and replace the retaining wall approximately 4 feet closer to the lake in the area
around the existing deck and porch. After this is completed,they would regrade the remaining
areas within the shoreland setback, install a series of small retaining walls down the slope,
replace the existing stairway and restore native vegetation within the SIZ.
• The slope between the home and the shoreland is very steep but is not quite defined as a bluff.
A bluff would have additional setback requirements.
• Immediately adjacent property owners have constructed smaller retaining walls and landing or
viewing within the structure setback area that range from approximately 54 to 60 feet from the
OHWL. These viewing areas range in size from approximately 180 to 350 sf in size,City Code
allows landing areas of up to 32 sf in residential areas. The larger retaining wall on one of the
properties is approximately 87 feet back from the OHWL. No building permits or variances
were issued for construction of retaining walls or landing areas on the adjoining properties.
The decks are approximately 100 feet from the OHWL.
REQUEST: There are two requests.
1.) Reconstruct the retaining wall from 94 feet to approximately 90 feet from the OHWL around
the deck and porch. This will tie into the existing retaining wall, which bows toward the lake,
with the closest point at approximately 82 feet from the OHWL. This distance will not be
changed. The construction will require land alteration to tie into the existing slope, stairway
replacement and invasive species removal areas.
The retaining wall needs to be moved away from the existing deck and porch foundations
toward the lake in order to maintain structurally sound foundations with the existing footings
that support the deck and porch.An Engineering letter describing the need for the new location
has been submitted with the application. The plan includes replacement of the retaining wall
a minimum of 6 feet from the deck and porch so that the risk of frost impacts that could
potentially damage the footings and foundation are minimized.
Other options were also discussed but are not included in the staff recommendation. First
would be reconstruction of the retaining wall inside the existing footprint.However,this would
require excavation around the existing footings, leaving a narrow trench or confined space
down to provide space for a contractor to extend the footings below the depth of the retaining
wall. This would be a costly and difficult project and would require work within a confined
space. The second would be to remove the retaining wall,deck and porch and reconstruct these
structures within the 100-foot structure setback. This would require extensive grading of the
steep slope and would require removal of most or all vegetation within the shoreland area,
greatly increasing the risk of erosion into the lake.
2.) Permit vegetation and land alteration in the Shore Impact Zone (SIZ). The SIZ is half(50%)
of the required structure setback, or 50 feet from the OHWL.
• Remove invasive, non-native and damaged vegetation and replace it with native plant
material appropriate within the shoreland area. The vegetation alteration will include the
entire lot between the retaining wall and OHWL.
Staff Report—Variance #2019-01
March 20, 2019
Page 3
• Reconstruct the retaining wall; re-grade the steep slope between the wall and the shore
where required; and replace the stairway. Stairways for lake access that are located in a
way to minimize the view from the lake during summer, leaf-on conditions and that are
designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion are permitted by code.
A series of 4 small retaining walls or outcroppings will be fitted in to assist with the
stabilization of the steep slope.
A copy of the variance request was sent to the DNR for review.No comments have been received
at this time.
EVALUATING VARIANCES AGAINST STATUTORY CRITERIA
Variances may be granted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Furthermore,
variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties, as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposed to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Shoreland, floodplain and river ways are sensitive areas that need special consideration in review
of variances. Local governments must consider each criterion on its own merit and make findings
and conclusions based on the following considerations:
1. THE REQUEST WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
PLAN
The adopted Comprehensive Guide Plan provides Goals and Policies (Section 2.2) to protect
the City's high and exceptional-quality natural resources and environmental assets as the City
continues to develop. This includes providing appropriate slope and shoreline buffers and
assisting the public and private property owners in the maintenance and conservation of the
City's natural resources. The proposed plan is consistent with the goals and intent of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. The variance request will:
• Restore native vegetation in the shoreland impact zone (SIZ);
• Provide grading, small retaining walls and outcroppings to stabilize the steep slope;
• Reconstruct the stairway to meet city code requirements; and
• Replace or reconstruct the retaining wall to minimize the safety risk posed by the current
location of the retaining wall in relation to the footings and foundation of the deck, porch
and home.
2. THE REQUEST WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSES AND INTENT
OF THE ORDINANCE
The work within the remaining shoreland area will restore the SIZ to conditions that meet the
intent of the shoreland code. The incorporation of native species and re-construction of the
stairway will provide conditions that meet the purpose of the ordinance. The slope is close to
being defined as a bluff,incorporation of the small retaining walls within the slope are intended
to provide stable conditions to minimize erosion and slope instability which could result in
erosion into the lake. The small retaining walls will also provide stable planting areas for
restoration of the steep slope. The main retaining wall is a pre-existing condition that was built
Staff Report—Variance #2019-01
March 20, 2019
Page 4
either with the porch and deck or shortly after to provide stability to the deck and porch as well
as usable space around the landing from the deck to the stairway to the lake. The reconstruction
will provide a safer condition for use of the deck,porch and home.
3. THE PLIGHT OF THE HOMEOWNER IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO
THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE LAND OWNER.
The current resident purchased the home in May 2011 and did not create the issue retaining
wall issue. The owner is trying to improve or restore the shoreland area within the constraints
of the existing construction area. The builder, or previous homeowner, constructed the
retaining wall, stairway, deck and porch between 1997 and spring 2000. No building permit
was applied for and no inspections by the city were recorded in the property file for the
retaining wall. The lot size and how the home was placed on the lot do not allow reconstruction
of the deck and retaining wall within the 100-foot shoreland setback area. The failing condition
of the retaining wall around the deck and porch, which are attached to the home, has resulted
in a growing unsafe condition. In addition, to remove the retaining wall and reconstruct the
deck would require extensive grading of the entire shoreland area. Due to the very steep slope
this would result in a high risk of extensive erosion into the lake.
4. THE REQUEST, IF GRANTED, WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY
The variance would not be out of character within the neighborhood and would provide an
example for other shoreland owners on options to restore their shoreland areas. Adjoining
homeowners have structures (decks and larger retaining walls)that are set back approximately
87 feet back from the OHWL. In addition, the two adjoining property owners also have small
retaining walls as well as viewing or seating areas within approximately 54 to 60 feet back
from the OHWL. The viewing areas range from approximately 180 sf to 350 sf in size. No
permit or variance applications have been received for the adjoining properties. The adjoining
properties have mowed grass within portions of their SIZ and do not have landscapes that
incorporate natives within their entire SIZ.
5. THE PROPERTY OWNER PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A
REASONABLE MANNER NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE
The applicant has demonstrated why it is necessary to build and grade into the steep slope area.
The project will provide safer use of the property; a more diverse habitat along the shoreline;
and provide protection from erosion from the steep slope into the lake. It is reasonable for a
single-family home to have a deck overlooking the lake as well as to provide safe access to the
lake shore.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission choose from one of the following actions:
1. Approve Final Order#2019-01 as presented with the following conditions:
a. Submit a Vegetation Management Plan for work between the home and OHWL to the
Water Resources Coordinator for review and written approval prior to starting work.
b. Arrange with the City Forester to evaluate the shoreland area prior to starting work to
determine if pruning or other options are available to avoid cutting trees or shrubs that
may be providing slope stabilization in key areas.
Staff Report—Variance #2019-01
March 20, 2019
Page 5
c. Provide a tree replacement plan to the City Forester for review and approval.
d. Adjust the downspouts from the house and porch to ensure they don't cause erosion
during or after construction
e. Construct the stairway to meet City Code requirements (Chapter 11.50 Subd. 9.0 and
Subd. 10.A)
f. Incorporate a minimum of 2 rows of silt fence and 3 rows of biologs on the slope.
g. Provide a minimum spacing of all outcroppings and retaining walls of 5 feet.
h. Move all retaining walls outside of the Shore Impact Zone (SIZ).
i. Engineered retaining walls (greater than 4 feet in height) must be as close to the deck
and porch as possible to maintain the needed safety factor for frost heave, etc.
2. Continue Variance Request#2019-01 for additional information.
3. Deny Final Order#2019-01.
VARIANCE#2019-01
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER 2019-01
APPLICANT: Schneider's Lawn N Landscape Applicant
OWNER: Dave Fabry
ADDRESS: 15363 Masons Pointe,Eden Prairie, MN
OTHER DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Block 3 Boulder Pointe and associated metes&bounds
VARIANCE REQUEST:
• To permit construction of a retaining wall no closer than 82 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level(OHWL)of
Red Rock Lake and land alteration within the structure setback area. City Code requires a 100' structure setback.
The OHWL is the boundary of public waters in Minnesota established by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
• To permit land alteration and vegetation alteration within the Shore Impact Zone(SIZ). The SIZ is the land located
between the OHWL and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50% of the required structure setback.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the
above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and
order as follows:
1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (Yes No N/A ).
2. Variance 2019-01 is:
granted
modified
denied
3. Findings and conditions are attached as Exhibit A.
4. This order shall be effective 15 days after the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or on April 9,
2019, however, this variance shall expire one year after the date of the approval unless the applicant has
commenced the authorized improvements or use or has received an extension of the time period as provided
below.
The applicant may submit a request for a one-time extension of up to one year from the original expiration date.
Said extension shall be requested in writing to the City Planner at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the
approval. The requested extension shall be reviewed by the City Planner. If the facts and circumstances under
which the original variance was granted have not materially changed,the City Planner may approve the extension.
If there has been a material change in circumstance since the granting of the variance,the City Planner shall submit
the request for review and consideration by the Board.
5. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council Review.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
BY:
N/A=Not Applicable CHAIR: Andrew Pieper
DATE: March 25, 2019
VARIANCE#2019-01
EXHIBIT A—FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
FINDINGS
1. The Request Would be Consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
The adopted Comprehensive Guide Plan provides Goals and Policies (Section 2.2) to protect the
City's high- and exceptional-quality natural resources and environmental assets as the City
continues to develop. This includes providing appropriate slope and shoreline buffers and assisting
the public and private property owners in the maintenance and conservation of the City's natural
resources. The variance request will:
• Restore native vegetation in the shoreland impact zone (SIZ);
• Provide grading, small retaining walls and outcroppings to stabilize the steep slope;
• Reconstruct the stairway to meet city code requirements; and
• Replace or reconstruct the retaining wall to minimize the safety risk posed by the current
location of the retaining wall in relation to the footings and foundation of the deck,porch and
home.
2. The Granting of The Variance is in Harmony with the Purposes and Intent of The
Ordinance.
The work within the remaining shoreland area will restore the SIZ to conditions that meet the intent
of the shoreland code. The incorporation of native species and re-construction of the stairway will
provide conditions that meet the purpose of the ordinance. The slope is close to being defined as a
bluff, incorporation of the small retaining walls within the slope are intended to provide stable
conditions to minimize erosion and slope instability which could result in erosion into the lake. The
small retaining walls will also provide stable planting areas for restoration of the steep slope. The
main retaining wall is a pre-existing condition that was built either with the porch and deck or
shortly after to provide stability to the deck and porch as well as usable space around the landing
from the deck to the stairway to the lake. The reconstruction will provide a safer condition for use
of the deck,porch and home.
3. The Plight of the Landowner is Due to Circumstances Unique to the Property Not Created
by the Landowner.
The current resident purchased the home in May 2011 and is trying to improve or restore the
shoreland area within the constraints of the existing construction area. The builder, or previous
homeowner, constructed the retaining wall, stairway, deck and porch between 1997 and spring
2000. No building permit was applied for and no inspections by the city were recorded in the
property file for the retaining wall or stairway. The lot size and how the home was placed on the lot
do not allow reconstruction of the deck and retaining wall within the 100-foot shoreland setback
area. The failing condition of the retaining wall around the deck and porch, which are attached to
the home,has resulted in a growing unsafe condition. In addition, to remove the retaining wall and
reconstruct the deck would require extensive grading of the entire shoreland area. Due to the very
steep slope this would result in a high risk of extensive erosion into the lake.
4. The Request,if Granted,Would Not Alter the Essential Character of the Locality.
The variance would not be out of character within the neighborhood and would provide an example
for other shoreland owners on options to restore their shoreland areas.Adjoining homeowners have
structures (decks and larger retaining walls) that are set back approximately 87 feet back from the
OHWL. In addition,the two adjoining property owners also have small retaining walls as well as
viewing or seating areas within approximately 54 to 60 feet back from the OHWL. The viewing
areas range from approximately 180 sf to 350 sf in size. No permit or variance applications have
VARIANCE#2019-01
been received for the adjoining properties. The adjoining properties have mowed grass within
portions of their SIZ and do not have landscapes that incorporate natives within their entire SIZ.
5. The Property Owner Proposes to Use the Property in a Reasonable Manner Not Permitted
by the Ordinance.
The applicant has demonstrated why it is necessary to build and grade into the steep slope area. The
project will provide safer use of the property;a more diverse habitat along the shoreline;and provide
protection from erosion from the steep slope into the lake. It is reasonable for a single-family home
to have a deck overlooking the lake as well as to provide safe access to the lakeshore.
CONDITIONS: Approve as presented in plans submitted 02-11-19 with the following conditions:
a. Submit a Vegetation Management Plan to the Water Resources Coordinator for work between
the home and OHWL for review and written approval prior to starting work.
b. Arrange with the City Forester to evaluate the shoreland area prior to starting work to determine
if pruning or other options are available to avoid cutting trees or shrubs that may be providing
slope stabilization in key areas.
c. Provide a tree replacement plan to the City Forester for review and approval.
d. Adjust the downspouts from the house and porch to ensure they don't cause erosion during or
after construction
e. Construct the stairway to meet City Code requirements (Chapter 11.50 Subd. 9.0 and Subd.
10.A)
f. Incorporate a minimum of 2 rows of silt fence and 3 rows of biologs on the slope.
g. Provide a minimum spacing of all outcroppings and retaining walls of 5 feet.
h. Move all retaining walls outside of the Shore Impact Zone (SIZ).
i. Engineered retaining walls(greater than 4 feet in height)must be as close to the deck and porch
as possible to maintain the needed safety factor for frost heave, etc.
Aerial Map - Variance #2019-01
Address: 15363 Masons Pointe,
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
ti f
Norsk*. ..,.,-;,- , - - #:,,.. , • .
•
.,, . - ;r
rtw IIIIII
: rt',
r,
}
a►
y . ` , ...-ram ,i;.
•
�, Mason's Pointe -
>> 9a t ' -
✓
ji` t ;: � �` Boulder Pointe
l
a
0 100 200 400 Feet
a I
Guide Plan Map - Variance Request # 2019-01
Address: 15363 Masons Pointe,
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
4
8 Masnons Pointe
i‘,/
it
Red Rock Lake Boulder Pointe Road
Lv4h
-AII1 iiI7
Legend
I 1 Lakes IIIIII■Industrial Streams N
I ]Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre I Neighborhood Commercial
I Principal Arterial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre I Community Commercial
��I —A Minor Arterial
Low Density/Public/Open Space Regional Commercial
I J Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre®Town Center
—B Minor Arterial INIP!
®Medium Density Residential/Office MA Park/Open Space —Major Collector EDEN
IIIIII■High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre I Public/Quasi-Public Minor Collector
-Airport I 1 Golf Course
Date Revised 03-01-2014 PRAIRIE
Office IIIII■Church/Cemetary
17' Office/Industrial 1 Open Water
^r 7..a,A l ,1 LIVE•WORK•DREAM
I'Z Office/Public/Open Space IIIIII■Right-Of-Way °"°"°°°1p "`"m°o 14 m%�'°° .°_-° .° °°°°276 oo®mm.o m„
0 130 260 n u520 Feet
I I I I I I I I
Zoning Map - Variance Request # 2019-01
Address: 15363 Masons Pointe,
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
7 ____
1/1
Mansons Pointe
AK v.-
Boulder Pointe Road
441/4.
\11‘
Red Rock Lake
4111
\. 1
Rural -Regional CoCity of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
Shoreland Management Classifications N
R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. I-I TC-C I NE I Natural Environment Waters
R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. I I TC-R I RD I Recreational Development Waters
IN• I,/.. 1.1
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. II TC-MU I GD I General Development Waters(Creeks Only)
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, ® 100- Year Floodplain EDEN
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. En Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min.
Up dated through approved Ordinances#26-2008
-RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. General Industrial-5 Acre Min.
Ordinance#33-2001(BFI Addition)approved,but not shown on this map edition PRAIRIE
Office J Public Date:March 1,2009
Neighborhood Commercial I Golf Course In case of discrepancy related to a zoning classitmaaon on this zoning map,the Ordinance LIVE•WORK•DREAM
and attached legal description on file at Eden Paine Ciry Center will prevail.
-Community Commercial Water
-Highway Commercial Right of Way 0 0.05 0.1
-Regional Service Commercial
Miles .wa,_o...m..=..m._v...t..o.,.,, ..,_..anotl, ,..,,mo,
16051 Berger Drive
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
44\
Phone:952-452-4828
Email.Jake@schneiderslandscape.com
LAWN N'L A N Q S C A P E Web:SchneidersLandscape.com
At the property of 15363 Masons Pointe Eden Prairie,Schneider's Lawn N' Landscape proposes
constructing a new segmental retaining wall. Due to the current state of the wall as stated in the
Engineer Letter;we propose moving the wall 6' towards Red Rock Lake from the current retaining
wall. Please see Engineer Letter for more information.
Upon approval of project Schneider's Lawn N' Landscape will remove all approved overgrowth and
trees. Starting from the lake shore moving towards the house.Schneider's Lawn N' Landscape will
install plants, stairs,limestone outcroppings, boulder walls, two sections of silt fence, three sections
of bio logs.As shown in 'Erosion Control Plan.'
Once the above is complete retaining wall construction will start.The approved retaining wall will be
installed per engineer specifications.Upon completion of the engineered retaining wall, sod will be
installed between the retaining wall and house.
Received - Planning Dept
FEB 1 1 2019
City of Eden Prairie
ViclCery n inccnn�P Consulting, LLC
iii 1I viii:► � Dr -,r_-irn -r ne,MN ''"*-I soo
p
I hSmr: .5 Z.-v1-6_17Z 1':17w 44 f',,.I!�f
rvie6f9LNICLe i Oar%.ec.M
December 3,2018 Project VEC 18-170
Mr.Jake Schneider
Schneider's Landscape
16051 Berger Dr,
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Dear Mr. Schneider:
Re: Segmental Retaining Wall Location, Proposed Segmental Retaining Wall, 15363 Mason
Pointe, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
As you requested, I'm writing this e-mail to discuss the proposed segmental retaining wall at the
referenced project. Vickery Engineering and Consulting,LLC, (VEC),has completed the final
design and construction drawing preparation for the segmental retaining walls (SRW) for the
above referenced project in August, 2018, The drawings have been sent under separate cover.
As we discussed in the field at the beginning of the design process,the location of the segmental
retaining wall as designed(6' in front of the existing wall,away from the porch foundations) is
needed for several reasons. First, the porch foundations will place loading on the retaining wall
if it is constructed in the location of the existing wall. Second, the likelihood of distress to either
the wall or the porch foundations(or both)is greater if the foundations are within the
geosynthetic reinforced soil zone, applying the aforementioned load. Third, the risk to the porch
is greater if the porch foundations are undermined during the construction process. The best
location of the wall is in front of the existing wall,where the geogrid layers are uninterrupted by
the porch foundations.
Thank you for using the services of VEC. If you have any questions about this letter or the
previously-sent plans and specifications,please call me at 952-465-8272.
Sincerely,
(:-/("1.
Ronald W. Vickery, PE
Received Planning Dept
FEB 11 Z019
City of Eden Prairie
T• • • ' !:i;fl...;•,:i.••••'04..'••- :. a ...,_..:1 .:. •.: . • •.•• : ,. , •. ,•_..-.',, ,.",. .•..•••••• _• ...-7.,•._.•_ -6,..it W'A.-....7,-. A7 1110
ON • -..••-• . ''-`.• .....' 'A • .P-+4.-r• •••''-. " --'•
- '.-•-•-'.It.1 f .- ' ••_,,,.-, ".i..'47-; '''''''`' .- - ''' - . •
,,111,111111111111111111 .
r 7 . • • 'I .'T‘•IV-4r-
., silk*--•'... •_-_ , 4_. ...:.% H., . • _• c i.,',..irti,...,:,. . _gr.?' .1"..;.17,,...,r„SA:- - .7!_ti:•;-",t- 'T`...--,i.I.__. ,
• I
* . ____: . „. . ..,
... ....,.._... .......,_.1,;., . _ •• ,.. „ _,:l .iibr.w..„.ter..0,,. ._ i_.w.fr,f'1"-Vcr",t.C.,-jC1'• ,
.4FL, .' - ..7,10.:••••,..7.1' '1,-, ..r.).• ' '-• :`.--.'-'1`P•;-:::::-.-..-i_A-7 . 1.1. • ...•--
. ----;'-
t1116. -.1.c.....-.L;f..- --Vial-:•:„.:-:-./..: .:i.:;....; ...., '....-..r:,...;r4.•.,....PI ;•••''"! ...... rc,J.-_.•-7.,:t7-__ ..-'54-.-
_.„
. e. :
-- 144''Il 4.-":L.. .7:. -'
,
.
_ r.
. . .,_.: , . .
• r - -._ _. ,
• _
.. •• ... • -
- ,. . .. . . . lip
.. ..ir.:,.;.-.„9... ./.. ,.i-,•,,-,t, Air-- -• t ..Air
.4111.:. .
.••'''-'
. .. • - -..i,„ f.
.- ,•,„••-4. ..-7
•:- •.;- , -- •_:••,
. . •.,..,. -11 'i ii it ._ , , . 4,;•
-
•-.44••• ••••• C.ity of Eden Prairie „_ ''''• IN' ' ..."'-'-' '
I, . 1 iL.:•.. iiiiiiI .0. ..
-I , 1-11.i!
I : 101 -
..
__. .-• -• _
_,, .,... ., _ . _........__ . _, .... „_...,•.-,__,..., ; ..-:- 4 :-.!-•!•_:,
• -
. .•.;
7.._, _,...,„........, _ . .., ,.._., _.
. .,..„....,...,,... ..i...,...L ...„,...,,...._ ... ,. ..
... ,....,,h,.., ,.... .
, . ',, , . , , iili'
, . . il .....-: 9_ . .,....-. l• , .
. ., •••••::!r4:„.;--.7,._-!.-1.-,•.4.,•••44
,
-e'S .,e-1;•-•-•,•.-.._ ;74. •-•••••..,. _
. • ';';'-i'
..• -
It i . ..i
1 i II . .1.11 . 1... 1 ..,..,::::.
.'. • ''..1,1 .'4'
t i. •
.. , .,.•,
4,..
I .: ' -
,
•. • ....., A„.. - - ' l'i •IA.4".4 , --•._. 4to.,,„:.., ;.... 9k... ,,.-.: 72'....,:-..'. A., -..
• ,i,....4.o't f
. ;: r ii • •'•- • .'-
,. ,,
lri MI • 1 • -.-.' 1!'-""/..
- - _ ....:-....4 .• . :_ . „ .
- '
.- .. .
- • . '
} •,--='-`4.-- „.
..-------'
-... .' ''P- 4. ".i.V • ., -.
' "7"-.., - .,r '%. • '"k ,- •. • :t:•*:::;_,rk:ft.b`
• .- . . ... •
• ...,,..se• -- -
--..
-- •
---or-
-_- , ,-,.. ,,,-4-• .0+603.. ..a,r_. _ ..... •• . ..- '_ --• -. --
.• -' -:IA, --"...•r.P.4110111t4 • -..,stl'-• • '' ' •••• "" - - . " ' ' • ' -
-•-.. .. __ • . • -
.. 4 -_. ....
. 1.''''. • ....4
-.. .,-...-•- . •k.
. '-'-'-''..- _•-:•_:, ; IttairiALI4-. 7r- ,e - --':5' -'. -• -- .. 1„,
,.. 4-` -'4 .,
- . • 74-.A.g....1-T.-r-4.-.1 ••
-- 7 "'
.-
T __A-
_ ' . ' • -- " : -'•-
P1 • - r. .. I,e.,,..•"..!---1,-.. -z-/.A.-. , ,,....., .12'
---"' ' , ".. .- - • 1.,*441`,..s ., -'• " --3- ""••.....:!::jiik11110416'
... • : '7!--.-...',:fV,-. -'-'..-ir6_`;.-."''-''' ''.:-? . . ' •.:.It;Real •, ,•-*--... . - , . ..,... AL.* ... 7.r•-._-::. . ......-.
- Ar ---' ••*-'''t!'''--Lo •r_,:r, • •.' - • -.ffi-•.--.- ' ' 1.. '
... ' ......'^ 1 .. .-.. :t:',41V. ' ' .4.-1..--,.--AV',,' r_, ' • r. ' ''''.• •_•• .;-.0! -
• - ' fr- ,• .
.
.....:-.,....."4-',441.",..., ,,,,_;..._7,7....;-...t,i'...`"-•-•-•- • ,. -.
'. • :•••':-,'" .....••Pe"•6-4' 4.'`-'-''. .
.--, ., -. -- • .._ .
. -: : ......
4'. •'e! , :. ,_. .-- :,..,•: • -1 --I...-. 4 .. . .. • ,
' •40`p'7'.-,,, ..,fitm.7' •1••• ik.-. -11, • - .
27-'-' . -. 4-`,- - ..-• , T-J--,,,,•,-41-,--.,--;:.4t ,-.
• -_ •• 6- :PA l',..1,--..-•••••a'. :-
1 - •4,4._;-‘ .4.,t '- . ,_ _ ::,...,•.)-•,:-, •64e. •*; • .. %
_, • ....%...... ' ' • , . . ....
_ . .A ..-tilAt ' • '•-
_-- g .'14. '. ".'WF-..-4..-,,• 6 ;•-• - .. ,--.."4 . ..- .• ,
'1'.•2 ' .` ...--",,7 -
tt- 'r. .- - • ---,,, ..". -..1411..-:_r, - 4.'44...ti'l• - ) . .±::-. 1.t.:::::_t,i, i
.. ,....e.' -
..... Ai ...':.,:.rt •-•• ' '''..:45.1--, ......g'..-.7.1. ..
I. .• .
. '...: •••,- • .A.-"4,-,.-.'-..the•••'''-,4%..''..? . it'
. .,... '.•1 ... .- .'--.-...."--7-'A:Y.;.?,!... "-. ' ... ,±.-1.2 .., . - - W .: ..-. ... • ;',-''.. . . -44_e•-.).-.,..b:4."-t.. .‘ 'W F.SI•-1 .. '4*3: - .. . .
.-.. .
I A
' '. ••`..':411?".'- ...
.4.. JI -...W44.. am__...4 • t.iiii...... • -,...-..
..- 41-;;;-.T‘':::74...i.4.:.: 11'47,-.* - . - '• .'-'7.-' ":,-,,..•-i•--,,.....s(. ...I., ,- t"-:- a' ....;..'"Nix-off.
.....rf-lc 4 . ..'''''''''''..01111VON. ' '-- .....*.t4^.4. ".."4-.:1. ';Ve 'PA*. -.•• . .. •••-
- ,.."•_, .„,._....".,_:.7 ,4'..i•.
: ..-,,,,.: -•;P.- - _• . ...!-0.•:. •...r. -.-"...,---0.,..:••.4-..
*'. '`.• 4 e, 5 f._,,,.-e • •41 --*o-- ;,'......
....7..!". -. it,iy : ,.. .•-- -1,....,.;.. .1 ,,,...,-...- , •• .. .:.---, !,-- , y_ •-
•,,) Tr, ..c.-- ' -,'e 1,..,-,..:..-f.. .',- • '7.,• , 'A: , P. .. ..,-.-„„,...•,A .. .' ' - ' _• ''-....:-......• _ • • ;Pr- II'-.• '-.Ill... •allts„-T.f..0'4-1.skoti:jar, 4....7.41:. ..
••• -- -t1'
••%ell.4 . 'IT .‘. tr,40iii.., wr-, .-• '-14.-4.0.4 -L`
-• ' -- . .,': • -.- -. ''' v' .••*- • -'..%::frIA • •r,' .. '' ..:. ..." 4- ..-. ...-- 1 '
`•• '"''r''•
ei, .. •IP%'. '4, :" :--- %. ,_,_ 7•!--'.:6'' 04%.,.- '... • I,- '- , f 1'....'4? •'''-:,........ ••-. .., r . •, '•,....... ;.:re ...„ ,,
$411th
' .„•7. Alit - . .-1 1/' '' ..
' t .-. - -• .i .,.... • 4
- -:' -. -4 .,-.• ''LI- --f. -i,•-!.-- •,-_- 4,,..- --.,.... - •IP. 11111..,;,. .• - - ' r-.- .11,:' - ,"..r.••• -
'... '1.'17' X.,... `-..••• '''- • t ••• - ^
' .- -. .4' .'-; • - • .;•`''..4%.......4..` .''''I. :•i'1.... I....L.. 'i''...;-' . . . . ' ''. ' ''..."1•:.• '.' . .•';'''' .'' ...'.::::.4' ''- I r r"---P.- .'. • - - • ...
- . .,,,, • Ai.. ., ,,, '.r; . ••:•rk--,.,/-.- -:,..,..a...V :•"._.,',. . .-• '-' '`"': 7.", ."$. '..T.7.: -.•.::" lf • 'Tr''
.1.,„
•-•" , kr ' '-.. .'"Ar,T -'''''.." • = -
. - .1E-o.- -..--.- - - ---- -_,,..3..-, ..e...6.7., ..... .kk,.- ._ l'•- 6. . z---< z....- -• - - .'
il-• ''''''' ..." ' ''•.:. _•I': 4".,!„.1744....AP" •: 4'"'A..• ..", `r• •..: 7 .'','""-- • ' ... \- ..k4,,,,,,.-,„ .,,, - , . ., .•
,111!-"Igic '..-""--4 1*, --- ..•,- ''---.3. 4 ...'4--;47-;.2-:A. 040'44,-(:•'- , ..'.., .. . . -- ,': .! • .. .. ' -46'--. '' ..
-...,.... „ f
,. .,. . , ; •
. -•1-14 I . '. •
t•
9k.43-1. -, ., /F0411;. . . . -i• -,-,• . .
.. -_ ,.- . --. -...,..- - 04-..-,„---,,i1441.,1,‘„--,--.: .1t-••• • ..t: . • -,, .- . •... ,,,.
, ....,• ........!•.-;. .. ... .. , • •
,.
•••,.... ...4.)
. -•••-•,••••.-i• ,•--..
AA -
•••• --e :' •7 '•, • '1. - . • ,,R ' ...?.....k;- '7,....• :-,-. , -....!,.....1 , -.,- ,-..-
...F.,- i.-...4'itr, '17 ,..,,. ' 'k,'..,...........'lila:i 1,'„43414,4,,:--`, 4W14:111
I- -. PA . • -,.?!./P-,_ r. •=..` r. i.- .. ;•<---. .. v -,-krItel ,--"-'.i. .- , :.. . •.--. -- -,
,
4-.._,l'i-41.'114 - - .----
---=,-.....'• .. - Ll-,. ...,,a., ,,,),
. . .4 -- .*-.-: -- ....-r_ .. .-.... ... _it,,,,,.. , 0.:.,...7. .....t...1 •!.•...e.., ..g.--,..--,•:-.... -
• ,, %,ire-4.i '...4.-...•
'.---.' .444' ;:....,..,44,4.1. - --, •••--7- - - --..„. ,.§..1•-:•-...r,-.\;r•; -4,'_..;-4- ...1.4•C. '1,:i- ..,,,_ '.9- •- . , ' - .. , . '.., •,-; ..-' I:"t"?..7,1"-"1-1k.::,),....,-,;e•i,
t. , ... ., .. f_ .--,,, ,......-...__,. _.. ...-... . _.,4 z • •-.4-P. .'IV. ....... .7.--4-Pi; -•s_...,_,..,3-.••••••• , .,.. - . _ . .... , s- •. - _„,. . _PrAx•r.. .
. ,.....- •' . - ZMr .,. . . •
.--'•-5.... 6 • 3."`7.- ' - -N; . ,... -. -
0.!F.A; 14.- ' i T-Appil; . •, ..14'. 4 ....- . -f- 4'• . *;" ,. .- •: -./1 - _ ,. • z lk _
- .--- ' -;or ef-j•--.-: ___•reev. „ lit ".'•1 4018' f " - • ' ..0.18%;.- ".".
- .-. ..• 4-- - . V'4t:t. - "' ' - '%.1 •••4kW--.:,-,.....1 - ..- .,oi0%,l'''4 a.' • _,...' . k. 'r 'A"Z . .. .:-- --‘ . ` ..
_.... _.,. • " .• .t .-.- L.0 ...••4'. A• 4 i•-N7:-•0 ...' .1r,1111r.. . .
. IC. ' . • !..4. .•...;., -,...i.frt'r'-.7.---;.-' .. ilf14. .'-"' ''':, '':::' '''!'. ..-..5.1111,10 Orii? ''. ... .. IF.'4 4 VI'j........ '• - .
""PV--. CI: 4 • :: ' ... - •.. __ ..0 ' . ... '•- . .4.P".• .1.• 're l'Or '• '''. '...r - .ipit. "7i.; -,.' -"-1.,...
ii-
.,_. . - _ ...•%....- -, ....-....„•:,
e. ... -...; - ' 4, • lf
•-, .,.. ,..... ;I, _ .4 1111.N41,1 •fl•- - '"••••_01: -1.--"'. ' III' k , .
.. . ..
.-. .
. .,... . . ....,__,.. . .4 .. ..,. v„LI: II:...' •. ... .-.e•- - ...•
4 , •
• . , j,,...
.... . . .... • • i • - . -...•
....e... .. ••. . - '0••• • ...,,, i • i- 1 - •ak ...
. -
,,.. , , . 7.- _ _.' -...,---...:----, -. ..itt•li: ., *c.q.„.s.t.---•••-i .8 :a" ,...,k...°4.•' ,'
' •'‘'Ai . Dept •
, _ )..?• -, mujitt • .
.. ,...
. ,- .... ., .. ' 'i. eceived - Plannwig
,
• . - r - •• . .,,,e..-• -4
la • :-. . ' 111111`t.. r. -iv- , $ -- - . • . - -
...,,.. . .•
.
. . ...,^ .. r --- - ,4 . . •.i FEB 1 I 2g19
- .,.-:•1•• -.i. . :- ii„. YE-A..,-.1
:..i......• .. 3,••
. • , •10 II. t'.„,
•,C..V i .•••- • ...
.
i .ie'.?jW (0 ••'.•.•t 4•%u'l; ' • i II'.: ... .. ..: .4 „K. • . L......, .... . i . ,.. -
. „.....,.l...d!..,.. -: --. ..,. - ak.." ' ...-•,, ' .•..".•:°- _ ,,,, 1 ,,,..„ 4....0...1. 1 ... .........„ ... A r,.... . 4-., •--. .1. ..'My .4- . ,.......ir
City of Eden Prairie
' - 40' r
- . r' i . .t:r•i'''. ' .. "' ._..V"-''''.,•••- 'Pi 1,• : -•. . ,.
..1.4 ...
- •
.-•• ..•.: 4.•-•• •AA' a, '''' - . - - - --. - -. 'ii...4.-. .' -.•-. - '.'t
i ' ' • ..„ , , _.-..- -
. 't .., -'4:4 .• ' .
..
de"WA . ,..
• -.
. .•::
.e.1 7. '''' '.,,, . .• • .
,•;(,.. 0.;1% .. Egil .
. 111 '4 .
---• '- - - 1 " L ' ‘ . - IL,
...„.. - •
,......„..10 ..„.. ,..... ,..i. ..7-. -.. .......: .4.4,1- --..,..! ..
•.r. . . . ,., _ -.4......... - .,. _.
...r.
•.- • Y. . '--N''
• r • L.-- . ,
lik-f7_ -flp. . -.54411 - . ' ' -.. -1 •
-Vi„ *•''''.. • - • ' liftlib:
4. ji...vpiont..7.7.b_. or
,. .7,77. .... . -..... ot.•:7...:„.•'11 -7' • •„
r
- . . .. -4• 7.--.......
. •
• - -......_ - ..,.....•
. ..,..,... , ., .• .. . , ... -
....... •••1„,_ _
kitelp, •-'L : ritqfr..;%.. -.-4.'A‘r-- '-,'1' " '. '' 1),-..:-.;ZXY..:',
..
.v.-.„.-.r...„- -..•_ 1.. • • . 7..-......,.._Qa.,1111t.
--6,. -:421;"V 16', s--'"' O.,- . 's ;.2..F.• 1 ." - . -....A; - L.-- .
. ...-ii,dt.',!. %-.._-4, .",..ji-'1"14,;."-•..>. j '''..,:,,;-/- . ,',. j ... 4. . : .
r'",•.-. -I-..wv...c,- .... - _ -.• ---.:51r.V0v1:•*• ....._-.7--,..d.•• ;co....:....,..4 Awl..4.."..or •„1".,........,,..;,..-...-- .,., . . ... :
•• 4. -It-1-.- 41t,.
p• "a :-.. . -_-4- --• _. ..,__---- - ..-iiiiimr.1.- -- . ..... ..K......z.,10. gqi;j,..• :.••.;t . w• • ,• i ••- • -
r.:-.4 4111....-05..'g 1"*. ..,!'' ' '..., -...,-'k Irt, 'Alt..• ' ...21-.-...4. A.-1--..-... .. .... ...:,....,._ • • ... ' - . - 'sq....-. -
. ..,, .,-1....• ,.. - ... ._ . . ....,.. ...._.___• .,i4L, ,,.... •e et "I-_.:4...,_.:-.-7- -. - .P77:-.. , , t ,../-._ .. ..„•-, -, -._ .,
•.. _ .... ATP .11' - - " ; alt.,. ... ., . r -
- •?"11111011‘ . 41.
•-• ' - II . ..4.
At... .. - - ..-- •
. .., ' . ••••-1. -'. -.• • • , ---0 t• *.- -t -- .:44r.> '.'-' - '••••"' 46- ' Ilk, .k- .'- .-, . • - 'ftilit___,,r, i• A.,--:. .--
-.,.•-, ,,,,... n-..„.•. , -. .....!,.._ ,..,_.- ._ .-_ . go-. • _ _---.-_ •- .........,- --,....... • . . Aki
,- --- ,........ ... •.10,,r•!i_C•avr,'`It......_. 40044.....T pt.,.........- le• -.. -- . •••• •••.. : - -- _ ..• • .Ilk.
, •-•--
mA fir, ....• A -ft, .' -..• IP -•". •-• ' .. i .
. .
• % r
,
-4-t- '' ---.71b 11('-Pal: 1- '''..:13.1.:,.--- 4-- "r'S T • '_i-e.---f.7 n-A"..4.........',. -..: -A. --e:I-..;.%-.1t .---T. :..• , . . Z.,'
4 1141ati.......- - ....la .• 1.....--ir:.... • .. ..,..7....-1 , ..i...._- -- ,,,tar.- .- - .. 7_ In..i.,.......7 „...
411...-..,1,. - 4.,.' pa.-1', 1 -• •:MI,'" ' .'• " ..4' ?----• IL ....._-...."‘.1 .-.,W..' : -7 h.11'7.----.f„..7„_'''' .' -re,,... .r.iiiige._•
.•'.- .*IL'," .' •i'll:_411110•- ' Al.- ...,...,...._ _,,,.......i - r., -.1 ii..J-.:,- " ; A.,.:,,--•, _......; -F. -, . ••. --.„.._ N.....tp.K • - _ "..40,..---" -41' '1/4---r.IV..--.4..-Wr,r444;`,,,iss*. • . 0....,,.-----. / ----
..
r . .. ,,,.rr.Iit.o i,,f.Ig..i-_..k•-r. -'.r.i.-4-b1.N i.:.-,_:.,..%..
:.!t-4:--X.7_-B_044.•.•.1 1-M1.-'_4-.r.'•..7r.
..e.e
_.,...0
'-.4-.-:4-=.-,4A'1-.!,;-.,::-_.-,•'..i.„.7."_
.4.t,;'-.O,4.-,-s;.0,0.Z.--•.__a-4 4•....1.a....r%l-:•'l.1_..
..'i i.l.r,i,r...i e•..i.i m--.Al1i'l•1 i-.:•,,1hp..I.-.‘l
..-V\.v_.w.,....'.•.'e-.e,'o...1t-..-&7•.1r::.4 e'.._.,.'•.0P-4...i.1„.,1....4A-.i....•1,-.-,..-".,4,•_
.6.a•1.-
.1.,.,1,•A7i'_cr.._.::.•.-1. -...r-.,,:..4':.:-.:.:._...-...,.:.:.::1.4;-•,,1.5-'''N6....1'i...F1'.ti41
..•..%...1.
."1,1ii.:.L.1-:.....:5-:.%o.,0.Y o,:itp,*-w..-'..4'...,,:s-'...i0'-i'.1:.1i..-.=,..t.7-..7l..'.R•.'.,.1-_.a..--..i.1.;,...;..l--;...;6..,..,...-14.:..1s-.-,-.-4_..--..!,..•i...„.;',.4....-7_'.-:••:...-.i,.7.i-e.T.,k..,,..c.ft_..._..e.--!....•.-......-.._,.:i.-p-."1,-..-.b-,,..',-.."'..t•-..'.-,''...:•4",:--4.::1...:-,.•-,•..-.s-.1....-•.I,-.c--rt!"...:a.-4,..4'.6'4.,34..a-.=.,-i.-1_•.44t."'t..--i.-•1-..,'..-7--.t 4-.-14.-1--i.41:M...0.-p._.-.:-s:•
..-p..:f..,...7..'•__.i_-7..-!1.....4._...i I7
F:-.l.:.1..;.'r-..`:....7•1.,-:-.-.-.....--..:.-.4..'..1,'1,!4,r't-.
-t;i-i1.1:s'1.N-.1'-4.-1.i-,:_,,1 1"-7t'Z..i-m0.r.1.•.7",ia:A.1.'747'i'1.'°-1:,....".-_7.„I1,l-`--:---1-„.-rl.-,..-.::;.
r.:.::•.:-:...3:..-17_.._:-.‘',:-::"..-7-•"-
-7'7
.I4-.4:.j.1..L•I:41e•1.1",4L,.•.'4 4°•'%a''""1k.4i:r.ft•4,7•-..-.1a,,I r:.l•:P..--_.11..-.4.-..r-..7-..NN.171.:.I%1-N.•i:.•:-
-I..:..-..!4„r.H:4:.„.'01...9....•._.-•j 4-''4.4..K..'.4
* t I , ..-_'.-..
.-'1h.:!-r:-4r-..i,'0r'',.y:•'*1..4'L1/4"41.1C:-4401•'4:-1..}.-:.,..;:-,-
'-..„,_s-..:.-/.4.•J-*.-o4
1•,''.•'---F.-s.•''.'1'1.-•i.,1-0--.
. ,, .. 1.. -. A • . - - ' •-Pi
,-''r''.''l 1,•'..'i,+,,..t1_.-1.:.i:,r-"-.,--:..-i 1-i'7-:*.l-_4,-.•i',.'.j,,,'4i,;-•t-1 4,.'1'-'.:i•7-r,'_.1 r 1 l.4•,41 4"4i„§"--;'.'K::a.-i44 0:_,1,V•„1•:.71,.v1.,.:l-1'5
--_-1.i.,:7 l,-2i,:i-;-.:t,.'4eN rs,•:,
',-•6.e.:.-''..-.,1
..•i_e•.h•.-."1:.k,1s•
i
Ai . -- ti . .
, e
k !
t V- 7 - ,. . ' , T . - .• . . -, " - .IV , - h -
A• ".0A.A-_.-•:
..., .....7/... _ • , .... ":04.:11r.es. 7:121. ...c. r, .1-4:77._ ,
.. N • A._ . .1.i;; '-...;%-y.4-. -ri 1111V' • -.,
' 1.. • '4„ . ILI.
. -,'.= '!t'l-,04- '' , •,._,''' - - lk A : - ' . •
----/- . •di, , ""....
.-T '..."2" ' r'llillikl* ..,, _ W' -•4 , j... _ ,_. -...
%. •A„Nis-vir . .. - ...... A .....- irt*... .4. „ - • . • -.. "4 ..2_ _. •Pi .q4N pi dk .7 --10 r --,- Trof....:, 1 - . iv._ . ir.- . : . .4 ....,,, . -,..,....,.... to:. .
.1 ..
." 1,4dir• •-••••....,.. c,,,...- . 1 . ., 0 ... - .r.,,--_•-.,;04.. A- k. .. z..• . - . .
1,1,...Airr.... •kip\i, iii.i,\. _Aillk.# .,.4.11 7-tAl q 4144 •-- 0- , ,..• • i AN:a::.../.11:0
it 4
• .1....-- '- - . 'It.-'..i.. '• ...'..
. ._
. __ ... ..
s. - - . - 'Min••.- _- • -...‘ .. . -... •- . II' . 1" .011*....--'--• , ..647. ..-r.L ...., .
_...h. ..- ._ .-
-,rq - .• illismr-i 1...
I Irki# ...or 1111 4... -.'. -,....• , . .. _.'",..1... _. • ..---, :..4. 2: i.,.........
.-4..1
. ...., 1 ..41 1r A.• ` . "'W.- •C
,.-4110eP '
ik-- grialliPliii*ir ':.:NINW-' \Irk' ...:J. q:--•-krioh,-AK \gig 1.‘i,.
, ! • .
, ...----- ,:•.• .• •-_. t,. 444.11,404„.... .
•
1........--- 'Ir. .-A • t • i - •01--7,- ' .A....
, 4:14k
--.. _• \Isia f' '',... .- / --_-_-.; -
18.1... 41 id
is‘:7!.."-:-. ^"• .1-.17-'1 ' A ' .i-- . • - ' -, Ailk ma. ."•= -...m•r__ .. A-. Iiilik * - '1- - _ . ..1;t.--4P. ..*O*L• via7 .-- "'- ifr!- ": . ,
��._ ^f t f.Lam."'.--..�y,r "'�.�. ��.w - - - S- ,_j/IP
•
tee- 'y`ru,_ - .sti - .'�� �-t• i— Y - ��_- N •* _ • 1:}f {r _ `� .' a. _ .
'i i. ..-'4:0•14 7 '',.' --, '•:, ..r
df.Y -,s -,� i �` Jam . �",.
•
_ _ _ - '". .,."`''' - _...w- .- — _ �,s-4,_y -_ - � - - — rF•t- ,ems„ ,7 z.-�j
I.
_ -• f
VA:
� __:� _ �,•- _ • - f - _ter ./' i' r".
ki
•
a _._ a ,—i�r."+V a.- -~ � "�- •:�.0- - f 1•' I `tip- �� i'
.'" • f F T- r _� -A
•
` },
lik'L
t- .- , ~ ��_ Tom' [ f{ ✓t4 ` ' ?~
it
fs, , ,... ,„,, . . ...,.......„. . . ,„..., ......„_,.
..,,,: _...„, 1„,..... _ ,_.. .., . ...,..... .,..,..... . .. ...... . . _:_, ._, _.,... ...,...-_-, --___ ....,:._ .
��3 . r� �� {f _ [ —,s' �c ^ Z " -.�f t :: + .w. .' " ;L#. + '� ,lam � wr��/e.�. h
- -. i it f � nc'-•
tom. � _tea` x__�..' . 1:1_ - ' -It __y!.. _ ~'� i j= ( - .�+ • f - _
•
•- :3H.1 ..,..
vr
•
r+ ' "- f*si r - '' _ .,"e r. { i � � i +�
r
.# _.: yc1 'ri'+' � � . _ r y t :1 *` '~ At - •-_ T.
y7� 5 =:r' ors e.e Y _ # �; _ •
"► �
� '_ A �✓ ,r f ates *•'+�:..
`e. GIJ12Jd up;Jo Ali i •f. _ , .J x Y �ti. 4�' i7`: �:
i��•„•`w . ! r` ;cll.
rMi> ` .r - r4 ti� ,.5 ?',_ t..q► w'' of.'
. W.; . 5 I 0 Ur 83j ' •.,
sr
•
idea buit.1uei - pan�aaa :o. ,. .� z. T =_
_ .�"fir- _ _ r ).,}' I. 0 �` .V ';- t. \9
Lill : Eov,e.eSec
ge4„, if
, W c,ll i
__ _.� - Air
fit' ' - 10
--.. R,0 1( s 0 0.
-- 5,1 .pe cic e, o
k f
El- ` iin
0 x 3' i�SiLK3 ' N� WI..O. '
0 1 13
'te /RY GUI' -x 3'4k ,
IN 0 .
Nummili _ - { _ `_
___,..t.
-' Ai. r,v- &c 55 i)-- S 1 'trb5 f
Received - Planning Dept _ _1
FEB 1Y2019 Q_\
City of Eden Prairie
\C'e'ru
\\muse
-Qc$44\ Gec- WaA\ 1
- Remove
5 urn ac
—Easkecn e&ec1 CecQe6r
{
keee �
.- A\\ '1;rees
Y'r1e.ocCeat W 14-1-\
ry�,
CJ-N K c;6bc14)
Reoeived - Planning Dept
FEB 11 2019
City of Eden Prairie
Over' .15,-C-oco
VUa�ec-
I Ho Dil ' Dil (sea Ruh` (Agf) Mot: i Sea Ruh)
Coc G 1 Pho D ; NYP Q — Dil Rha
Yp Acr Dil) (Dil 'Agf Mot; Sor Scs Ms'' (Aga Rha Sor 1 (sa,
H B j `
AS-VW( ') ) �/ (Dil 'A5s1 'Aqd Vey 'Pap ISa) 'Son Rha rev Pap' !
Nt, ' 1 PO(x3) Ho B
Rha HypB( ) 5csl �`sor` nar Dil ;hoc? EN) A Mof iZ1a) Baa 1
Rha / y A ) Mof. of l Tho G
Hyp _ Boat I EN1 Sc Ruh) Ass( Aqo'
Rha (Agf' Mot) `Ho t�'�- Ass' Aqo Dil', Dil
R 'Ass) tAgc i Acr �•- S W(x4) i5cs) f Son (Agf! Mof% Sort 3 So 1Scs1 ,•
.sor,
\- rPss) !A o
W.) q Dil Vev` Pap hoc i EN1
tSal (Sor Br(tl,x3 I Pine Boc) IEtv'1 ! T) h0G
scs) .sot Zia) Bae'1 1. I Rh
Ho Dil
Boc !61V ' `Cos R) \-
I �HO-;Chg Son(x 5) Pho D')) (sc Ruh)
\, J
?scs huh) Ho CHo B. ,white` (>, / `Sor (Scs) Cos R (cos R i�Rha
"Pine l •
,Sort (Scs {� �� ' / / ] Vev'7 •Pap' IPip ) (Son x 3
Puo x5 AImk3`)1/;lfff/11(�1 �ndv ✓ f � 1 \vv
evi (Pap1 f., • ,� (�Agt) w1oi7 ,i/ / Rha -.
I i Zia Baa 1 /
Angx '-es-ph { I Hay //I!J /l l
fzia) Aaa) - (>S5) �� ( Trb r , 'nss} lAgp
.r'; .Ecp,` Son(x 5) rSea iSor: (Ag1 Mot, (Sc' 3 Ruh,
Rha
to r ,_.. r ' ' i"' EC' Trb Boc) (Ely 'Ass'' Aqc \eng Sort �Scs1 ABf, Mofi
�' Mof
Rha
Assl d 1
` i=Sci Ruh) (Sa Ruhl Scsi i So! - Papl "Ms'
rAq
Scs, ISor _ Sor (Scs Asi1 'Sos Run! Sor (sot hoot 'EV) ,Angp
Pa P Trb
Ang evl o'
AS , (Zia', Baal /Sal (Son
Roc) (EN) Veal {Pail --,� Sor) !Scs) Vev1 ?Pap` Scs Ruh) Roc) IEN)
(Zia) Baal f'es Ho Asi Vev) reap: ZIa1 Baa`.,Hay U
5ph(x5) __ 'y faV1x4 Ang x5 ) Sori iScs)
Th0 G o5 R f `ZIa1 Baal (Scs (luhl
y . Juh (luh B 4evS (pap'
Alm.3 r ����� /����� �/ �� sor1 (Sal
./� /,•Os Tsc ( \ (Agfl Nlof�r- / /l_r !l��,/ �!� ! IZial Baa)
os R 11` on/( � Baa {Assl Ago J}�h B' Juh B Juh B �Angi) Mof Vey) /Pap'
(rr '',Fly A / Dil /� )
I 1 1./ I T i. 6,7)p- {Zia) Baa)
Rha )_,_.ri '/!'' f5cst sor) Dil Dil peam� 'Ass; /Aqa
Rha Hy hoc) ;EN` Sc, Ruh) , - Dil� Sal (sor Rha.
kRha : (Agf, Mott 1,Chg i e) `—�'Amh sort (scat Dil
Rha sc.: Ruhl Sa Ruh) hoc Dept
Assl Aqc { t . yea) (pap` 1 1 (E1v1e1`1®_1 *tanning V
Asn P k; Ruh SSort (Scs) sor) (Scs" Agf Mof (xi Ruh) R Y Q
Rha (Scs; sor=( I (Zia) Baa) Rhaf
%Vev ''Ruh\ Vev, (Pa
p' VW/1 (pap `As' 'Ag` sor+ !Sol
hoc) sEN1 �uh). - FEB 1 2019
(Zia) Baa)'Sa, Ruh) (Zla� Baal (Scs l !Sot Vey (Pap"
`. _ - Sor j'—(Sea .--m.. Boo) r ENl !Zia S (!aa a
Dil (AO) Mof_ ' 1 `ECp Lip • Asn AR1 Met Vev) (pap` ha,` ram) ivtof, (S i huh) �^ ) Mots
'\..: 'Assj rA c SPh(x 3). Ass'; lAgc 1 Ass) (Aq� City of den. Prairie
9 r
Ecpi Zlal Baa •Ass (A if Sor 1 /Sol
Oak) Dil ±sal (sot •i Lip rscs) 1sor. (so) (sor, t,-oak
/// Di) I _ Lip Rha iScs1 'Sor Vevl `pap` -- oak ;
,Boc (EN) ' Asn Bocl !6Nl Rha - ( Boc) Eta
`'� R h Rha / Boc (Elv'• (Zia) Raa,iophorn
l.
Dil j Dil! Baa ;Vey
Assx3 -
beam
Rha Rhal Oak
(Pgf Mofi Agf) Mof, r p ) Agf; Mof !Sc3 Ruh) (' [Scs Ruhr
O
Ru Ho ho' DII''
'Assl 'A9t 'Ass) fAg•c RUh, beam, 1 '� 'Assl iAgd Sor', (Scs', - Dil Sor) Scs Y`
Scs) Sor, Scs) sor', �� Chg Rha (Rha Rha 'Scs, (sor`", Veal (paP` Dil ; DII Dil
Vey) Pap)
J ) n
oak Boc) +ENS As P j, lZla) Baa (ZIa, Baa}
Bod I'm ` Bocl ;ENI
Ang r Ecp Syn Pay Agf Syn Ecp AngAgf Pay 1 g 1 Ecp ' Ang `Agf I Syn 1 Chg 1 Ecp I Ang (Ben
Pots _ 4---r----.1- r -1 r , 1 f f- • , 1 - ,
T Ery Los Asi Phv — Son T EcpT Scs Loc Asi ErY Phv Vef Scs Lip TTEry 1 Son 1 cosYl Agf
Scs ,—_r1__-� 1T I r I�__ ` = �— osY%
ev_ _Chg f___
Eup s Sip ' Lip 1Eum cs Trb 1 Vef Lip Eum Son Asi + Sip ` Eup Iry Trb Scs
' f Phv Pav Son Iry Loc Tr[ ost
1 Phv ,' Ery , Scs , Son Ang , Los Veh , Loc Son . Vey Phv ; Eum ,`- Qp1;
I 1T ) 1Ec 1 a ) 1 Vev f 1 r I 1 I I;A.':O tT,
Iry Asi Ang Spp Ecp Syn • Pay Syn Agf Chg Spp Pav Scs Syn Ang Son Li Pay
- I -1— -i---- L _ I- 1 _I )- _ - _ ..t _ L ---)---I ( P
Common name Genus species Abbrev_ number of locations total plants
Anise Hyssop Agastache foenicuturn Agf 5 20
Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii Ang 7 28
Swamp milkweed AscSepias incarnate Asi 5 20
Pink turtlebead Cirelone glabra Chg 5 20
Purple coneflower Echinacee purporea Ecp 6 24
Rattlesnake master l=ryngium yuccifoNurn Ery 4 16
Boneset Etrpa1orlum perfaliaturn Eup 3 12
Joe-Pye weed Eupatoriurn macvlatum E im 3 12
Blue flag Iris iris versicoior Iry 3 12
Prairie Blazing star Liatris pycnostachya Lip 4 16
Blue cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalls Lac 3 12
Perennials Red cardinal flower Lobeiio siphilitica Las 2 8
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Pay 7 28
Obedient plant Pirysostegia vlrginiana Phv 5 20
Little Bluestem Schyzachrium scoparium Scs 7 28
Cup plant Silphiurn perfolalton Sip 2 8
Indian Grass Sorghastrurrr nutans Son 6 24
Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinate Spp 2 8
New England Aster Syrrrphyotrlchurn novae-angiiae Syn 6 24
Purple spiderwort Tradescant;e bracteata Trb 3 12
Blue vervain Verbena hastate Veh 2 8
Ironweed Vernonia fasciculata Vef 2 8
Culver's root Veronicastrwn virginicum Vev 3 12
River birch Betula nigra Ben 1 4
Trees and shrubs Red Osier dogwood Corpus sericea Cos R 2 8 Received - Planning Dept
Yellow stem dogwood Corpus sericea Cos Y 2 8
Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Pot 1 4
FEB I12019
RAIN GARDEN City of Eden Prairie
Common name GernIs species Abbrev Total Plants
Giant anise hyssop Agastache faeniarhim Agf 35
Columbine Aquilegio caoarlensfs Aqc 35
Common milkweed Ascfepfns sprlaca Ass 35
Wild blue indigo Raptisia custralls Baia 35
Side-oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Boc 35
Purple prairie clover Dairen. wurpurerr Dap 35
Wild rye Eiyrmus virginicus Ely 35
I3eebalm Monarda flstufoso Ivlof 35
Black eyed susan Fiudbeckfa hirtr au 35
Little bluestem 5chyrachryium scopariurrr Scs 105
Goldenrod Solidago rigfdia Sor 35
Culver's root Veronicostrum vlrginicurn Vev 35
Golden alexander Aria ourea Zia 35
PRAIRIE PLANTINGS
Received -• Planning Dept
FEB 1 1 2C19
City of Eden Prairie
Lungwort PuImorraria officinalis n Puo 7
Aromatic sumac Riws arornatica y Rha 28
Mack eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta y Ruh 2
Indian Grass Sorgiraslrurrr rrotans y Son 18
Prairie dropseed Sporoborus iretaro1opis y Sph 1'1
Gold arborvitae Thoja occidental's y Tho G 3
Purpie spiderwort Tradescantia bracteata y Tcb 3
Dwarf hemlock Tsuga canadensis "Moon frost"or similar y Tao 1
Culver's root Veror!icastruro virgirricurn y Vev 1
FENCE GARDEN
Received Planning Dept
FEB 1 1 2019
City of Eden Prairie
Common name Genus species Native? (y or n) Abbrev. Total plants
Black eyed susan Rudbeckia hirta y Ruh 3
Wild blue indigo Baptisia ausfratis y Baa 1
Prairie Blazing star Liafris pycnostachya y Lip 3
Purple eoneflower Echinacea purpurea y Ecp 2
Culver's root Veronicastrnm virginicutn y Vev 1
Pink turtlehead Chelone glabra y Chg 1
Aster Aster novae-angliae y Asn 2
Indian Grass Sorghastrum nutans y Son 2
Wild ginger Asafurrm canadense y Asc 3
MIDDLE GARDEN
Received . Planning Dept
FEB 1 1 201
City of Eden Prairie
Project Schedule
Phase 1:
- Create access to project by removing current fence and boulder wall.
- Remove all approved trees and overgrowth.
- Install approved vegetation,mulch,and stone stairs in sections from Lakeshore to top of hill.
o Install vegetation, mulch and stone stairs; install first section of silt fence.
o Install vegetation, mulch and stone stairs; install second section of silt fence.
o Install vegetation, mulch and stone stairs; install first section of bio logs.
o Install vegetation, mulch and stone stairs; install second section of bio logs.
o Install vegetation, mulch and stone stairs; install third section of bio logs.
- All plants will be watered once a day by hand for the duration of the project. Upon completion;
watering will be turned over to the home owner with instructions to water each plant by hand
once a day until plants take root growth.
Phase 2:
- Remove current retaining wall.
- Install approved retaining wall.
Reoeived - Planning Dept
FEB 11 2019
City of Eden Prairie
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District PERMIT 2018 - 059
18681 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Tel: (952)687-1348 Expiration Date 9/1212019
Pursuant to the Rules of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District policies,regulations and criteria,and based upon the
statements and information contained in the permit application, letter, maps,and plans submitted by the applicant and other
supporting data,all of which are made part hereof by reference, permission is hereby granted to the applicant named below to
conduct the activity described below;
1.Applicant Information
Property Owner Business
Dave Fabry
Name: Name:
Mailing Address: 15365 Mason Pointe City: Eden Prairie State; MN Zip: 55347
Email Address: lave fabrviestarkev.com Phone: 507-269-7663 Fax:
Schneider!-awn N Landscape: ATTN
ftepresentative. Jake Schneider Phone; 952-452-4828 Fax:
Email Address: Jake.schneider727@Amaii.corn
2,Project Information
Name: 15363 Mason Pointe Landscaping PIa: 2111622210021
_Address: 15365 Mason Pointe
City: Eden Prairie , State: MN Zip: 55347
Description: Installation of stone stairways and six retaining walls with one over 4 feet in height.
Date of RPBCWD Approved Plans and Specifications: Sept.5, 2018
3.Permit Authorized
• Floodplain Management tJ Waterbody Crossings
❑ Erosion&Sediment Control 17 Appropriation of Public Waters
❑ Wetland and Creek Buffers 0 Appropriation of Groundwater
❑ Dredging and Sediment Removal D Stormwater Management
❑ shoreline/Streambank Stabilization
This Permit tis granted subject to the following General Requirements:
1. The RPBCWD Administrator shall be notified at least three days prior to commencement of work.
2. Construction shall be consistent with the plans and specifications approved by the District as a part of the permitting
process,The date of the approved plans and specifications is fisted on the permit.
Authorized Signature: Title: Date;
Administrator October 3,2018
32),;1/4" ,,,„
Received _, Panning Dept
FEB 1 1 2019
City of Eden Prairie
j`T
08:28:14 F:\SUR\60064\149\80064149 SURVEY COMPUTER 1 IGEORGE S) • •
. r URVEY FOR: ROBERT MASON HOMES
r60064149 506/69
/ Tc (...
` / \ I SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
\\
p0 ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
\ �
I \ i J •y _ _ SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
` \ /\\ / I V' 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1
F \ / / I MINNETONKA, MN 55305
xys'T1/4,C v / ��1 0 \ I (612) 546-7601 FAX:546-9065
0 .0-,te, •co ,... „ c-,V, T„ }
U s
/ 14•0 O o A NOTICE `l.
•
/ / oo 41. / Q guffaw shall field verify elevation and 06 l
Z.N• / \ l �A• � kO� �s//88; / location, of s aver and Wei.li• services
`�
\/� ram\ %°' Oak 6' S 3 peso; t:. .iig ng footings. Builder \sio.,, ..,�'r.
•
' ��: ���III assur s ail responsibility fog problems ' € ` ,-�
�� ? �BM SPIKE / J �•9� �8 �S l �" �{; ,
��\\ xeer y ` i(1I(ifle)d in faikwe to du sa.4-6 t.'" � "r'
•
IC
ra8's y.0
co--L.:, J �. 3-i°1-`�7 'IA. 9 )C
EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE ,�6J*p,9 / A / \ 1 J 5`� '�
—� `\ '�i Fiy 7" O t , o SURMOUNTABLE CURB • ���Z
�y v r8B T� 'Qi(,A O M
ci
•
•
�� � 2s r8 ��^' a� �99?� �� aaa�z +�8� ' DESCRIPTION:
e r\cow �2o\as Se, `�' ry4,ao _m+a\\`5 �61_•� ' / I \� Lot 12, Block 3, BOULDER POINTE
�`:� 1.
•\ • A_��2�6 0 9a FL zo°-• / �/ \ BENCHMARK:
� .)
�� �'000 `�oo?y956�o aP`Zo°� �o �h \\ Top of spikein 6 Oak as shown
oG \\A\\\\-\\'
\ ,9� sFoyoti ��Z° 09% 1�/ 6 6��` Elevation = 882.17 (NGVD1929)\\ tGsF / 3' �sa,z�LGENERALNOTES:\\ / /?9 /�' \ xa110�25\ ,�!� l?2s�c ,ti ,,. �/ 1 . • — Denotes iron monument. •
< +. 'Q,�� .,a�M+ / • 2. x890.0 — Denotes existing spot elevation.
• / ,�. \q.,,:
•�ss�+ �soo `1 1 3. x(890.0) — Denotes proposed spot elevation.
a , • `�A\ sr\69 h �\
a / Or \ sr.2+ 6 ,� 1y / \ 4.�— — Denotes direction of surface drainage.
'�.� '°2+ I r 1 -r \, ,, \ 'O�1�OFp�.'`� /°i // 5. Proposed garage floor elevation= 881 .50
`-� / ' L - � I I �/ I • <2\� / / 6. Proposed basement floor elevation= 873.17 •
\ 'o / / 7. Proposed top .of foundation elevation= 882.17
/435' \\ / ./ 8. Proposed house is a walkout.
• / '5 \ % / \s / \
ONCE FOOTINGS ARP POURED ALI
°'QO \ ,\ 5' �— SURVEY LINE .�0��// �\� GSF r ` . . : 1 ,,' i , .� �+s % i t i.
A, N sy \ / . V �,5c �y l._
,' / Received Planning Dept , .„ , , i.s ,i "= _, 1 ; �.1
A 9,Q� \ O .� n _ �,Ir .
//5,, sj r.
•
4 \\ AFC \\ ///
/� (�`F( \\°'�o A \ / / City of Eden Prairie
l O 0,, \ '17 �\/ I hereby certify that this survey was
prepared under my supervision and that
"pFQ \ This drawing has beep checked and I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the
N �8t reviewed this 2O-rn dayof
? laws of th State of Minnesota.
°°� N\ / �� � � •
FebrUa,rn , 1st , / ,, aa �� 1nn \\
Gq,r _�, / / \` 9� 30 0 30 60 90 • byG`1,1tiQ IQLS - \` �11N"C L �
.• \�/
chard J. Williams, Jr.l, .
•
]]]/\ Scale in Feet Date: 18 FEB 1997 License Na. 19840
PROJECT PROFILE - MARCH 25, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 25, 2019
1. VARIANCE# 2019-01 by Schneider's Lawn and Landscape (STEVE)
Location: 15363 Mason's Pointe
Contact: Jake Schneider, 952-452-4828
Request to:
• Permit a retaining wall and land alteration 82 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level from Red
Rock Lake. City Code requires a 100 foot setback.
• Permit land alteration and vegetation alterations within the shore impact zone.
Application Info Planning Commission _ City Council _
Date Submitted 02/11/19 Notice to Paper Date 03/07/19 Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 02/28/19 Resident Notice Date 03/08/19 Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline 06/11/19 Meeting Date 03/25/19 1st Meeting Date N/A
2nd Meeting Date N/A
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 2, 2019
1. BEVERLY HILL (2019-01)by Great Oaks 2nd, LLC (ANGIE)
Proposal for a 17 lot single-family subdivision.
Location: 9800 Eden Prairie Rd & 16540 Beverly Dr.
Contact: Mark Gergen, 612-414-7143
Request for:
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into seventeen lots and two outlots on 6.86 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 01/22/19 Notice to Paper Date 02/21/19 Notice to Paper Date 03/14/19
Date Complete 02/12/19 Resident Notice Date 02/22/19 Resident Notice Date 03/15/19
120 Day Deadline 06/12/19 Meeting Date 03/11/19 1st Meeting Date 04/02/19
Initial DRC review 01/24/19 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/19
1
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT APRIL 2, 2019
1. STABLE PATH (2018-25)by Wooddale Builders (BETH)
Proposal for 17 detached single-family homes.
Location: 9650 Stable Path.
Contact: Steve Schwieters, 952-345-0543
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.9 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.9 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 5.9 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one lot into seventeen lots and seven outlots on 5.9 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/06/18 Notice to Paper Date 01/10/19 Notice to Paper Date 01/31/19
Date Complete 12/07/18 Resident Notice Date 01/11/19 Resident Notice Date 02/01/19
120 Day Deadline 04/05/19 Meeting Date 01/28/19 lst Meeting Date 02/19/19
Initial DRC review 10/11/18 2nd Meeting Date 04/02/19
PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 8, 2019
1. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MN LLC (2019-04)by International School of MN LLC
(BETH)
Proposal for cafeteria and classroom addition and renovations.
Location: 6385 Beach Rd
Contact: T Mahr 952-918-1800
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 55 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 55 acres
• Site Plan Review on approximately 55 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 02/27/19 Notice to Paper Date 03/21/19 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/19
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 03/22/19 Resident Notice Date 00/00/19
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date 04/08/19 Pt Meeting Date 00/00/19
Initial DRC review 03/07/19 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/19
CONSERVATION COMMISSION - APRIL 9, 2019
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION - APRIL 15, 2019
2
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT APRIL16, 2019
1. SMITH VILLAGE (2018-12)by United Properties. (BETH)
Proposal for construction of 100 unit senior cooperative, 58 unit workforce apartment building and 6 custom
for-sale townhomes
Location: 16389 & 16397 Glory Lane
Contact: Mark Nelson, 952-820-8727
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Industrial and Church/Cemetery to Medium High Density
Residential on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.16 acres
• Zoning District Change from Pub and I-Gen to RM-2.5 on 7.16 acres
• Site Plan Review on 7.16 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into five lots and one outlot on 7.16 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 06/08/18 Notice to Paper Date 08/23/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/25/18
Date Complete 08/14/18 Resident Notice Date 08/24/18 Resident Notice Date 10/26/18
120 Day Deadline 04/21/19 Meeting Date 09/10/18 Pt Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 06/14/18 Continued to 10/08/18 2nd Meeting Date 04/02/19
IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED
1. RESEARCH RELATED TO FIREARM SALES (2018-13)by City of Eden Prairie (PLANNING
STAFF)
Research regulations relating to Firearm Sales
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request:
• To Research regulations relating to Firearm Sales
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 03/16/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 00/00/18 Pt Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 00/00/18
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
3
2. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23)by SW Metro Transit Commission
(JULIE)
Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres
• Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on
11.38 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/15 Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15
Date Complete 00/00/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15
120 Day Deadline 00/00/15 Meeting Date 12/07/15 1st Meeting Date 01/05/16
Initial DRC review 00/00/15 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/00
3. OAK POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PLAN (2018-21)AND VARIANCE# 2018-02 by
Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. (ANGIE)
Location: 13400 Staring Lake
Contact: Jay Pomeroy, 763-544-7129
Request for:
• Variance from Shoreland Code to allow impervious surface to exceed the City Code
requirement of 30%.
• Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 06/20/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date 00/00/18 1"Meeting Date N/A
Initial DRC review 07/12/18 2nd Meeting Date N/A
4
4. CASTLE RIDGE (2018-20)by Senior Housing Partners (JULIE)
Proposal for a mixed—use senior housing, market rate apartments, hotel and commercial/retail project.
Location: 615-635 Prairie Center Dr.
Contact: Jon Fletcher, 651-631-6120
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.75 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 19.75 acres
• Zoning District Review on 19.75 acres
• Site Plan Review on 6.94 acres
• Preliminary Plat of four lots into seven lots on 19.75 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/04/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 02/15/19 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline 06/14/19 Meeting Date 00/00/18 1"Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 10/11/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
5. ARBY'S (2019-02)by Arc Vision(ANGIE)
Proposal for a facade remodel and site improvements at existing location.
Location: 560 Prairie Center Dr
Contact: Tammy Korte, 314-415-2400
Request for:
• Site Plan Review on 1.15 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 02/06/19 Notice to Paper Date N/A Notice to Paper Date 00/00/19
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date 00/00/19
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 00/00/19
Initial DRC review 02/14/19 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/19
APROVED VARIANCES
TELECOMMUNICATION
5