Planning Commission - 06/16/1992 - Joint Meeting APPROVED MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUKE 16, 1992 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean
Harris, H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock
PLANNING CONEVIISSIONERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Karen Norman,
Jim Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad,
Mary Jane Wissner
COUNCIL AND PLANNING City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City
COMMISSION STAFF: Manager Craig W. Dawson, Director of Planning
Chris Enger, Senior Planner Michael D. Franzen
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. All members were present.
• H. DISCUSSION OF CITY'S CURRENT MISSION STATEMENT OR PHILOSOPHY
OF GROWTH
Planning Commission Chairman Sandstad stated that the Commission was looking for
Council direction regarding its role as the community matured. Commissioners listed
a variety of projects in which, with Council's permission, they would like to assume a
more pro-active role, including:
- Creation of greater housing diversity in the community,
- Development of Downtown Eden Prairie
- Protection of the Minnesota River Bluffs and River Valley
- Transportation, including circulation within the City
- Active use of open space in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
- Detailed study of remaining large land areas such as was done with the
Southwest Area,
- Purchasing parcels for various uses in the future
The Council and Commission discussed different methods for reaching these goals,
including offering incentives to developers for provision of more affordable housing
within a new development, land banking of parcels now in order to provide for a certain
land use in the future, and use of existing code provisions and potential code
iamendments.
Councilmembers concurred that the City should not compromise on issues of quality with
respect to incentives offered. Based on discussions with developers, the City's standards
were considered tough; however, it appeared developers did not mind tough regulations,
when it was clear City staff was willing to help them through the process, avoiding
confrontational situations. Enger was commended for his leadership in this area.
Discussion ensued regarding the changing needs of the City with respect to the function
of the Commission. The nature of the Commission was seen as in-transition between a
"development proposal review" group during the 1980s to an "overall study and planning
group" in the 1990s. Councilmembers expressed confidence in the Commissioners to
make recommendations in these areas which would be meaningful and important to Eden
Prairie's future. They were also gratified by the willingness of the Commission to take
on difficult issues and to assume a pro-active stance.
Councilmembers concurred that the Commission's proposal fit well within the Total
Quality Management program of City Staff being led by Jullie. It was suggested that
Staff assist the Commission in developing a process to forward concerns, proposals, and
studies to the Council on a regular basis. One suggestion was that the Planning
Commission begin a series of meetings with the other boards and commissions to review
the City's future. For example, the planning of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
and the preservation of the Minnesota River Bluff area would be items to be reviewed
jointly with the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission.
• Development of the Downtown Area was discussed in greater detail. Councilmembers
concurred that a major focus of the immediate future would be development of the area
between the Wal-mart store on the east and the CPT building on the west, bounding the
future Downtown Area. The consensus was that the development plans for this area
would be very important to the City in the immediate future.
Councilmembers commended the Commissioners for their work on behalf of the City and
thanked them for their interest in a proactive role in the City in the future.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.,
AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1992 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean
Harris, H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Karen Norman,
Hawkins, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Mary
Jane Wissner
COUNCIL AND PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City
Manager Craig W. Dawson, Director of Planning
Chris Enger, Senior Planner Michael D. Franzen,
and Council Recorder Kate Garwood
ROLL CALL
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. DISCUSSION OF CITY'S CURRENT MISSION STATEMENT OR
PHILOSOPHY OF GROWTH
M. ADJOURNMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Sandstad, Chairman Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Agenda for Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting
June 16, 1992 - 6:00 p.m.
In preparation for the Joint Meeting, the Planning Commission spent considerable time
discussing a list of potential discussion items ranging from specific issues e.g., cul-de-sac vs.
thru streets, to broad issues e.g., pro-active vs. reactive planning. The current Planning
Commission is aware that past Commissions and Councils have believed in a mission of balanced
growth with high standards and respect for preserving natural features. This mission should be
discussed to determine if it should be reaffirmed or changed. Since Eden Prairie is
approximately 60% developed, the Commission welcomes the opportunity to discuss what we
believe•to be the most important question facing the Planning Commission:
"What should the philosophy of growth or mission statement be for future development of the
remaining 40% of the land in the City?"
This philosophy or mission statement may be shaped by issues which include but are not limited
to the following:
• Role of the Planning Commission in the Development Review Process
• Housing Balance
• Preservation of Natural Features
• Development of a Downtown Area
• Providing for an Efficient Road System
• Development Standards
• Pro-Active vs. Reactive Planning
• Land-banking
cc: Planning Commission
City Planning Staff.
AP5MP
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE STRATEGIC PLAN
MISSION STATEMENT:
We. are committed to the growth of Eden Prairie as a city of unique character
where people can live, work, shop, and play, and where planning for the .future
and delivery of public services contributes to a high quality of life for all
and a strong sense of community based -.on Pride through Excellence.
140TTO:
PRIDE THROUGH EXCELLENCE
SUPPORTING GOAL STATEMENTS:
PARKS AND OPEN SPACES .
Goal : To have a well-planned, abundant system of parks and open spaces which
is safe and accessible by trails. •Natural amenities should be preserved: .
Outdoor uses should be diverse to appeal to the broadest range of people, .and
there should be on-going evaluation of the changing needs for acti-ve and
passive uses.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Goal : To plan, encourage and support, responsible, timely development which
integrates a . range of housing options, commercial/industrial land uses and
parks and open spaces.
"DOWNTOWN"
Goal : To develop a special downtown center that will provide an active,
bustling, central gathering point that is pedestrain friendly, accessible to
the entire community, and lend a small-town feeling and opportunity for
tradition.
TRANSPORTATION:
Goal: Develop an integrated transportation system embodying highways, transit-
(including buses, Rideshare, LRT), and trail systems, all providing internal
circulation and access to and from the City of Eden Prairie.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal : To continue to have Eden Prairie known as a safe place to live, work,
and play.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Goal : To ensure that essential and desired services are provided at an
acceptable cost which lead toward a high quality of life for all.
ESTABLISHED PRACTICES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND TIMING
1. Project Scheduling First Come - Most Complete - First Scheduled
2. Agenda Size Maximum of three (3) large new development projects,
fourth allowed if small, or routine, in nature.
Maximum of two (2) continued projects, totalling five (5)
to six (6) total projects on any Planning Commission, or
Council, agenda.
• 3. Agreement Scheduling No final plat will, be released until the Developer's.
g g P Pe
Agreement is signed and ready for adoption by the
Council.
Whenever possible, the timing from first to second reading
will be no more than 30 days (two Council meetings).
4. Staff Review As many issues as possible should be worked out before
any public meeting between Staff, Developer, and various
agencies.involved (i.e. Hennepin County Transportation,
DNR, etc.).
5. Neighborhood Meetings Encouraged whenever possible and should be held before
the Planning Commission review. City provides Developer
with the same mailing list as will be used for public
hearings.
6. Grading/Erosion Control PCA Erosion Control Manual to be used on all construction
projects.
. No grading permit issued without approved development
plan.
Early grading permit may be issued before 2nd
reading/execution of Developer's Agreement if all items .
are agreed to (i.e. Watershed District requirements, etc.)
But, Developer proceeds at own risk.
DESIGN CRITERIA - GENERAL
1. Quality Development Encourage quality development at all times
2. Development Costs Developer's not. charged for full cost of processing
development (Staff time, lists for public hearings, mailing
costs, etc.)
3. Comprehensive Plan Entire undeveloped community zoned Rural - Rezonings
evaluated according to the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Guide Plan Amendment Guide Plan Amendments must be justified - follow the
"Substantiation for Guide Plan Amendment" worksheet.
5. Zoning by Specific Plan Developer's Agreement for all new development,
considered part of zoning ordinance zoning property. •
6. Cul-De-Sacs No unnecessary cul-de-sacs are allowed. Exceptions are
based on topography, vegetation, or wetland protection.
Cul-de-sacs over 500 ft. in length are allowed only if other
alternatives are non-existent, or grade prevents.through-
street construction.
50 ft. radius on cul-de-sacs.
7.' Streets Collector and Minor Streets shall be in the locations as
shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Map.
Streets shall be aligned directly across from each other if
at all possible, or offset by at least 125 ft.
Streets shall be constructed to a 28 ft. width in residential
neighborhoods.
S. Sidewalks and Trails ' Collector Streets - Sidewalk on one side of the road and
bituminous trail on the other side.
Minor Collectors - Sidewalk on both sides of the road.
• Neighborhood Streets - Along one side of neighborhood
through-streets and along one side of long looped streets
and long cul-de-sacs.
9. Ponding NURP Pond standards required for Commercial projects
over five (5) acres and Residential projects over ten (10)
acres.
10. Natural Amenities Natural resources and amenities are to be preserved
whenever possible(lakes, streams, vegetation, steep slopes,
other natural topographic features).
11. Conservancy Easements Generally required over above natural features/amenities.
12. Minnesota River Bluffs Bluff areas must be protected. Erosion control, density,
aesthetics, drainage, etc., are considerations in review.
Projects in wooded areas to be reviewed to reduce
predicted tree loss to be less than 30%
13. Setbacks Front yard setbacks allowed at 25 ft. in residential,areas if
• trees are preserved.
14. Retaining Walls Use of keystone masonry materials strongly encouraged,
instead of timber.
15. Density Transfer Granted on case by case basis. Density transfers
sometimes allowed from environmentally sensitive areas
(creeks, flood plain, wooded areas) depending upon extent
to which transfer results in problems or results in
mitigation of problems.
16. Private Roads Generally discouraged; allowed with covenants for
maintenance in multiple residential and some
commercial/industrial areas. Allowed in single family
areas if area is environmentally sensitive, or more trees
would be preserved.
17. School Projects Consistency with Code requirements strongly encouraged.
18. Flying Cloud Airport Airport standards are less than Code requirements.
19. Safety Coordinate development design with safety of users and
residents in mind.
DESIGN CRITERIA - RESIDENTIAL
1. R1-9.5 R1=9.5 to be used in areas designated as Residential
Multiple in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Architectural Diversity Plan required for R1-9.5 (No two
substantially similar units shall be located adjacent, directly
across, or diagonally across from each other.
R1-9.5 to be reserved for modest-cost housing (FHA
limits)
2. Building Pads In more .expensive, wooded single family subdivision,
building pads are planned with a minimum 75 ft. depth in
order to predict likely tree loss.
3. Irrigation Strongly encouraged in Multiple Residential developments.
4. Lot Splits - Rural Allowed to be under ten(10) acres in size if hardship exists
and with land hold agreement for no further development
until sanitary sewer is available.
5. Flag Lots Generally unacceptable unless designed for the purpose of
protecting natural amenities. Usually one acre in size, or
greater.
6. Driveways Encouraged to be no greater than 12% slope for safety
purposes.
7. Residential Lot No residential lots shall be allowed to front on designated
Frontage Collector Streets.
DESIGN CRITERIA - CHURCHES
1. Exterior Materials Often granted waiver/variance for exterior materials
required (75% brick, glass, or better).
2. Location Churches frequently allowed as .transitional ;land uses
between residential .neighborhoods and busy roads, or
commercial areas.
3. Parking Unsurfaced, temporary parking lots sometimes allowed. •
DESIGN CRITERIA - COMMERCIAL
1. Lighting Down-cast luminars, at a maximum height of 20 ft.
adjacent to residential areas.
2. Traffic Study May be required - paid for by developer
3. Irrigation Strongly encouraged in commercial developments
4. Transition to Other Uses Distance, grade, landscape buffers, transitions, between
differing land uses.
5. Shopping Center Signs Allowed according to approved, comprehensive sign plan
for the property, including consistent location, size,, color,
letter style, lighting, etc.
6. Parking Lots Variances sometimes given for FAR and/or BAR if
adequate parking, or public amenity, or other mitigatioa,is
provided.
7. Large Parking Lots Lots over 200 spaces in size required to be broken up with
significant landscaped areas.
. 8. Outdoor Display/Storage Special screening required (brick, landscaping, b in
g).
for materials stored outside of structure, such as Aden
supplies and plants, automobiles for retail sale, etc.
.9. Canopies for Strip Malls Canopies to be extended across building fronts with design
opportunity for enclosure in the future.
10. Commercial Centers Support up to three commercial centers in the City (100 -
'200,000 sq. ft.)
11. Neighborhood Commercial Support up to ten neighborhood-scale commercial centers
(30 - 50,000 sq. ft.)
DESIGN CRITERIA - INDUSTRIAL
1. Office Use > 50% Industrial areas frequently given waiver to allow more than
50% office use if adequate parking is available.
2. Irrigation Strongly encouraged in industrial developments
3. Transition to Other Uses Distance, grade, landscape buffers, transitions, between
differing land uses.
4. Parking Lots Variances sometimes given. for FAR and/or BAR if
adequate parking, and public amenity, or other mitigation
is provided.
5. Large Parking Lots Lots over 200 spaces in size required to be broken up with
significant landscaped areas.
6. "High Tech" City will consider "Hi-Tech" uses in Office Guided areas
of Comprehensive Guide Plan if office. characteristics
designed into plan.
DESIGN CRITERIA MAJOR CENTER AREA
1. Residential Density Higher Residential Density allowed in MCA.
2. Taller Buildings Taller Buildings allowed in MCA.
3. Land Use Mix Land Use Mix encouraged in MCA.
4. Traffic Studies Traffic Studies Required in MCA if traffic estimate for use
exceed adopted NEEPA Study estimates.
.5. Interim Uses Interim Uses allowed in MCA, only, to allow transition
between existing residential uses and planned commercial
uses.
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES
1. Outside Storage Enforcement costs paid by Developer/Operator of use when
outside storage variances/waivers are granted by
Developer's Agreement (i.e., Frank's Nursery and Crafts).
2. Billboards Eliminate them.
3. Zoning Code Regulations Enforced on a complaint basis (wood piles, unlicensed
vehicles, etc.).
Blatant violations pursued by Staff without complaint.
Hazardous situations acted upon immediately.
Proceed to court if all other avenues fail and complainant
is willing to testify.
4. 2-Year Zoning Limit If no development has occurred for a period of tVW years
after granting of zoning, Council has option to rezone
property back to Rural.
HOUSING POLICIES
1. Variety Encourage variety of housing types and costs for different
living and working environments through innovative
architecture and land use mixes.
2. Manufactured Housing Allow manufactured housing.
3. Lower Development Costs Reduce fees and offer support of development costs(CDBG
Funds, TIF) low income and elderly housing.
4. - Elderly and Low Income Encourage housing for elderly and low income families.
• 5. Housing Projections Prepared. by Staff based on land use designations within
current Comprehensive Guide Plan - updated yearly.
6. HRA Use full authority of HRA to support development of low
income and elderly housing.
7. Housing Revenue Bonds Exchange access to housing revenue bonds for low income
and elderly*housing units within development projects.
8. Low/Mod. Income Housing Provide 1,338 units for low/moderate income housing by
1987 per Metro Council, 60% of which should be for
family units, 40% for elderly units.
9. Non-Subsidized Housing Attempt to provide lower cost, non-subsidized housing
through manufacatured housing and multiple family units.
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
1. Overall Goal Develop plan based on 80-100,000 population, with
commercial, industrial, and institutional uses which provide
high quality environment.
2. MUSA Line Development is allowed within the MUSA Line, based on
the availability of trunk utility systems.
•
i
ORDINANCES
1. No development plan.- no zoning granted. (Same as 2. below)
2. Zoning approved according to a specific plan. (Sec. 11.20, Subd. 3., C.) (Sem. 111.25,
Subd. 3., B.) (Sec. 11.30, Subd. 3., B.)
3. Entire undeveloped portion of the community zoned. Rural. Rezonings shal be in
accordance with the land use designations of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. (Seams.IL,0I)
4. Screening is required from adjacent, differing land uses and public roads fronni -'king
areas, loading areas, and outside storage. (Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3., 6., 4., k. and�,mad H.,
5., a.)
5. Outside display area is limited to 10% of the total building area. (Sec. 11.30, S dbd. 3.,
J., 2.)
• 6. Grand openings are allowed only once for each business. ( Sec. 11.70, Subd.. 3-, 6.)
7. Exterior materials for multiple residential, commercial, and office uses are required to
be 75% brick, glass, stone, or better materials. Textured concrete is allowed as an
exterior material in Industrial Districts.(Sec. 11.30, Subd. 3., K., 2.),
8. Cul-de-sac maximum length is 500 ft. (Sec. 12.30, Subd. 3., G.)
9. Developer are responsible for tree preservation,, restoration and replacement.(See. 11.03,
Subd. 3., G., 4. g & i, Seca 11.55, Subd. 5., A., 6., and C., 9.)
10. The amount and size of landscaping required for a development is proportional to the size
of the building. (Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3., G., 4., b., chart)
11. No off-site glare is allowed from lighting installed on the property. (Sec. 11.03, Subd,
4., F.)
12. There shall be architectural compatibility of design, materials, signage, etc., among
neighboring uses. (Sec. 11.03, Subd. 6., E., 8.)
13. Public streets are required. (Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3., A.)
DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES
1. Project Amendments May be approved, depending on significance of
change, by:
a) City Staff
b) City Commission
c) City Council
d) New Public Hearing Process
2. Code Interpretation Controversy over Code interpretation may be resolved by:
a) City Staff/Attorney
b) Board of Appeals/Planning Commission
c) City Council
3. Code Enforcement Enforcement of Code violations handled:
a) On a complaint basis •
b) If a blatant violation
c) Immediately if a hazardous situation exists
d) Through the court•system if complainant is willing
to testify
4. Developer Agreement Between 1st and 2nd reading of ordinance rezoning
Rezoning 2nd Reading property, timing is 30 days (two Council meetings) to allow
.for drafting, distribution, -review, and signature of
Developer's Agreement.
No 2nd reading of ordinance rezoning property is allowed
without a signed Developer's Agreement.
5. -Streets City streets shall be 28 ft. in width.
Curb and gutter shall be constructed along all streets.
6. Landscaping and A mix of.coniferous and deciduous trees is encouraged in
Tree Replacement tree replacement plans and landscape plans.
Replacement/plantings requirements for tree replacement
and proportionate landscaping are based on the most liberal
interpretation by City.
Financial securities provided for landscaping and tree
replacement are reduced proportionate to the amount of
plant materials installed and living for a period of one year.
Planting plans - Available tree stock may differ from that
shown on planting plan during review process. Developers
are allowed to substitute similar species of trees without
penalty or additional review.
7. Parking Lots Parking lot medians under ten (10) ft. wide should be
widened or consolidated with others to allow for
landscaping in the medians.
All parking lots shall-be constructed with curb and gutter.
Proof of parking allowed - Developer may show that space
is available on the parcel for the construction of required
parking, but may not be required to actually construct any
more parking than required by the current number of
employees.
Corner lots -parking in the "second" front yard allowed in
1/2 of front yard setback. More major street shall have the
full front yard setback.
Fast-food restaurants encouraged to provide .l parking
space for each 1.69 seats in restaurant.
8. Trash Enclosures Treatment, location, materials, etc., encouraged to be
handled in an architecturally compatible manner.
9. Application for See detailed procedures in "EDEN PRAIRIE
Development Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW"
10. Comprehensive Plan All amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are submitted
Amendments to the Metropolitan Council,.except:
a) Minor residential changes of less than 15 units.
b) Minor graphics changes (clarification of map).
c) Amendment to a previously approved designation
for the property. .
11. Building Permit One permit may be issued prior to recording of a final plat
Issuance for a parcel being platted.
12. Platting Required If request is made to split a lot, a plat will be required to
accomplish the lot split. Administrative splits possible at
discretion of City Engineer.
13: Hearing No otices Mailed to everyone in 500 ft., even though 300 ft., or less,
required by statute. Neighborhoods not split. Notices sent
for public hearings AND public meetings. Sent for
Planning Commission AND City Council meetings.
14. Special Studies As needed, special studies will be prepared for
development review, i.e. traffic studies, EAW, drainage
studies, etc.
15. Housing Programs Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program, Scattered
Site Housing . Program, MHFA Minnesota Cities
Participation Program (MCPP), and Reprogramming of
CDBG Funds, each have developed administrative
procedures, some modified to meet the special needs of
Eden Prairie.
BLUFFS EAST 12TH ADD IT ION - DEUELOPMENT REU IEW SCHEDULE
::>:>:::: ::::::::::;::::::>:::::::>:::>::::::.:
1992
Task'' Name
Feb
Mar Rpr Hag Jun .
Submit Hpplication Mar 19, 1992
Plans Mar 19, 1992
Written Materials Mar 13, 1992
Hpplicatiun Rpproved Mar 13, 1992
Staff Review Rpr 8, 1992
Staff Research Mar 27, 1992 r
Other Agency Input Mar 23, 1992
Staff Report Rpr B, 1992 C '
Planning Commission Meeting Rpr 13, 1992
PRNR Review
May 1, 1992 MEMMEW
Staff Review
Rpr 27, 1992
Staff Report
May 1, 1992
PRNR Meeting May 4, 1992
>` Council Review
May 27, 1992
Council Public Hearing May 5, 1992
PC/PRNR Follow-up
May 27, 1992
Board of Rppeals Cr Hd justments May 14, 1992
A.
Council Rpprovals May 27, 1992
Developer's Hgreement
May 27, 1992 � —
Final Plat
May 27, 1992
>. Council Meeting-Final Rpproval
,.;
<: :>::::>: ::>::::>::>:<:;::;:::>:::>:: :<:::>:::::>::::r::.:.>:.;>:.:::.:.;::.;:.::.:::.:.....::............:::::::::::::.:......................... Jun
Rctu®! hli�l� Pokiffif fu POW = 1kff 11 flltlli: Wlithatt
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCHEDULE SUBMISSION DERBLINE OF JUNE 0-12, 1992
1992
Task Name May Jun Jul Aug
e
.......... ............... .......................................... ....
f1 ...........
, 101
Submit pplication Jun 12 1992
Plans Jun 12, 1992 EE.3 Written Materials Jun.12, 1992 EH
f1pplication npproued Jun 12, 1992 A
Staff Beuiew Jul 9, 1992
Staff Research Jun 26, 1992
Other Hgencq Input Jun 22, 1992
Staff Report Jul 9, 1992
Planning Commission Meeting Jul 13, 1992 A
Hug 13, 1992 EMMMMMEEMMEHMMUM
EIIII Revieiu
Jul 31, 1992
Effill Published
EFIW Findings Rua 13, 1992
PflNR Reuieiv Jul 31, 1992
Staff Review Jul 27, 1992
Staff Report Jul 31, 1992
A
PRNR Meeting Rug 3, 1992
Council Review Rug 25, 1992
Council Public Hearing Rug 4, 1992 A
Pc/PnNR Follow-up Hug 25, 1992
Guide Plan Hmend-Metro Council Hug 25, 1992
A
Board of Rppeals re fidjustments Hug 13, 1992
Council ripprouals Hug 25, 11392 K3
Developer's Rgreement Rug 25, 1992
.. ...... ..
Final Plat Hug 25, 1992
Council Meeting-Final ripproval See 1 1992 A
..................... ............... ...
fictual Milestone SUBJECT TO EIIflN6E - NOT H FINIIL SCHEDULE
o A A