HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-09-2010MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of February 9, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
6. Discussion - Implementation of Staging Plan within 2010-2030
Comprehensive Plan
7. Call Special Concurrent Meeting with City Council for March 16,
2010 at 5:30 p.m.
8. City Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL March 2, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams
DATE: February 24, 2010
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for March 2, 2010 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Private Recreation Zoning District — staff believes that this ordinance is not essential for
the City's zoning ordinances to be consistent with the new Comp Plan. As a result, staff is
recommending that this ordinance be placed lower in the priority list.
B) Future Commercial Holding District — The City Council adopted the ordinance at the
February 16 meeting.
C) Open Space Development/Conservation Design Regulations — the Council adopted a
resolution on January 5 supporting a grant application to assist with the cost of these
regulations. Staff has contacted firms for a cost estimate and has applied for the grant. Staff
is planning to recommend a consultant to assist with the process at the March 2 meeting to
begin the process, and to potentially hold a concurrent meeting with the Planning
Commission on March 16 to provide broad policy direction on the ordinance.
D) Staging Point System — staff plans to discuss the "point system" related to the Staging Plan
with the Planning Commission at their March 9 meeting. This discussion will help staff
Land Use Application Reviews
A) OSI Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP, Rezoning — NW corner of Arrowhead and Hwy 55 —
Open Systems International (OSI) has applied to subdivide a 20 -acre portion of the property
and also for review of the Site Plan for their 92,000 square foot building. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing on February 9 and recommended approval. The
application is scheduled for City Council review on March 2.
B) Bryson/LeMond Lot Line Rearrangement — 3000 and 3082 Willow Drive — the applicants
have applied to shift the lot line between their properties. The application is incomplete for
review and staff awaits plans from the property owners' surveyor.
C) Bradley Leawood 3rd Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the applicant has applied to split
the existing lot into two parcels. Staff is reviewing the application for completeness and it
may be scheduled for a Public Hearing at the April Planning Commission meeting.
D) Strand Lot Combination and Easement Vacation — 1985 Hamel Road — the applicant has
requested a lot combination in order to attach an adjacent 30 -foot Outlot onto their lot. The
request is also to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement which would run through
the interior of the new lot if the parcels are combined. Staff is reviewing the application for
completeness and it may be scheduled for review at a City Council meeting in March or
April.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 March 2, 2010
City Council Meeting
E) Enclave of Medina Concept Plan Review — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has applied for a
Concept Plan for a 195 -lot subdivision on the Holasek property. The concept is a
combination of 65 -foot wide and 78 -foot wide single family lots. The Planning
Commission held Public Hearing on the concept on February 9 and the City Council
reviewed the concept at the February 16 meeting. Staff will now close this project.
F) Three Rivers Near Wilderness CUP — The City Council adopted the resolution of approval
at the February 16 meeting and staff will close this project.
G) Tuckborough Farms Easement Vacation — 2830 Cabaline Trail — The City Council held a
Public Hearing on the request at the January 19 City Council meeting and adopted the
resolution vacating the easements. Staff has now finalized the vacation and staff will close
this project
H) Appeal of Administrative Decision — 2590 Keller Road — The City Council heard the
property owner's and contractor's appeal of the denial of a permit to construct a pair of
4'x4' monuments within the City right-of-way adjacent to 2590 Keller at the January 5
meeting and adopted a resolution ordering the removal of the improvements on February 3.
Staff will inspect the property on June 1 to verify removal.
I) Septic System Wetland Setback Variance — 1255 Medina Road —The City Council
approved the resolution at the January 5 Council meeting. Staff is working with the
applicant regarding the conditions of the approval.
J) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved resolutions for the lot combination,
CUP/Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and easement vacation. Staff is working with the
applicant to get all necessary documents recorded correctly.
K) Wrangler's Restaurant — 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions at the July 21
meeting. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding recording of the plat and
requirements for submitting building permits. The applicant has requested an additional
extension to file the plat, and staff has prepared a resolution granting another 6 months.
Additional Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan Update — The Metropolitan Council has approved the City's 2010-
2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff is formatting the "final version" of the Plan following City
Council approval. The City continues the process of updating ordinances necessary so that
the official controls are consistent with the Plan.
B) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal)
Staff sent the developer notice of their violations of the City Tree Preservation and
Shoreland Overlay District ordinances. The notice required the developer to provide a
remediation plan by the end of January. The developer has requested an extension to
provide a plan, and staff has extended the deadline until the end of February. If the property
owner does not follow through with an approved plan, staff will begin considering criminal
and/or civil remedies.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 March 2, 2010
City Council Meeting
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
Draft Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, Kent Williams, John Anderson,
Kathleen Martin, and Beth Nielsen.
Absent: Charles Nolan
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, City
Administrator Chad Adams, and Laurie Smith of Northwest Associated Consultants.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Weir presented the Council update.
4. Planning Department Report:
Finke updated the Commission on what they would be discussing at the March meeting.
5. Approval of January 12, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Martin to approve the January 12, 2010 minutes as written.
Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan)
6. Lennar — 3212 Hunter Drive (PIDs 12-118-23-43-0002 & 13-118-23-12-0001) — Concept
Plan Review related to a potential subdivision of 195 single family home sites on
approximately 111 gross acres (73.56 net acres) called "The Enclave of Medina"
Laurie Smith with Northwest Associated Consultants presented the application. She reviewed
land use guiding as it relates to the subject site. She provided an update of the Comprehensive
Plan changes that occurred in 2009, and the changes in density as a result of the Comprehensive
Plan change.
Low and Medium density were defined and an explanation of the MUSA line was also reviewed
as part of the proposed application. The Staging Plan Map of the MUSA line was also presented.
She noted the site is zoned PUD2, and PUD2 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed housing within the Concept Plan does not meet setbacks, and lot frontage
requirements are reduced. Staff suggests twin homes, townhomes, and/or row homes as part of
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
the project; otherwise a PUD should be applied for to consider the deviations from the code
rather than requesting variances.
She informed the Commission the property is two separate parcels and would need to be
combined. A general overview of the project was presented and staff pointed out shared
driveways and cul-de-sacs were not desirable. The proposed on -site amenities were also noted
such as a tot lot, community building, swimming pool, trails, and sidewalks on one side of the
roadway. Wetlands and trees were also reviewed. She informed the Commission that the
concept plan is fairly consistent with the comprehensive plan, with some modifications
necessary.
Staff suggested the Commission discuss: Land use zoning, access, sidewalk trail location and
design, impacts of existing wetlands, and removal of trees.
V. Reid asked how the Met Council would feel if the City made a good case that the project met
density standards. Smith responded by saying if the City feels the averaging of the density over
the two parcels was acceptable, the Metropolitan Council would more than likely be agreeable.
Carole Toohey, Land Development Manager of Lennar. She explained Lennar was a builder in
the Foxberry Farms and Wild Meadows Communities in Medina. She said 195 single family
homes with 3.05 units per acre were proposed. She said they are within the overall density
required, low end. She summarized the location of the parcel and described the two home lot
site sizes (65' and 78'). She explained the site characteristics; and due to on -site wetlands, it was
not possible to meet the minimum 90 foot wide lot requirement.
Variances are proposed for the side yard setbacks. In the area zoned low density they could not
achieve the 90 foot wide lot widths due to existing wetlands and site characteristics. The plan
also includes an area outside the MUSA line of six and one half acres and approximately 22
homes. This addition is due to a floodplain revision. They felt it made sense to add the area
south of the MUSA line, since otherwise it would leave an odd shape piece of land and no one to
maintain it. They felt it made sense to add this area to the project.
Toohey asked the Commission to provide direction on a secondary access point to the
development. She explained where the entrances are proposed and the right-of-way is shown
reduced in width to 50 feet to lessen hardcover. Sidewalks are proposed on one side of the street
to reduce hard cover. They did not show the 5 acres to the north since they are not purchasing
the land. She reviewed the amenities the community will provided, which included a club house
with a kitchen and party room. The club house would also include an outdoor pool. She
provided a very conceptual drawing of what their club houses typically look like, but said Lennar
is considering a new design and the actual final renderings were being worked out. She also
identified the locations of the proposed trails on -site. She said the landscaped entry islands
proposed would be maintained by the homeowners association. Screening along Hunter Drive
with berms and trees would also be installed to benefit both homeowners along the road and
drivers utilizing Hunter Drive. She said the maintenance of the berms is not yet determined;
whether is should be required of the individual lot owners or be incorporated as part of the
homeowners association. Sale prices of the smaller homes would range from the high
2
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
$300,000.00 to mid $400,000.00 (Landmark Designs). The sale price of the larger homes would
range between $400,000.00 to low $500,000.00 (American Heartland). Lennar is currently
revising the floor plans of each series and will have multiple choices for interior and exterior
designs.
She said they are proposing only single family homes since the townhome market is quite
saturated. The absorption rate is only two townhomes per month and they have over 87 percent
of the market share in the area and they feel it would be to the City's best interest to construct
single family homes. She said Lennar held a neighborhood meeting on January 28, 2010 at the
Medina Entertainment Center. She said they had both positive and negative feedback regarding
their proposal. She said the negative feedback was a concern; with them building all single
family homes throughout the entire project, and that the project does not have higher density
homes on the north end and low density homes on the southern end of the property.
She said the proposed single family home types are not entry level homes, but rather the average
homes are buyers purchasing their 3`d home. She noted the two markets that have dropped most
significantly have been townhomes and single family homes valued over $700,000.00. She said
they do not want to build something that would not sell. She said Lennar wants to build a
product that helps the local economy grow. She said they are proposing a product with a price
point that is not offered in Medina. She said they have already received phone calls from
potential buyers inquiring about their product possibly being offered in Medina, which is
typically unheard of at the concept plan phase.
Nielson asked Toohey to explain the traffic study. Toohey informed the Commission that a
traffic study was completed and would be submitted with the Preliminary Plat. She said the
traffic study shows an additional 100-150 vehicles in both the a.m. and p.m. rush hour time
periods. She said Hunter Drive would still be operating at a level A after developing the site as
proposed. Anderson asked about access and if Lennar had considered alternate access points.
Toohey said Lennar is looking for direction from the City for placement of access points for the
development.
Williams clarified the MUSA line location with Toohey and he asked what was recommended to
change. He asked for clarification of the existing MUSA line.
Toohey explained if a lot is to be served by the MUSA line, the entire lot is required to be part of
the plat, not just a portion. The original MUSA line was located along the FEMA line.
Martin asked Toohey to review on -site wetlands. Toohey explained the dark grey areas are
wetlands that exist and are not proposed to be changed. The light green areas are proposed to be
mitigated. Martin asked if the southern portion of the land area in grey was wetland and Toohey
confirmed that it was.
Anderson asked what percentage of the existing woods would be impacted. Toohey said an
arborist visited the site and found 46% of the trees were either diseased or dying. V. Reid asked
which trees/woods would be preserved as part of the project. Smith said as an exchange for
extending the MUSA line, staff suggested maybe saving the trees to the southeast.
3
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
R. Reid asked about the variety of home types. Toohey explained the different designs.
Williams asked about what the issue was with the NW section of the lot. Finke explained
research will need to be done on the Title. The people with interest in that portion of the
property will have to be made part of the process.
Williams asked for clarification of the Comanche Road location and if it was looked at as a third
alternative. Toohey said a large wetland is in the way, but they are in discussion with other
neighboring property owners in the area. Toohey clarified by stating that any land not shown on
the concept plan would not be part of the Holasek property.
Martin asked if berms would be maintained by an association. Toohey said details were not
resolved yet, but could be maintained by either an association or by individual lot owners.
Williams asked if it was really financially unviable to build townhomes. Toohey said Lennar is
still reviewing the viability of them, but the preliminary data shows they are not selling.
Williams said the more options provided may be good. Toohey said the amount of buyers are
less now in this economic market and the resale market in Otsego allows what would have been
townhome buyers to purchase single family homes, which means for the same money they get a
single detached home with a yard. She said there is a lot of competition in the market.
Toohey said the absorption rate is good with the type of single family homes they are proposing,
especially with the Wayzata school district.
V. Reid asked Toohey what the reason was behind the use of cul-de-sacs and shared driveways.
Toohey said she was not aware of shared driveways not being allowed and knew that cul-de-sacs
were discouraged, but Lennar frequently develops with cul-de-sacs and feels they work out quite
well.
Public Hearing opened at 7:57 p.m.
Michael Fine @ 550 Navajo Road West. He said he was a vocal participant during the
Comprehensive Plan process and the rezoning of the subject property. He said he bought his
home site in 2001 and was told by the City the subject parcel was to have a maximum of 45 lots.
Vital interest was to maintain what they were told and maintaining the rural feel. He felt the one
thing achieved was a clear and concise staging process plan that divided the property into thirds.
He said it was not for MUSA or floodplains. The staging plans were part of negotiations for
increased density from what they originally thought they would see develop on the subject
property. He said the color coding was intended to identify the densities on the site. He said the
proposed plan currently shows 25 homes south of old Navajo Road West, which was never part
of the original plan or part of any discussion. He further added the fact that the homes are
consistent on each end of the subject property is not consistent with what was originally talked
about. He acknowledged the majority of the discussions were prior to the market change and the
applicant is working on a fixed market as it is today, but felt there is no reason the commission
would need to approve the first project that is presented to them. He said the majority of the
4
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
discussions took place prior to the change in the financial market and said if it doesn't make
sense to build townhomes today, then why not wait until the market is ready.
Nielson asked Fine where he lives. Fine identified location on a map.
R. Reid explained the reason for the Concept Plan Review process and that it did not provide
final approval, but only direction to the applicant. Williams asked about the color coding or
rainbow of zoning. Fine said that he felt the fanning of it would never get past City Council and
he felt the commission needed to know the entire background of what discussions had occurred
in the past.
Frank Mignone @ 3316 Red Fox Drive. Said he's enjoyed the vacant field for over 30 years, but
doesn't own it and the land owners have the right to develop it. He feels there is a sense of
urgency to develop it. He said someone needs to pay for increased taxes and someone has to pay
for the Elm Creek Interceptor. He feels the City should provide compromise if it needs reduced
setbacks. He said the Holaseks have the right to develop. The project would give work to
people; and the Commission should consider the economy. He said for him the project is a good
deal.
David Netjes @ 500 Navajo Rd West. He said there are three pieces as he sees it being
reviewed. When he bought his house he was provided with e-mail documentation from the City
reassuring him that nothing would be developed south of the MUSA line and it is now proposed
to be shifted. He said he was told nothing would ever be rezoned south of the MUSA line. He
feels moving the MUSA line is significant. He feels traffic would be an issue if Hunter is not
four lanes wide. He asked the Commission to be proactive when looking at traffic. He said
phasing of the property with higher density to the north is important to maintain the character of
the community. He said the staging and phasing has a significant number of variances and they
are not consequential to the piece. He also asked if this is really the plan the City wants for this
site, or is it the plan Lennar wants. He asked the Commission to make sure the development is
consistent with the character of other homes in Medina. He appeals to the City to do the project
right and stick to the goals and philosophies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan that he feels are
being violated under the proposed application. Niesen asked if he was supportive of the land
develop. He said he was supportive of the land developing.
Jay Echtenkamp @ 75 Navajo Rd. East. He reviewed the Medina City Code that was still in
effect. He has heard a lot of history of what has been proposed on the property since 2003. He
suggests the Commission look at the past history of the zoning for the property and use it as a
guide. Williams clarified the new Comprehensive Plan process.
City Council Member Weir said she was on the taskforce for the Comprehensive Plan in 1990.
She said they didn't have the Elm Creek interceptor and the City was told to increase density to
slow up sprawl. They were told to make the pipe worthwhile to help serve it and that the
Metropolitan Council had given the City densities to obtain and promises were made in 1998.
Finke clarified the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and implications of zoning on the
property today. He said by this June or July the City would be required to rezone the site if a plan
was not brought before the City.
5
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Jim Driscoll @ 880 Navajo Road West. He said to fight the Metropolitan Council would be a
challenge. He further pointed out the City had made commitments to its citizens and now
increased density is being required by the Met Council, which the City must enforce. None the
less it is hard to deviate from the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that developing the parcel would
diminish values in the area. He suggested the proposed development provide adequate trees,
berms, and not two inch saplings planted.
Kirk Ogren @ 800 Navajo Road West. He said he moved to Medina 10 years ago and fell in
love with it. At that time the minimum lot size was three acres and he was told the City would
maintain its character. He said he was aware of parcel and has anticipated it to development, but
seeks to maintain the character and value of his property. He feels what's important is the proper
time and plan.
Connie Fourre' @ 2755 Hunter Drive. She has lived in Medina for 31 years at her current home.
She remembers when Tuckborough Farms developed. She feels strongly about the phasing plan
and raised concern of increased traffic. She said, she has no interest in subsidizing through
assessing for road improvements now or in the future.
Tom Dykhoff @ 3402 Elm Creek Drive. He said he looks directly east over the subject property.
He said this is the best proposal he's seen to date for the property. The Comprehensive Plan was
designed as a guideline and used to put guidelines against proposals such as this. He's
concerned with increased traffic, but relies on City staff for transportation reviews. Williams
asked about previous proposals on property. He said 400 trailer homes were once proposed. He
said he feels townhomes would be inconsistent. Nielson asked if he had any interest with
Lennar. Dykhoff said he does not, other than his daughter bought a house from Lennar a year
ago.
Dave Wessin @ 1125 Hamel Road. He said he moved out to Medina for the rural atmosphere.
At the time he moved to Hamel it was the hub of the area with grocery stores, feed mill..... So
as the City has grown he's seen things go away and now the rural atmosphere has gone away.
He said the site was proposed to have a trailer park at one point. He feels the proposed project is
a good project and if it is built, it will provide opportunity for more volunteer firefighters. Many
of the people living in Medina as long as he has are the firefighters and they need more. He said
he feels the Holaseks have the right to finally develop their property.
Neilson asked what the impact would be to the volunteer fire department. Finke commented that
the Hamel and Loretto Fire Department work together on coordination.
Toohey explained what is involved with a traffic study. She said an analyst sits from 7-9 a.m.
along Hunter Drive where entrances would be. The analyst then takes into consideration the
number of home sites and product type. A generally accepted mathematical equation is then
used to formulate what kind of traffic would be generated during the two rush hours of the day.
They look at existing conditions and utilize data formulated from studies. The studies have also
been reenacted to verify accuracy.
6
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Toohey said the elementary school would be Greenwood and the middle school would be Middle
School West. Concern was raised that drivers going to the schools would be taking a left turn
out of the development onto Hunter Drive, which would require cross over of lanes.
Toohey said the biggest benefit of the development is that it will bring more customers to the
commercial areas of Medina. She said one can't have economic growth if the City is not
growing in density.
A resident from the crowd asked if fire hydrants would be constructed as part of plan. Toohey
said yes.
R. Reid said since the application is a Concept Plan, the Commission needs to provide feedback
to the applicant. The Commission discussed the following:
Land Use: Nielsen and Anderson said they would like to stick with the Comprehensive Plan.
Williams said he doesn't think the project should extend the MUSA line location or accept
density that is lower.
Martin and V. Reid agreed with Williams. Martin said she felt the proposal is more preferable
than adding townhomes. R. Reid said she had concern with uniformity and would like to see the
graduated density and transitioning down to the rural residential. Stick to what the
comprehensive plans calls for.
Finke asked for consensus from the Commission on extending the MUSA line. Williams said
environmentally expanding the MUSA is understandable to him, but would have concern with
possibly setting precedence if the line was expanded. He doesn't recommend expanding unless a
really good reason is provided.
Access: V. Reid said she would like to see another access point into the development, but isn't
sure where. Martin does not have any particular concerns with access, but would rely on the
City's traffic engineer to guide him. Williams does have concerns. He said he drove around the
perimeter and asked if the Navajo Road owners would ever consider deeding access for the
proposed development. A resident within the neighborhood said never in a million years.
Anderson said he defers to City staff for traffic, but thinks an additional access point may need to
be considered to the north. Nielson asked the Commission if the concern was related to Fire
Department access with the development only providing two access points. Finke said he does
not know of any issues related to the Fire Department.
Sidewalk and Trail Design: No comments by the Commission
Cul-de-sacs: Williams suggested they should try and minimize variances. He said he is not open
to Variances unless the applicant has a very good reason and convenience to the developer is not
one of them. He suggested to otherwise utilizing the PUD process. Smith clarified the lots
needing variances were the lots within the cul-de-sacs, since they do not meet width
requirements.
7
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Zoning: Smith explained to the Commission that none of the homes are proposed to meet the
side yard setbacks.
Williams said he really would like to see Lennar bring in a project in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. R. Reid said she is uncomfortable with 195 identical houses. She said she
sees sameness with the proposed homes from top to bottom. She would like to see individual
neighborhoods within the development, which would break things up. She also asked Lennar to
think outside the cookie jar, and said Medina does not want to be compared to developments in
Plymouth or Maple Grove. She said she is looking for a more unique neighborhood. Martin said
she is satisfied with the variety of home styles proposed.
Public Hearing closed at 9:04 p.m.
7. Open Systems International (OSI) — Northwest corner of Arrowhead Drive and State
Highway 55 (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review,
and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an office building on a 19.1 acre
parcel
Finke presented the application explaining OSI currently has 250 employees and hopes to
expand the number in the future. He explained the series of requests of the application. He said
the property is at the corner of State Highway 55 and Arrowhead Drive. The overall parcel is 57
acres. The property is guided commercial and mixed use. The current zoning is Business Park
and RR-UR.
Finke explained the rezoning request is only applicable to the lot they are proposing to develop.
He said staff recommended Outlots B and C be zoned CH and Outlot A be rezoned to mixed use.
Finke reviewed the interpretation of the timeframe of the staging plan. He said staff
recommends approving of the staging option that allows the City to "review the request, issue
permits, but not allow the building to be occupied until 2011." He said if the Commission and
Council agree with staff's interpretation, then the rezoning will be considered consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Finke reviewed the preliminary plat. He said the overall site is 57 acres and the lot OSI is
purchasing to develop is 20 acres. He explained the Outlots would need to be replatted prior to
development. No streets proposed or row dedicated. Easements are dedicated over the OSI site.
The site meets all minimum requirements.
Finke said the Site Plan Review and CUP is for a 92,000 square foot building with the principal
use being office with electronic staging/labs. Two hundred fifty-three parking spaces are
proposed, which exceeds the City's requirements, but OSI feels is needed.
Finke explained a CUP is required for buildings exceeding 50,000 square feet in size. He said
the project is consistent with the site plan review requirements.
Finke said the applicant proposes to impact some wetlands. He said the impacts in the ditch are
almost impossible to avoid. He said the applicant does propose to mitigate on -site and staff
recommends working with the applicant to minimize wetland impacts on the north side of the
building. He said the applicant has provided wetland buffers around the wetlands and there are
floodplains on the property, but no impacts proposed. He said the applicant is proposing bio-
8
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
filtration areas in the parking lot, a pond west of the building, and are also considering rainwater
reclaim. He said the project will provide localized storm water treatment. Finke pointed out the
applicant is proposing 19 foot in depth parking stalls and 22 foot drive aisles to reduce overall
hardcover on -site. He further explained the applicant is required to abide by SWMP
requirements.
Finke reviewed exterior building materials and that they generally met minimum requirements
for four-sided architecture.
Finke explained Meander Road across from subject property, with future access needs and
impacts of a stop light in the future. He said it raises large Policy questions since the Meander
Road area would have wetland impacts.
Finke reviewed tree preservation, landscaping and trash/recycling. Mechanical equipment and
utilities were also reviewed. He said the applicant has requested painting metal mechanical
equipment for screening and staff recommends the applicant screen with the same materials as
the exterior of the building.
Finke noted the CUP Criteria and recommended conditions. He said he'd like to add one
additional condition that mentions the City purposefully approved of the parking spaces reduced
in size in order to reduce hardcover. He said this is important to note so years down the road it
wouldn't come up as a nonconforming issue.
Ed Fitzpatrick, OSI Project Manager, presented to the Commission that their company intends to
move in with 250 employees and will be expanding in the future. He said their company
provides a good wage to their employees.
He asked the Commission to consider option No. 2 for relocation of Meander Road to the north.
He said they feel if the corner lot is moved further to the north it could reduce their ability to
develop that lot. Williams asked if a portion of the parking lot was considered to be screened.
Fitzpatrick said they may acquire the land to the north. Williams said Bridgewater homes can
look down into the loading dock area.
V. Reid asked about the future road of Outlot A. Finke explained the Outlot would connect to
the OSI driveway.
Anderson asked where OSI is currently located. Fitzpatrick said they are across from the
Dundee Nursery along State Highway 55. He said the majority of their employees prefer the
Medina location since most of their employees have a reverse commute. He said they designed
the proposed building to hold 350 employees.
Nielsen asked about mechanical equipment and screening. Fitzpatrick said they will no longer
have to have the larger outdoor chiller. He said they could use a metal louver system with a
linear feel to it.
Public Hearing opened at 9:58 p.m.
Luann Sawochka @ 4268 Arrowhead Drive. She said she likes the proposed project and
recommends approval.
Anderson asked OSI's hours of operation and Fitzpatrick said they run flex time hours starting at
7:00 a.m. and typically runs to 6:30 p.m.
9
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Finke asked the Commission to make a decision on the Staging Plan. He said it is an important
precedence once set. Fitzpatrick said OSI couldn't move into their building until spring of 2011.
Fitzpatrick said OSI has no objection with #3 recommendations. Martin supports. OSI said the
staging is more for the sewer usage and the plan lends to it. Williams agrees with Martin. R.
Reid asked if the area to the north could develop also. Finke clarified that it could develop.
R. Reid asked why OSI would have to assist in paying Meander Road realignment. Finke
clarified not in all cases would OSI have to assist financially. R. Reid asked why the developer
wouldn't pay for the Meander Road improvement. R. Reid said she felt OSI's driveway is in a
more logical location than lining up with Meander Road. Williams asked if OSI would own
Outlot C. OSI said they have it as an option.
Anderson asked about the traffic study and its relationship to growth. Finke said the traffic
report did take into account expansion of OSI.
Nielson asked for clarification of shifting the landscaping. Finke clarified that moving some
landscaping along the north side of the property is recommended for screening.
The Commission recommended Option No. 2 for access and Finke recommended modification
of the condition. He also informed the Commission that he would be adding a comment related
to approving the reduced parking stall depth for purposes of reducing hardcover.
Public Hearing closed at 10:20 p.m.
Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Martin, to recommend approval of the rezoning, preliminary
plat, site plan review, and conditional use permit with recommended changes. Motion carried
unanimously. (Absent: Nolan)
8. Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8, Section 825.55-825.59 of Medina's City Code
related to the Site Plan Review process
Finke explained how it is important to require a site plan review.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m.
Weir asked for clarification of the revision to the ordinance that allows minor changes. She
asked for clarification of what 24,000 thousand square feet of lot area equated to as far as loads.
Finke explained he thought the 5000 square feet was rather limiting, but that the 24,000 square
feet of earth movement would equate to approximately 70 truck loads. Weir raised concern with
storm water run-off. Finke said the applicants would not be exempt from the erosion control
rules; they just wouldn't have to go before the PC or CC. Finke asked what the PC and CC
would really be reviewing or conditioning.
Public Hearing closed at 10:29 p.m.
10
Medina Planning Commission Draft February 9, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson to approve the ordinance amendment as written.
Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan)
9. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
10. Adjourn: Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 10:42 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan)
11
3/q /1 P c ,
,y) cue k\,A
0 U
G T V O F
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item CO
MEDINA ,
Name of Speaker: ; ` i G i
/
Address: r ej� � ` r7----1-e--VC-----4-1- a print) e%"( `.a i. liVizt
Telephone (optional): j7G .� -: 7 // 4/1
'^
Representing: 'L -t, e- / /`Gs' .-----4-.- ___57—..-j'
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
Agenda Item: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: March 2, 2010
MEETING: March 9, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Discussion of Implementation of Staging Plan flexibility — "Point System"
Background
The City's 2010-2030 Comp Plan includes a Staging Plan describing when development can
occur on properties which are planned to be served with City utility services. This Staging Plan
map is attached for reference.
The Comp Plan allows flexibility in the Staging Plan between adjacent five-year time period.
For example, it is possible for a property owner within the 2021-2025 timeframe to develop as
early as 2016. The City needs to establish a system to regulate this flexibility. The next two
sections are copied out of the Comp Plan and describe the Staging Plan and provide the
foundation for regulating the flexibility in the Staging Plan.
2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Information (Chapter 5, Land Use and Growth)
Staging Plan
The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation, to
ensure that services are provided to new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost
effective manner.
The staging plan, Map 5-3, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when
development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles:
■ Compact growth will occur along the TH 55 corridor to ensure the preservation of the
rural heart of the City.
• Growth will proceed in an east -west pattern to develop efficiently the City's
infrastructure, including sewer and water.
• The City shall promote contiguous growth within the urban service areas to provide
efficient and cost-effective services to residents.
• Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business
areas for development throughout the planning period.
■ The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5 -year periods and provides some
flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a maximum
of one staging increment beyond the existing staging period, and will be tied to an
incentive based points system (see Chapter 7; Growth Strategy, Page 7 — 4).
• These principles are developed based on known development constraints related to
existing water and sewer infrastructure. When development is proposed, the City will
review the staging plan for consistency with the water and sewer plans attached as
Staging Plan Point System
Page 1 of 5 March 9, 2010
PC Discussion Planning Commission Meeting
appendices to this document. The following are some of the constraints to be considered
when guiding development:
o There is presently capacity for approximately 160 additional water units through
2009, which needs to include a variety of growth options over the short-term
planning timeline. The construction of additional wells and water storage facility
will increase the availability of water units.
o The City's sewer infrastructure has capacity for approximately 2,000 additional
units that is expected to be adequate through at least 2015.
o The City plans on developing the water system to match the Guide Plan which
stages growth through 2030 and may include the development of a well field in
the western area of the urban service boundary that may allow growth near
Loretto.
o Sewer improvements will be required to meet 2030 projection population growth.
The following table describes the land use allocation by 5 -year staging increments and is a guide
for the City when developing infrastructure and future planning efforts.
Table 5-F
Land Use in 5 -Year Increments
Residential Uses
-Rural Residential 25 acres or less
-Rural Residential 2.5 -10 acres 1U/10A
-Rural Residential 10-40 acres
- Rural Residential 40+ acres
-Agricultural 40+ acres
Subtotal Unsewered
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
Mixed Use (MU)2
Mixed Use - Business (MU -B)'
Future Developing Areas
ConrnerrialUses
Commercial (C)
General Business (GB)
Industrial (IB)
Institutional Uses
Public Semi -Public (PSP)
Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation -
Rte(?__________
Private Recreation (PREC)
Open Space (OS)
Closed Sanitary Landfiti (SL)
TBDt
1U/10A
1 U140A
1U/40A
2 ' 3.49
35
(acres j (acres) (acres) ' (ate)
212 212 212 i 212 i 0%
2197 2207 2217 2227 2237 + 1.8%
3591 3661 3691 3721 3751 ? 4.5%
1977 1897 1857 1817 1777 -10.1 %
109 109 109 109 109 0%
8086 8086 : 8086 8086 8086 8086 : 0%
346 600 713 911
6 9 181 326 428 428
30 17 21 21
6.9 0 80 207
4.5 5 59 59
1U/10A l 2501 ( 1954 1 1372
246 ( 256 1 331
92 # 92 i 214 375 480 558 l 507%
25 I 25. I 68 68 68
944
428
59
771
944 57%
428 31%
123
379
59
486%
374%
0%
-77%
271 ! 2Ti 271 271 1 271 1 271 1 0%
93 93
2519 2519
208
192
358
93 '; 93 0%
2519 1 2519 0%
358 0%
fe be aefern'^1ea later for cluster! open -space 0eveicpmen's's. Der n e+Cess c f Rne tlr& per ter: acres MI not be allowed wait -t
Metropolnan Council's long term se*er service area.
This tone) use require a mitt mum 5O of me aeveapable property inaiubes 0 teSiaenliaa. component wimp me aens`ty range
me M ixea use -e, s ess WU-el was use regJires resberttal onni eqJ ralert To the mire m',m [tensity over me entire aevelepable area. me
MU -e " 55Sr'ng 20be' acreage is based on tine approximate area error rar been devewpea conie-rent Witt' rte et+ectves of the MU -6 Yana
use.
0%
0%
Staging Plan Point System
Page 2 of 5
PC Discussion Planning Commission Meeting
March 9, 2010
The staging plan supports the timing and planning for future improvements and recognizes the
existing limitations of water and sewer systems in 2007.
Objectives
• The constraints on growth over the planning period ending in 2030 are related to water
and wastewater infrastructure capital improvements. The City shall develop a capital
improvement plan to address these needs and to monitor development and phasing in an
appropriate way.
• The City shall evaluate the creation of a well field in the western portion of the urban
service area.
• The City shall develop a system for evaluating developments within the urban service
area to help prioritize developments that are consistent with the goals of the City.
• The City will promote low impact development, conservation development and
environmentally sustainable design.
2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Information (Chapter 7, Implementation)
Growth Strategy
This Comprehensive Plan creates a growth strategy for the community that will provide direction
to land owners and developers while still allowing flexibility and the City will prioritize
characteristics such as infrastructure availability, architectural quality, LID and LEED building
standards, and natural resource preservation. Based on these criteria the City will assign a value
to proposed developments and either allow them to move forward or to wait based on required
improvements, whether infrastructure related or otherwise.
The City will promote orderly and compact development in its urbanizing areas. To provide
flexibility within each growth area a points system will be established to implement the strategy
including: infrastructure efficiency and availability; east to west orderly development; overall
character and fit within the community; architectural quality; natural resource protection; open
space conservation and community amenities.
Example of Point System — Maple Grove
During the process of creating the Comp Plan, Maple Grove's point system was often discussed
as an example of how Medina may be able to regulate flexibility within the Staging Plan. Staff
has sought additional examples from colleagues, and thus far there have been few other
suggestions for relevant examples.
Maple Grove's system is really two separate point systems. The first step is the "Infrastructure
Point System" which determines if there is sufficient water, sewer, street, and park infrastructure
in the area in order to support a development.
The second piece is the "Project Points System" which is meant to regulate the quality of
residential development. Maple Grove does not utilize the Project Points System to determine
when property will be allowed to develop. This system functions as the general
design/performance standards for residential development. The Maple Grove system is attached
for reference.
Staging Plan Point System Page 3 of 5 March 9, 2010
PC Discussion Planning Commission Meeting
Policy Questions and Possible Discussion Points
The intent of this discussion is to provide staff with general direction in order to begin the
process of creating a "point system" for the City to review proposed developments.
Applicability
Staff recommends applying the point system to properties seeking to "jump ahead" a Staging
Period. In other words, in year 2012, a property owner within the 2016-2020 timeframe wishing
to develop would be required to meet the point system. On the other hand, a property owner
within the 2011-2015 would be reviewed by the standard City regulations.
Another option would be to apply the point system to not only properties seeking to "jump
ahead," but also to properties within the current staging period. Staff does not recommend this
approach, and believes this would be unnecessary administrative review. Also, this type of point
system would allow more deviation from the east -to -west progression of development described
in the Comp Plan.
Feedback of Maple Grove System
The Planning Commission can discuss the Maple Grove point system in order to see how
different aspects of the development are granted points. Commissioners can discuss how
different items may warrant more or less weight in Medina.
Separate Calculations for Infrastructure Capacity
Staff believes that infrastructure capacity should be a primary consideration to make in
determining whether property can develop earlier than planned in the Staging Plan. Certain
major capital improvements (examples: a new water tower, new wells, an additional filter in the
water treatment plant, or a new trunk sewer line) have been scheduled based on the Staging Plan
and will be required once a sufficient number of units have been built.
If infrastructure capacity is considered just one of many factors in the point system, it would be
possible for a project which meets many other City objectives (high quality design, extra open
space/natural resource protection, affordable housing, etc.) to be allowed to "jump ahead," even
if it leads to the need to accelerate a major capital project in order to support development of
properties within the current Staging timeframe.
Alternatively, the City's system could be designed like the Maple Grove system, where
infrastructure is considered separately, which would place a higher priority on this issue.
Threshold for project approval
One the most important questions to consider is, simply put: how difficult should it be for a
development to occur earlier than described in the Staging Plan?
If the threshold is set too high, it may be unlikely for many projects to move forward (although
maybe this is the City's preference). A lower threshold would likely result in more development
Staging Plan Point System Page 4 of 5 March 9, 2010
PC Discussion Planning Commission Meeting
occurring earlier than described in the Staging Plan. However, a lower threshold would likely
also mean that a development may not exceed as many of the City's objectives (although they
would still exceed the general City requirements).
Prioritization of Points
Staff has created a list of many attributes of a proposed project to which points could be applied.
Attached are separate lists for single -family -detached developments, attached housing
developments, and commercial or business developments. In order to assist staff with
determining how to "rank" or apply points to each, please place a point value next to each
between 1 and 10. 10 would be items you would wish to see garner the most points, and 1 would
be the items you believe deserve the least points. If Commissioners have suggestions for
additional attributes to add to the list, this can be discussed at the meeting as well.
Required level of exceeding City requirements
Most of the attributes in the lists are already covered by some type of City regulation. As such,
the expectation would be that, in order to gain points, the development would have to exceed
general City standards. Generally, staff was planning on creating a sliding scale for each
attribute. For example, if 10 points are available for landscape and buffering, an application may
be able to achieve 1 point for exceeding requirements by 10%, 2 points for 20%, and so forth.
Attachments
1. Staging and Growth Plan (Map 5-3)
2. Information related to Maple Grove Point System
3. Lists of Potential Points (single family, attached residential, commercial)
Staging Plan Point System
PC Discussion Planning Commission Meeting
Page 5 of 5 March 9, 2010
Map 5-3 MEDINA
Staging and Growth
Urban Services Phasing Plan
Developed 2008
2001-2010
2011-2015
2016-2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
Developing Post -2030
No Urban Services Planned
Met Council LTSSA
There are several critical infrastructure
milestones that will control growth including:
- The existing water infrastructur e has
capacity of approximately 160 units
availabl e until 2009.
- The sewer constraints shall limit
developm ent to 2,000 units without
improvements .
Generally, the Phasing Plan dem onstrates
that development shall proceed in a east to
west pattern. This phasing plan allows
flexibility between adjacent phases to allow
for proper infrastructure planning and
development.
Th e Gr ey area reflects the area identified by
the City to be developed Post 2030.
The Met Council has identified the LTSSA
for potential future access to urban services.
No services are planned during the timeframe
covered by this Plan.
Adopted: November 17, 2009
Parcel current as of October 2006
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Scale: 1:30,000
Attachment 2 - Maple Grove
(Infrastructure)
City of
MaDle Grove
Infrastructure
Points System
July 12, 2004
r
Attachment 2 - Maple Grove
(Infrastructure)
INFRASTRUCTURE POINT SYSTEM
A point system has been developed to assist the City in evaluating and judging the
infrastructure need for proposed developments within the City of Maple Grove.
The point system considers the following:
1. Availability of existing infrastructure to serve development.
2. Fiscal impact of infrastructure.
3. Easements and/or right-of-way for infrastructure.
4. Park availability for development.
The points for each development will be determined using the following criteria. The
points from the infrastructure will be used in the calculation of the overall point system to
determine the acceptability of each development proposal.
The maximum number of points that could be given for development proposal is twenty-
four (24). To score this high, utilities, street and park would already have to be installed
within the development. Most development proposals will not be able to score more than
sixteen (16) points. Only those developments that score a minimum of ten (10) points
shall be considered for sewer, water and road extension. Developments will be rated as
follows based on the point system:
Rating Points
Poor 0 — 5
Average 5 —10
Good 10 — 15
Excellent 15 +
Attachment 2 - Maple Grove
(Infrastructure)
GEB 3/4/04
INFRASTRUCTURE STATUS REPORT
I. Availability of Existing Infrastructure to Serve Development
A. Within Development
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
B. Adjacent to or Within 300' of Development
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
C. Between 300' and 2500' of Development
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
11. Funding of Infrastructure
A. Development Will Utilize Existing Infrastructure and
Provide a Financial Pay Back to City
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
B. Development Will Not Require New Trunk Funding of Infrastructure.
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
C. Developer Will "Cash Flow" New Trunk Funding
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
III. Easements and Right -of -Way for Infrastructure
A. All Easements and Right -of -Way for Development Will Be Provided.
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
B. Easements/Right-of-Way Required to be Acquired by City
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
C. City Purchased Existing Easements for
Infrastructure in Development With No Reassessment Provision
Water, Sanitary, Storm, Street
(2 Pt. Each)
(1 Pt. Each)
(0.5 Pt. Each)
(1 Pt. Each)
(1 Pt. Each)
(1 Pt. Each)
(0.5 Pt. Each)
(-1 Pt. Each)
(-1 Pt. Each)
IV Park
A. Development Will Be Served By Existing Park (2 Pt. Each)
-Or-
B. Not Served By Existing Park
1. Development Will Provide Land for Park in Conformance w/Park Plan (2 Pt. Each)
2. Development Will Provide Land for Park in Alternate Acceptable Location. (1 Pt. Each)
3. Development Does Not Include Park (0 Pt. Each)
Attachment 2 - Maple Grove
(Infrastructure)
1. Goal: The goal is to recognize the use of existing infrastructures, and the
closeness of infrastructures to the development.
2. Goal: The goal is to recognize the return on investment, and the lack of new
funding requirement by the City.
3. Goal: The goal is to recognize the contribution of right-of-way and easements
granted, as well as easements that will need to be acquired by the City.
4. Goal: The goal is to recognize the use of existing park facilities as well as
the providing of land needed for new facilities shown on the comp plan.
For City T.1sc Only:
Avuilability of Existing Infrastructure to Serv-e Development. Points
II. Funding of Infrastructure. Points
131. Easements and Right -of -Way for Infrastructure. Points,._.
IV, Parks Points
Total Points,
Rating Points
Poor a-5
Average 5- I 0
flood 1i)-15
Excellent 15
(Only those properties that score a minimum of ten (10) points shall be considered for sewer, water and
toad extension.)
City of
Maple Grove
Project Points System
Scoring Guide
March 7, 2005
Project Points System:
Purpose: To create and implement a design review system to implement the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan and the needs of a rapidly growing community. As some goals and
objectives are a higher priority than others, the system is point -based to assign higher values to some
criteria and lower values to other criteria.
Implementation: All future residential projects will be submitted as Planned Unit Developments
(PUD) and will be scored based on the Project Points System (PPS).
It is highly recommended that the applicant read this PPS Scoring Guide thoroughly and plan
their neighborhoods around the criteria described and explained herein. It also recommended that
the applicant meet with city staff about their proposal prior to submitting the official application.
City staff will review the application and recommend a score to the Planning Commission and City
Council. In order to ensure that the point system does not favor one development over another for
reasons such as size or location, the minimum score has been defined as a minimum percentage of
possible points.
For most projects, not all of the criteria included in the PPS will be applicable. These criteria will
not be used to judge a project. For example, criteria related to attached housing would not apply to
projects that only have detached housing. The total number of points possible will change from
project to project depending on the circumstance.
Projects must receive a minimum score of 75 % of the applicable and attainable points for the
City Council to consider approval.
As part of the applicant process and in order to ensure accurate scoring, the applicant shall complete
the PPS Application sheet, wherein they shall describe:
1) How they are proposing to attain points in each category (and reference the plan sheets and/or
specific pages of other documents that show how the category is being met), or
2) Explain why they are not proposing to meet a category, or
3) Why they feel a category is not applicable.
As the PPS is designed to be a set of choices, not all applicable categories are expected to be met.
The City Council is the final arbiter of which criteria are applicable and which are not.
The applicant will have the opportunity to meet with City staff to discuss their score. Staff will work
with the applicant on ways to improve their score if their score is not above the 70% threshold.
A recommended score of 75% does not guarantee approval by the City Council. The City Council
holds the right to deny a project if it is not in compliance with the Zoning Code or Comprehensive
Plan and to place conditions of approval on a project.
Applicants are encouraged to attain as many points as possible and not to merely clear the 70%
threshold.
The City of Maple Grove intends this document to be dynamic and may change often. Applicants are
advised to ensure that their copy of the criteria is the most up-to-date.
Project Points System - i -
I. Community Scale Criteria:
The relationship of the proposed neighborhood to the community as a whole
A. Land Use
Interrelationship to surrounding land uses and land forms and/or a proposal
of a land use(s) that would deliver a community benefit
I.A.1. Unit Affordability
Purpose: Encourage the production of housing that is affordable to a range of
incomes
Criteria: (% of units affordable to 110% to 120% of the RMI) / 200 +
(% of units affordable to 100% to 110% of the RMI) / 100 +
(% of units affordable to 90% to 100% of the RMI) / 50 +
(% of units affordable to 80% to 90% of the RMI) / 25 +
(% of units affordable to 70% to 80% of the RMI) / 12.5 +
(% of units affordable to 60% to 70% of the RMI) / 6.25
(.5 possible)
(1 possible)
(2 possible)
(4 possible)
(8 possible)
(16 possible)
31.5 points maximum
Bonus point category for Low Density Residential areas
RMI = Regional Median Income
RMI = $76,400 (from Fannie Mae website)
Example: If a development had 100% of its units affordable to 80%-90% of the
RMI (but nothing below this), it would get 7.5 points (.5+1+2+4)
If it also had 50% of its units affordable to 70%-80% of the RMI it
would get 8 more points for a total of 11.5 (.5+1+2+4+4)
The Regional Median Income will be determined annually and based off Fannie
Mae's numbers
Affordability is based on the base price, before buyer -requested upgrades. Base
unit must be livable as is.
Developer will agree to provide so many units that are within a certain percentage
of the median regional price as part of the PUD agreement.
Final plat approval could be based on meeting these agreements.
Project Points System - 1 - Community Scale -Lan d (Ise
I. A.2. Placement of uses so as to integrate with adjacent uses
Purpose: To reward developments that make connections to adjacent properties
and uses.
Criteria: Points will be awarded if there is an opportunity to connect adjacent
uses and such connections are made. If no opportunities exist, the
category will be eliminated.
• 5 Points will be awarding for placing things like private parks &
conservation areas contiguous to existing or planned private parks or
conservation areas (as long as there was a choice to put it somewhere
else.)
• 10 points will be awarded if there are no restrictions for public access
to these areas. Public Parks are not included.
• 5 points will be awarded if there is a conscious effort to link the
neighborhood to public or semi-public uses (schools, religious
buildings).
• 5 Points will also be awarded for developers who give adjacent
developments the opportunity to link to the development in question.
Existing Wc,c aL.n
Conse,vanr,
Existing Conditions
25 points maximum
I.A.3. Senior Units
Existing Ccr;:et
New Conser
(10 Acres(
Integration points awarded
Integration points
not awarded
(Points would be
given for preserving
woodland areas
(see category II.E.4.))
Purpose: To reward developments that provide senior housing
Criteria: 1 point for every 2 units
25 Points Maximum
Bonus point category for Low Density Residential areas
Senior units are defined as units that are limited to persons 55 years or older.
Project Points System - 2 - Community Scale -Land Ilse
I.A.4. Collaboration with adjoining land owners.
Purpose: To encourage coordination of development between many land owners
Criteria: Points will be awarded on a case -by -case basis when collaboration is
demonstrated.
10 Points maximum
Property owners will get collaboration points if they demonstrate that they are
working in conjunction with neighboring property owners to create a more unified
plan for the area they are developing. Collaboration may also offer a better
chance to gain points in other categories.
I.A.5. Appropriately located neighborhood scale commercial/office uses
Purpose: To reward developments that provide small scale commercial/office
uses
Criteria: Points will be awarded on a case -by -case basis. Category will be
considered on a very limited basis.
10 Points maximum
Bonus point category
Exam • les:
3
Project Points System
Appropriately Scaled
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Scale -Land 1. se
Il. Neighborhood Scale:
The internal organization and composition of the proposed neighborhood
A. General:
The look, feel and visual appeal of development from within and at its
boundaries
II.A.1. % of units within 1/4 mile of an identifiable neighborhood focal point
Purpose: To help give new neighborhoods a unique identity and to serve as an
ordering device.
Criteria: (% of units / 2)
50 points maximum
Examples include parks, greens, squares, monuments, historic structures (silos,
barns, granaries, foundations, community gardens, etc.)
4
Project Points Sys em
Neighborhood Scale -General
II.A.2. Distribution of attached units
Purpose: Encourage smaller clusters of attached units
Criteria: Points = (50 — A)
A= the largest percentage of attached units in any one group
40 points maximum
Example: If there are 100 attached units in a project and the largest group has 30
units in it then you would get 20 points.
With this criteria, a neighborhood must have at least 3 groups of attached units to
get any points.
This criteria wouldn't apply to single -family -only developments.
II.A.3. Creating open space using multi -story buildings
Purpose: To create open using multi -story buildings
Criteria: Points would be awarded if it was demonstrated that the applicant had
purposefully used multi -story buildings for the purpose of creating
open space.
10 points maximum
Would not apply in low density designated areas
Project Points System
-5
Neighborhood Scale -General
II.A.4. % of attached units that have vehicular access from the back or
below grade
Purpose: To encourage unique neighborhoods with a traditional streetscape by
having vehicular access to the rear of or underneath, buildings.
Criteria: % / 10
10 points maximum
Front door of unit shall face the street or front door can face a common green if
access is provided by an alley or below grade.
II.A.5. Neighborhood utilizes rear lanes for vehicular access
Purpose: To encourage unique neighborhoods with a traditional streetscape by
having vehicular access to the rear of buildings.
Criteria: 5 points if rear lanes are utilized.
Examples:
Rear lanes will need to be approved and have adequate setbacks to allow for safe
passage of vehicles and pedestrians, and to allow for snow removal. This
provision will only apply to single family detached homes.
Project Points System - 6 Neighborhood Scale -General
II.A.6. Visual termini
Purpose: To encourage the placement of monuments, statues, gazebos or other
landmarks at the end of streets
Criteria: Points will be awarded if visual termini are provided.
5 points maximum
Example:
Project Points System 7 - Neighborhood Scale -General
B. Housing Diversity
The variety of housing types and values in a neighborhood
II.B.1. Square foot range between largest and smallest unit
Purpose: To encourage a wide variety of housing sizes in a development
Criteria: Points = (Largest unit sq.ft. — Smallest unit sq.ft.) / 100
50 points maximum
All units are eligible but the housing variety must be deemed reasonable by the
city (i.e. one 500 sq. ft house planned in the midst of many 6000 sq.ft houses
would not be reasonable.)
II.B.2. 3+ styles of attached
Purpose: To encourage a wide variety in attached housing styles
Criteria: Points = (# of styles) — 2
Points = (number of styles/number of buildings) * 10 for projects
under 30 units
Whichever number is higher will be used for projects under 30 units
10 points maximum
Style refers to the exterior image and footprint, not floor plan
Project Points System
- 8 - Neighborhood Scale -Housing Diversity
II.B.3. 6+ styles of detached
Purpose: To encourage a wide variety in detached housing styles
Criteria: Points = ((# of styles) — 5) *3 or
Points = (number of styles/number of buildings) *30 for projects
under 30 units
Whichever number is higher will be used for projects under 30 units
30 points maximum
Style refers the different models and/or elevations that will be used.
Project Points System
- 9 - Neighborhood Scale -Housing Diversity
C. Roadway Image
The visual image of the development from major roadways
II.C.1. Attached units are embedded
Purpose: To reduce the amount of attached units visible from the arterial
roadways
Criteria: Points = (50 — A) /2
Where:
A= (% of the perimeter roadway with attached units)
25 points maximum
Example: A development has 1000 linear feet of arterial roadway and 200 feet of
the arterial roadway has attached units adjacent to it.
"A"=20so
Points = ((50-20)/2) = 15
Only areas where there is an opportunity to build units will be included in the total
perimeter measurement. Wetlands or otherwise unbuildable areas will not be
included.
Attached units are not considered to abut the ROW if there is an outlot or feature
between them and the ROW if the area is landscaped and/or has a large setback.
If the percentage of ROW with abutting attached units is over 50%, the
development will get negative points in this category.
Residential/Commercial mixed use projects (vertically or horizontally) would not
be subject to this criteria.
High Density areas would not be subject to this criteria
II.C.2. Exceptional Landscaping to buffer homes from arterial and major
collector roads
Purpose: To buffer homes from major roadways
Criteria: Score will be based on criteria below:
• At least 70% evergreen trees but no more than 85%
• Undulating berms,
• Decorative open fencing
• Understory trees and shrubs
Project Points System
- 10 - Neighborhood Scale -Roadway Image
" A l l v e g e t a t i o n m u s t b e s a l t t o l e r a n t
" R e t e n t i o n o f e x i s t i n g w o o d s m a y q u a l i f y a s w e l l
1 0 p o i n t s m a x i m u m
I I . C . 3 . I n t e r i o r p e r i m e t e r r o a d s a r e n o t p a r a l l e l t o a r t e r i a l r o a d s
P u r p o s e : T o e n c o u r a g e a v a r i e t y o f b u i l d i n g o r i e n t a t i o n a l o n g a r t e r i a l r o a d s
C r i t e r i a : P o i n t s w i l l b e a w a r d e d f o r h a v i n g a i n t e r i o r r o a d s y s t e m t h a t i s
c u r v i l i n e a r a n d / o r e l i m i n a t e s t h e " w a l l o f h o m e s " e f f e c t .
1 0 p o i n t s m a x i m u m
O n l y a p p l i e s t o d e t a c h e d h o m e s .
U s e o f o p e n e n d e d c u l - d e - s a c s
T o r e d u c e W a l l o f H o m e s " e f f e c t
U s e o f c u r v i l i n e a r r o a d
t o r e d u c e ' W a l l o f H o m e s " e f f e c t
' W a l l o f H o m e s "
N o t d e s i r a b l e
N o t e : G r a p h i c s a r e f o r i l l u s t r a t i v e p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d r e p r e s e n t a n e x a g g e r a t e d
v e r s i o n o f p o s s i b l e r e a l l i f e e x a m p l e s .
P r o j e c t P o i n t s S y s t e m
- 1 1 - N e i g h b o r h o o d S c a l e - R o a d w a y I m a g e
II.C.4. Homes' fronts face the arterial
Purpose: To encourage an attractive streetscape along arterial roadways
Criteria: (% of homes along arterial that face the arterial) / 10
II.C. 5-9. Variety in roof pitch, roof orientation, building height, building
orientation, & building articulation on side and rear walls
Purpose: To encourage variety in the look of homes along arterial roadways
Criteria: 5 points each category (10 points for articulation of side and rear walls)
and the City of Maple Grove will score on a case -by -case basis
Variety points will be awarded based on the combination of differences in walls,
roofs, and architectural details.
Illustrations below go from least variety to most variety
III -1 I -; I,
-I "'!' Met OEM
Project Points System - 12 - Neighborhood Scale -Roadway Image
D. Pedestrian Quality
The experience and ease of pedestrian movement in a neighborhood
II.D.1. % of units within 1000 feet walk from a park
Purpose: To have parks within a short walk from peoples homes.
Criteria: % / 10
10 points maximum
Measured along roadways and/or trails.
II.0.2. Grid or modified grid
Purpose: To encourage good pedestrian and vehicular connections
Criteria: Points will be awarded for an interior street system that provides good
pedestrian and vehicular connections.
10 points maximum
II.0.3. Internal trail connections
Purpose: To encourage the creation of off -road trails within a neighborhood
Criteria: Points will be awarded for the creation of internal trails to provide
pedestrian and/or bicycle movement within a development.
10 point maximum
Project Points System
- 13 - Neighborhood Scale -Pedestrian Quality
II.D.4. Pedestrian Scale and Ornamental Street Lighting
Purpose: To reinforce the pedestrian realm through the use of appropriately scaled
street lighting
Criteria: Points will be awarded for using pedestrian scale street lighting in the
project
5 points maximum
I
II.D.5. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street
Purpose: To ensure a good pedestrian transportation system.
Criteria: 5 points will be awarded if there are sidewalks on both sides of every
street.
I.D.6. Cul-de-sacs are open ended.
Purpose: To create pedestrian and bicycle connections to trails systems along
arterial and collector roadways.
Criteria: Points = (% of cul-de-sacs that are open ended) / 20
5 points maximum
Cul-de-sac with a trail connection to the arterial at the end
Project Points System
- 14 - Neighborhood Scale -Pedestrian Quality
E. Integration of Parks, Open space, Natural, Historic and Cultural
Resources
The degree in which these resources are planned around and integrated into
the neighborhood
II.E.1. Park Dedication is in strict conformance to the Comprehensive Park
Systems Plan
Purpose: To ensure the realization of the City's vision for its parks.
Criteria: Points will be awarded for strictly conforming to the Comprehensive
Park Systems Plan.
25 points maximum
Neighborhood Parks: These sites are usually four to fifteen acres of developable
recreation area. Ten acres is a better minimum standard since these parks should
support a game field, play equipment, basketball court, tennis court, trails, parking
lot, and pleasure skating rinks. Typically, these parks are not scheduled for adult
competition; however, may be able to support practice by adults. The service area
has approximately on -half mile radius and should not extend beyond major access
barriers such as major streets, creeks, lakes, etc. Usually, each park service area
will receive one neighborhood park. The neighborhood park is the most important
and basic unit of the total park system and is expected to serve Maple Grove's
residential developments, Neighborhood parks may also exist as shared facilities
with school sites.
Local Linear Park: This type of park land provides a physical link, between two
or more areas. The width ranges from 30 to 75 feet wide. The Local Linear Park
may contain no transportation treadways or contain single or multiple transportation
trails. These trails may accommodate bicycling, hiking/jogging/walking, and cross
country skiing. The width of the Local Linear Park is important because the
amount of land included in the corridor is intended to reflect a park -like atmosphere
as well as a transportation corridor.
Trailways: Park access trailways are for the specific purpose of obtaining access
between platted properties and the width is enough to essentially accommodate the
transportation mode. Trailways are typically 30 feet wide and the treadway
dominates the corridor rather than the open space as in Local Linear Parks.
Project Points System - 15 - Neighborhood Scale -Parks, Open Space, etc...
II.E.2. Open space is consolidated and usable
Purpose: To create open space areas that can be usable to the neighborhood, either
passively or actively.
Criteria: Points will be awarded based on guidelines below
• Buildings should be organized around the open space
• Open space should be a framing and organizing feature
• Open space should be accessible to the local population (within the
neighborhood)
• Open space should be designed in such a way that it doesn't appear like it is
someone's backyard
• Storm water ponds should be incorporated as a design feature
10 points maximum
II.E.3. Open Spaces are connected with green (natural) corridors
Purpose: To connect open spaces & reduce the occurrence of isolated open space
areas.
Criteria: Points will be awarded for linking open space areas with natural
corridors.
10 points maximum
Combining open space areas, trails, and storm ponds is a good way to get points in
this category.
Project Points System
- 16 - Neighborhood Scale -Parks, Open Space, etc...
II.E.4. Tree Preservation above Minimum
Purpose: To encourage the preservation of trees
Criteria: Points = (1 — (B / A))*10
A = # of caliper inches allowed to be removed (before replacement
requirement in the T -zone)
B = # of caliper inches removed
Example: 1000 total caliper inches in a residential PUD in the T -zone
Removal threshold is 30% at time of subdivision so:
A = 300 caliper inches allowed to be removed &
B = 150 caliper inches actually removed (50% of allowed removal)
Points = 5
10 points maximum
Points are assigned based on the number of caliper inches preserved above the
minimum. This would only apply to T -zone areas.
II.E.5. Natural Features are Retained
Purpose: To preserve significant and unique topographical features if they exist.
Criteria: Points will be awarded if significant and unique natural features area
retained.
10 points maximum
Examples include: ravines, hilltops, etc...
II.E.6. Wetlands are Retained, not Mitigated
Purpose: To encourage the retention of a natural resource and minimize disruption
of the existing ecosystem.
Criteria: Points = (% of wetland area not disturbed) / 10
10 points maximum
Project Points System
- 17 - Neighborhood Scale -Parks, Open Space, etc...
II.E.7. Public Accessibility to Creeks, Streams, Ponds, Lakes, etc.
Purpose: Allow neighborhood wide enjoyment of those natural features
Criteria: Points = (% of shore or stream bed that has common ownership) / 10
10 points maximum
II.E.8. Cultural Resources Integrated into Open Space Areas
Purpose: To encourage public education about historic cultures.
Criteria: Points will be awarded for integrating and identifying cultural resources
into open space areas
10 points maximum
II.E.10. Extensive Internal Landscaping
Purpose: To encourage a larger amount of landscaping than required by code.
Criteria: (% of landscaping units above minimum) /10
10 points maximum
example: 100 units required, 120 units provided = 2 points
II.E.9. Use of Native Plants in Landscaping
Purpose: To use vegetation that is better adapted to our climate to reduce water
consumption and required maintenance.
Criteria: Points will be awarded if all landscaping uses appropriate species native
plants.
5 points maximum
Project Points System
- 18 - Neighborhood Scale -Parks, Open Space, etc...
II.E.11. Existing Structures are Retained and/or Reused
Purpose: Preserve existing structures that have historical value
Criteria: 5 points awarded if a structure is retained.
5 points maximum
Incorporation of existing structures, foundations, etc. into the development for
aesthetic and historic preservation purposes.
Staff would review on a case -by -case basis.
Examples are barns, silos, foundations, etc. If structures are structurally unsound
and safety requirements demand they be removed, a developer would not be
penalized for their removal.
Historic structures can be used as identifiable neighborhood centers if integrated
into park/open space.
II.E.12. Viable Open Space Master Plan is Created
Purpose: To encourage developers to have a unified open space plan for their
proposed neighborhoods and to use that open space as an organizing
device for the neighborhood
Criteria: Points will be awarded for providing a plan that highlights open space
areas and the pedestrian corridors and connections between them.
5 points maximum
Project Points System
- 19 - Neighborhood Scale -Parks, Open Space, etc...
II.E.13. Any Natural Restoration Work
Purpose: To reward developments that restore wooded areas, prairies, wetlands,
etc.
Criteria: 1 point per acre of restoration
10 points maximum
Bonus point category to reward natural restoration work
Buckthorn removal would qualify
II.E.14. Extraordinary Environmental Protection
Purpose: To reward any other unregulated environmental protection that has not
already been addressed.
Criteria: Points would be awarded for other extraordinary environmental
protection that hasn't been addressed.
10 point maximum
Bonus point category
II.E.15. Area of parkland, woodland, or other open space (above minimum).
Purpose: To encourage the creation of open space areas in a development,
whether they are active park areas or passive woodland areas or other
open space.
Criteria: 1 point per acre of dedicated parkland (acceptable to the city) or other
open space areas that are in outlots or conservation easements.
No maximum points.
Bonus point category
Wetlands and areas on steep slopes would not count.
Open space areas must be 50 feet or larger in the smallest dimension to be counted
in this category.
Project Points System
- 20 - Neighborhood Scale -Parks, Open Space, etc...
III. Unit Scale Criteria
The visual appeal and function of units and lots
A. General
III.A.1. Guarantee that models will not be repeated within
X lots of each other.
Purpose: To encourage variety in detached housing styles
Criteria: 2 points = 1 lots between the same model
5 points = 2 lots between the same model
10 points = 3 lots between the same model
20 points = 4 lots between the same model
30 points = 5 lots between the same model
40 points = 6 lots between the same model
A developer could propose to put such an agreement on a limited
amount of homes in a neighborhood. Points would be awarded
proportional to the amount of detached homes under such an
agreement.
Staff will consider patterns of repetition on both sides of the street (i.e.
the same model/elevation can't be directly across the street.)
If a project has no repetition at all 40 points could be awarded.
40 points maximum
Example: A proposed neighborhood has 100 homes and 50 of them would be in
an area where there was an agreement that there would be 4 lots
between the same model would get 5 points (10 * 50% of the homes
under this agreement.)
A model is a home with a substantially different exterior than another home.
Exterior differences shall include a combination of differences in walls, roofs and
architectural detail. Floor plan changes only would not be considered a separate
model. For units on the interior of a development these differences would mainly
apply to the front facade. For units along arterial roadways the rear facade would
be graded in the Roadway Image sub category.
Project Points System
- 21 - Unit Scale -General
Different colors represent different home models
Points will be awarded based on the patterns shown below:
III.A.2. Creation of a Pattern Book
Purpose: To reward the creation of a formal book that describes the organization
of the entire neighborhood with detailed descriptions and drawings of
units, landscaping, and other proposed improvements.
Criteria: No formula, points will be awarded if a pattern book is submitted
25 points maximum
Bonus point category
Project Points System
- 22 - Unit Scale -General
B. Architectural Elements
The specific elements of an attached or detached unit that would be
guaranteed by covenant
Purpose: To encourage the production of homes with generally accepted attractive
architectural elements
Criteria: Points will be awarded based on the percentage of units (that are
guaranteed by covenant) that will have a particular feature.
Developments would have to provide assurances (through covenants) that
architectural features for which points are sought will be built for detached
units. Building plans will be reviewed for compliance with such covenant
agreements.
Architectural renderings and elevations will be required for attached units and
points will be awarded based upon those submittals.
There are three specific architectural features that the City of Maple Grove is
looking for which are independent of specific house styles:
III.B.1. Front Porches
Criteria: .6060 points for every 1% of homes with a front porch
(33% gives maximum points)
20 points maximum
Front porches must be at least 5 feet deep x 7 feet wide, outside the entry area (door
swing zone.) Porticos are not considered front porches in this case.
Porches are considered Front Porches if they face a street or a common green court.
Green courts would require the use of rear lanes.
III.B.2. Garages set back as far as the front face or are Side Loaded
Criteria: .6060 points for every 1% of homes with a garage setback as far as the
front face of the home or are side -loaded
(33% gives maximum points)
20 points maximum
Only applies to detached units.
Project Points System
- 23 - Unit Scale -Architectural Elements
Front lot line will be measured at the main face of the structure, not at the front of
any porch or other protrusion
III.B.3. Brick, stone, or stucco chimneys (real or faux)
Criteria: Points = .3030 points for every 1% of homes with a brick, stone, or stucco
chimney (33% gives maximum.)
10 points maximum
III.B.4. Other architectural features
Criteria: Points = % / 10
10 points maximum for each feature
There are a great number of architectural features that are unique to specific styles
that can be awarded points. They include, but are not limited to:
Gabled ends, dormers, balconies, bays, turrets, cupolas, decorative balustrades,
window grids, accent windows, masonry (stone or brick) construction (accent or
otherwise), local stone (mined within 200 miles or authentic replica), demonstrated
variety of roof styles & pitches, demonstrated variety of shingle styles,
demonstrated variety of siding styles, shutters, window frames, columns, porticos,
pediments, symmetrical & proportional window placement, multiple siding
patterns, materials, and/or colors
This category is broad and flexible to encourage the application of compatible
architectural features. The application of architectural features simply to get points
will not be rewarded.
There is a 150 point maximum for the architectural features category.
Project Points System
- 24 - Unit Scale -Architectural Elements
C. Safety
Added safety
III.C.1. % of buildings sprinkled that aren't required to be sprinkled
Purpose: To reward developments that have sprinkled building over and above
what code requires.
Criteria: Points = % / 10
10 points maximum
Bonus Point Category
Project Points System - 25 - Unit Scale -Safety
Single Family Detached Residentia l
A ttribute
Points
Capacity ex ists within City in frastructure
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Streets
Nu mber of years seeking to "jump ahead"
N atural resource pro tection
Preservation and enhancement of trees an d woodlan ds
Protection and enhancement of wetlands
Natu ral restoration (prairie, woodlands, wetlan ds)
Prov isions for greenway corridors
Stormwater qu ality improvements
Stormwater v olu me improvements
A djacent to/distance from ex isting development
Provisions for Open Space
Conn ectivity of Open Space
Usability of Open Space
Reduced hardcover, increased green spaces
LEED Certification or similar
Sustainability (energy efficiency, pedestrian design, etc. )
H igh quality architectural design an d exterior materials
Lan dscapin g quality
Ex terior appearan ce of landscaping/buffering
Interior site lan dscaping quality
Use of low -watering, drou ght resistant landscaping
Use of n atural vegetation
Fron t facade of structures facing arterial/collector roads
Creatio n of parks and trails
Trail connectivity
Distance from homes/buildings to parks
N eighborho od/dev elopmen t focal point
Ornamental and sho rter height street lighting
Collaboration with adjoining owner
Housing affordability
H ou sin g div ersity
Range of square footage within a developmen t
Diversity of styles of homes/buildings
Variety of roof pitch/buildin g height/building orientation
Architectural Elemen ts
Garages set -back from front of home or side -load
Fro nt porche s provided
Brick, stone, or stu cco chimneys (real or fau x)
O ther elements (dormers, mason ry, shu tters, etc. )
Lots an d buildings n ot parallel with arterial/collector roads
Vehicle (garage) access in rear of building or below grade
Sen ior Housin g
Fire sprin klers when n ot required by code
A ttached R esidential
Attribute
Points
Capacity ex ists within City infrastructu re
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Streets
Number of years seekin g to "jump ahead"
Natu ral resource protection
Preservation and enhancement of trees and woodlands
Protection and en hancement of wetlands
Natural restoration (prairie, woodlands, wetlan ds)
Provisio ns for greenway corridors
Sto rmwater quality improvemen ts
Stormwater volume improvements
A djacent to/distance fro m ex isting development
Provision s for Open Space
Conn ectivity of Open Space
Usability of Open Space
Reduced hardcover, increased green spaces
LEED Certification or similar
Sustainability (energy efficien cy, pedestrian design, etc.)
High quality architectu ral design an d exterior materials
Landscaping quality
Exterior appearan ce of landscapin g/buffering
Interior site landscaping quality
U se of lo w -watering, drought resistant landscapin g
U se of natural vegetation
Front facade of structures facin g arterial/collector roads
Creation of parks an d trails
Trail conn ectiv ity
Distance from homes/buildings to parks
Neighborhood/development focal point
Ornamen tal an d shorter height street lighting
Co llaboration with adjo inin g own er
Ho using affordability
H ousing diversity
Range of square footage within a development
D iversity of styles of homes/bu ildings
Variety of ro of pitch/building height/buildi ng orie ntatio n
A rchitectural Elements
Garages set -back from front of home or side -load
Fron t porches provided
Brick, stone, or stucco chimneys (real or faux)
Other elements (dormers, mas onry, shutters, etc.)
Lots and bu ildings not parallel with arterial/collector roads
Vehicle (garage) access in rear of buildi ng or below grade
Senior Housing
Fire sprinklers when not req uired by code
A ttached Units not visible from arterial/collector roads
Smaller clusters of attached units
Attachment 3
Commercial or Business
Attr ibute
Points
Capacity exists within City infrastructu re
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Streets
Number of years seeking to "jump ahead"
Natu ral resou rce protection
Preservation and en hancemen t of trees and woodlands
Pro tection and enhancemen t of wetlands
Natu ral restoration (prairie, woodlands, wetla nds)
Provisions for greenway corridors
Stormwater quality improvements
Stormwater volume improvements
A djacent to/distance from existing development
Provision s for Open Space
Conn ectivity of Open Space
U sability of Open Space
Redu ced hardco ver, i ncreased green spaces
LEED Certificatio n or similar
Sustainability (energy efficie ncy, pedestrian design, etc.)
High quality architect ural design and exterior materials
Landscapi ng quality
Exterior appeara nce of landscaping/b ufferi ng
I nteri or site landscapi ng quality
Use of l ow -wateri ng, drought resistant landscapi ng
Use of natural vegetation
Fr ont facade of structures facing arterial/collector roads
Creatio n of parks and trails
Trail connecti vity
Dista nce from homes/buildings to parks
Neighborhood/de velopme nt focal poi nt
Ornamental and shorter height street lighting
Collaboratio n with adjoining ow ner
Number of new jobs bro ught to City
No outdoor st orage or operations
L ow water/sewer usage per square foot of buildi ng
Low level of truck traffic