Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.B.1. Draft Residential Project Scoring Guide-Res. No. 6279 IS: 13. J~ CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-085 CONSENT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Residential Project Scoring Guide MEETING DATE: September 20, 2005 REVIEW PERIOD: N.A. INTRODUCTION: On August 16, 2005 the Council directed staff to do the following; . Determine whether there were ways to link the draft growth management policy and residential project scoring guide, and . To seek the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding linking the growth management policy and project scoring guide. On September 8, 2005 the Planning Commission reviewed the two drafts, and a copy of the staff report is attached for the Council's information in connection with this item, as well as the following item on the draft Growth Management Policy. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer and approve a motion adopting the Residential Project Pointing Guide, and directing staff to begin to use the Guide in the City's development review process. 2. Do not adopt the Residential Project Pointing Guide, 3. Table the matter with direction to City staffto revise the Project Pointing Guide or for additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 8, 2005 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the draft Residential Project Pointing Guide.. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion adopting the Residential Project Pointing Guide, and directing staff to begin to use the Guide in the City's development review process. ~~~~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 1 / .;it6. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 05-085 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Residential Project Scoring Guide MEETING DATE: September 8, 2005 INTRODUCTION: On August 16, 2005 the City Council reviewed the draft Growth Management Policy. At that meeting it heard from developers, builders, and property owners interested in developing/selling their lands for development, all of whom opposed the draft policy. At the close of discussion, the Council directed planning staff to look at whether it is possible to link the growth policy and project scoring guide, and to seek Planning Commission input on the concept oflinking the two mechanisms. DISCUSSION: . Before discussing possible ways to connect the growth policy and project scoring guide, it is important to review the rationale underlying them. Following is a discussion of the rationale underlying each. Draft Growth Management Policy; The rationale for the Growth Policy is found in the resolution itself; which states the following; "WHEREAS, as new areas for development opened up in the City of Shakopee and adjacent Jackson Township from 1998 through 2005, the City of Shakopee has experienced very high residential growth rates for each of those years; and WHEREAS, such continued high rates of residential growth rates require additional expenditures for staff, equipment, and other support, which in turn has a significant impact on the City's budget and overall fiscal situation; and WHEREAS, dealing with such high rates of residential growth impairs the ability of the City and its staff to adequately address other issues that are or may be important to the health, safety, and welfare of the City's residents and business owners and other taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in 2004, seeks to limit sewered residential growth for the short-term to those areas identified as Phase I areas for Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to limit the number of lots and/or residential units available per year for new housing to an average of 500 lots and/or residential units per year; and... H:\BOAA-PC\2005\09-08\Project Pointing Guide Cover Report 09082008.doc 1 i , WHEREAS, the establishment of a Growth Management Policy and allocation system will provide a public benefit by 1) preventing unplanned growth that may result in premature investment in the City's infrastructure; 2) encouraging development that accomplishes the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shako pee; and 3) insuring that the amount of growth occurring in the City can adequately be reviewed, implemented, and served within the limitations of the City's fiscal and personnel resources; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan provides for a phased MUSA allocation plan as a means of implementing the plan; and, WHEREAS, a phased allocation of development promotes a rate of growth consistent with the policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, a phased allocation also promotes contiguous rational development and the orderly provision of infrastructure to developing areas within the city; and, In short, the rationale underlying the Growth Policy is that residential growth with no ceiling 1) results in the need for additional budgetary spending that the City may not be able to accommodate, 2) diverts the City from providing other important services that would serve the health, safety, and general welfare needs ofthe City's residents and businesses, and 3) can result in public investment in infrastructure that is premature because the development it would serve may not be contiguous to existing development. By contrast, the underlying rationale for the Project Scoring Guide is that 1) development that has occurred in the last several years in Shakopee has not met the community's expectations for quality, and that 2) the project scoring guide will "... to provide a mechanism by which to insure that the quality of design and materials used in new residential developments in the City is of the highest caliber possible." In other words, the rationale underlying the Draft Growth Policy goes to the question of the City's ability to economical cope with the demands of continuing, exceedingly high, growth rates, while the Project Scoring Guide goes to the question of the desirability and quality of the housing and neighborhoods that are created. Thus, the challenge posed by the Council's direction is to create a bridge between these disparate rationales and mechanisms. Possible Approaches: Staffhas identified the following possible approaches to the Growth Policy and Project Scoring Guide; . Do not implement the draft Growth Policy, but implement the Project Scoring Guide; . Adopt the draft Growth Policy and Project Scoring Guide, but apply the Growth Policy only to developments where the developer has opted to seek approval of a project despite the threshold points not having been achieved under the Project Scoring Guide. Where the developer has submitted to the Project Scoring Guide, and has agreed not to move a project forward without first attaining the thre~hqlcl points f<;>:r a pgs~tive staff recommendation, the project would be exempted from the Growth Policy. The net potential impact ofthis relationship is that, so long as a developer works within the project pointing process, the cap H:\BOAA-PC\2005\09-08\Project Pointing Guide Cover Report 09082008.doc 2 on lot creation is effectively removed for any development that receives a positive recommendation. The Commission is asked to provide direction to staff, and a recommendation to the Council on these possible approaches, or other approaches the Commission may identify to making a connection between the draft Growth Policy and Project Scoring Guide. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the proposed Growth Policy and Residential Proj ects Scoring Guide as originally presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council only the adoption of the proposed Residential Projects Scoring Guide as presented 3. Recommend to the City Council only the adoption of the proposed Residential Projects Scoring Guide with revisions. 4. Recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe Growth Policy and Residential Projects Scoring Guide as outlined above, i.e. exempting projects that move forward through the scoring process from the Growth Policy. 5. Recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed Residential Projects Scoring Guide. 6. Continue the public hearing for additional information. 7. Close the public hearing, but table the item for additional information ACTION REQUESTED: Because the draft Growth Policy was referred back to the City Council for consideration in light of the Scoring Guide, the Commission is asked to make a recommendation consistent with its determination. ~~~~<'~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director . H:\BOAA~PC\2005\09~08\Project Pointing Guide Cover Report 09082008.doc 3 / City of Shakopee RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SCORING GUIDE Draft: March 28, 2005 Revisions: April 27, 2005 July 6, 2005 July 28, 2005 August 4, 2005 H:\BOAA-PC\2005\08~ 18\Project Scoring Guide rev p8082005 .doc . Policy Statement: The City of Shakopee, by its City Council, has determined that it is important to regulate the amount and the types of new residential development that occur in the community, and to provide a mechanism by which to insure that the quality of design and materials used in new residential developments in the City is ofthe highest caliber possible. Toward that end, the Shakopee City Council has endorsed the use of this Residential Project Scoring Guide (Scoring Guide) by city staffprior to formal consideration of any proposal for a new residential development by the City Council, or any of its advisory boards and commissions. Process: In order to make sure that this process achieves its intended purpose, the following criteria must be adhered to; 1. All applicants are responsible for providing complete information as part of their application(s) so that city staff can adequately evaluate their proposals against this guide. 2. If an applicant(s) feels that criteria may not be applicable to his/her project, the applicant is responsible for; I a. Identifying the criteria believed to be inapplicable; and b. Providing a written explanation for their belief that the criteria are not applicable 3. In order for city staff to consider making a recommendation for approval, the project must receive at least 60% of the applicable and possible points (excepting bonus points). The number of applicable and possible points may be different from project to project. Project Scoring: Projects are scored on a number of criteria within the following three categories; . COMMUNITY SCALE: i.e., the scale of the project relative to the community generally; . NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE: i.e., the scale ofthe project on a neighborhood level , . UNIT SCALE: i.e., the design and scale of the residential themselves units in the project. The maximum possible score is 440 points. Thus, in the case of a project that is eligible for the maximum possible score in order for city staffto consider a making a positive recommendation, a score of 264 points would be required. H:\BOAA-PC\2005\08-18\Project Scoring Guide rev1l8082005.doc Community Scale Criteria: 70 possible points 1) Land Use - The term "land use" refers to the relationship between land uses and landforms in a proposed project and the surrounding land uses and landforms. (a) Placement of uses and how they integrate with adjacent uses: 25 points maximum . 5 points will be awarded for locating private parks, open space, conservation areas, and similar areas adjacent to existing or planned private parks, open space, conservation areas, and similar areas, where there is a choice to locate such areas in a different location. . 10 points will be awarded if there are no restrictions on public access to private parks, open space, conservation areas, and similar areas. . 5 points will be awarded if the project includes physical linkages (such as trails and sidewalks) to public and quasi-public uses (e.g. parks in adjoining neighborhoodslproj ects, schools, churches). . 5 points will be awarded for projects that link to adjacent existing or planned developments. (b) Senior Units - 1 point per senior unit - 25 points maximum (c) Collaboration with adjoining land owners - 10 points maximum Projects will be awarded points for collaboration if the project application demonstrates that the project plan has been developed with adjacent property owners to create a more unified plan of development for the properties. (d) Neighborhood scale commercial and office uses - 10 points maximum (Bonus category) Up to 10 points will be awarded for projects that incorporate small-scale commercial/office uses that will serve the residents of the project. (Prior to City Council, staff intends to provide further clarification of what the point thresholds are). H:\BOAA-PC\2005\08-18\Project Scoring Guide revj)8082005.doc Neighborhood Scale Criteria: 300 possible points base points 70 possible bonus points A. Neighborhood Scale - refers to the organization and arrangement of uses, physical elements, and natural features within the project. a. Identifiable neighborhood focal points (e.g. Schools, historic structures such as barns and granaries, monuments, gardens); . Percentage of units within ~ mile of an identifiable neighborhood focal point divided by 2 - 10-25% 10 points 26-50% 10 points 51-75% 10 points 76-100% 10 points maximum 40 points b. Distribution of Attached Units; 1. 10-25% of units scattered throughout the project - 5 points 2. 26-50% of units scattered throughout the project -10 points 3. 51-75% of units scattered throughout the project -15 points 4. 76-100% of units scattered throughout the lJroiect -20 points 20 pts. max. c. Creation of open space - arrangement of structures is used to create useable open space accessible to the public - 40 points maximum d. Vehicular access from the rear or below grade - 5 points maximum e. Three or more styles of structure where attached housing is included in the project - 5 points maximum f. Six or more styles of structure where detached hou$ing is included in the project - 10 points maximum g. Attached units are not visible from arterial roadways - 5 points maximum h. Landscaping to buffer homes from arterial and collector roads - 10 points maximum i. Interior perimeter roads are not parallel to arterial or collector roadways - 5 points maximum J. Home fronts face arterial or collector roadways - 10 points maximum k. Grid or modified grid street pattern - 5 points maximum I. Sidewalks provided on both sides of the street - 5 points maximum m. Cui de sacs are open-ended (i.e. pedestrian and bicycle connections are provided to arterial and collector roadways - 5 points maximum n. Internal landscaping that exceeds City Code requirements by more than 1 percent - 1 point for each percentage above 101 % of ordinance requirements - 5 points maximum o. Park dedication 1. The park is a focal point ofthe project 10 points maximum 40 points maximum 2. Percentage of units within ~ mile of a park divided by 2 - 10-25% 10 points H:\BOAA-PC\2005\08-18\Project Scoring Guide rev<4>8082005.doc ...... ;...,... <...x. "',,,<. 26-50% 10 points 51-75% 10 points 76-100% 10 points maximum 40 points 3. Proposed park land is appropriately sized to meet the identified park activities or need 15 points maximum 55 points maximum 4. Trails 2. Trails are provided that connect to other existing trails, neighborhood or nearby retail and/or services 15 points maximum 3. Trails within the project are either looped, or complete a loop with other existing trails (Bonus Category) 15 points maximum 4. Trails are not proposed to be counted as a part of the park dedication requirements to be met under City Code (Bonus Category) 15 points maximum 4. Trails to be constructed by the developer up front, if determined by the City to be desirable 10 points maximum 55 points maximum total p. Greenways 1. The project proposal identifies Greenway corridors to be preserved consistent with those identified in the City's greenway planning documents, and specifies the mechanism(s) that would be used to identify (signage)and preserve them (e.g. conservation easements in favor of the City, conservation easements in favor of the MNDNR or nonprofit entity dedicated to the preservation of greenways and natural open space, gives the City fee title to the corridor, etc.) 15 points maximum 2. Provides greenway areas that connect to other identified greenway areas (Bonus Category) 10 points maximum 3. Have submitted a detailed restoration and management plan (Bonus Category) 15 points maximum 40 points maximum q. Natural Features: (e.g.. springs, creeks, lakes, wetlands, bluffs, hilltops, woodlands) 1. The project proposal identifies natural features to be preserved (rather than mitigated), and specifies the mechanism(s) that would be used to identify (signage) and preserve them. 15 points maximum 2. Have submitted a detailed restoration and management plan (Bonus Category) 15 points maximum 30 points maximum H:\BOAA-PC\2005\08-18\Project Scoring Guide rev98082005.doc Unit Scale Criteria - 90 Possible Points 1. Guarantee that model fa~ade treatments will not be repeated within "X" lots of each other; a. 1 lot between the same model - 2 points b. 2 lots between the same model - 4 points c. 3 lots betWeen the same model - 6 points d. 4 lots between the same model - 8 points e. 5 lots between the same model - 10 points f. 6 lots between the same model - 20 points 2. Creation of a pattern book that provides detailed descriptions and depictions of the organization of the neighborhood, unit architecture and materials, colors of materials to be used, landscaping, or other proposed improvements 20 points (if provided) 3. Architectural Elements: a. Front porches provided that front on either a street or green space outside the entry area - Points equal Percentage of Units [e.g. 100%,50%] in the neighborhood with porches divided by 5 - 20 points maximum b. Garages set back at least as far as the front face of the structure, or side- loaded. Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood meeting criteria divided by5 20 points maximum c) Use of brick, stone, or stucco. Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood utilizing materials divided by 10 10 points maximum H:\BOAA-PC\200S\08-18\Project Scoring Guide rev&808200S.doc . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-053 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Resolution Approving a Residential Growth Policy for the City of Shakopee MEETING DATE: August 18,2005 REVIEW PERIOD: N.A. INTRODUCTION: The development of a residential growth policy was undertaken at the direction of the City Council, which has had growth management as its number one goal. The City's Planning Conunission held a public hearing on the draft on May 19 and June 9,2005, and has recommended to the City Council that it adopt the draft resolution approving a residential growth policy for the City of Shakopee. Based on direction from City Council on August 3, 2005, a number of changes have been made in the draft. Attached for Council's review is both an edited version, and a cleaned up version with the edits included. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADOPTlNG A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, as presented. 2. Approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADOPTlNG A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, with revisions. 3. Table the matter with direction to City staff to revise the draft resolution or for additional infOlmation. PLANNING COl\1MISSION RECOMMENDATION: On June 9, 2005 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft resolution, subject to modifications that might be made by staff in response to testimony received about allocations in the draft. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADOPTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, as presented or with revisions. //~ . ;/'}:;? ~ ~-/~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 1 RESOLUTION NO. 6279 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADOPTlNG A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, as new areas for development opened up in the City of Shakopee and adjacent Jackson Township from 1998 through 2005, the City of Shakopee has experienced very high residential growth rates for each of those years; and WHEREAS, such continued high rates of residential growth rates require additional expenditures for staff, equipment, and other support, which in tUrn has a significant impact on the City's budget and overall fiscal situation; and WHEREAS, dealing with such high rates of residential growth impairs the ability of the City and its staff to adequately address other issues that are or may be important to the health, safety, and welfare of the City's residents and business owners and other taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in 2004, seeks to limit sewered residential growth for the short-term to those areas identified as Phase I areas for Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to limit the number oflots and/or residential units available per year for new housing to an average of 500 lots and/or residential units per year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the policy noted above is intended to allow sewered development to occur in the Phase I MUSA expansion area for the five- year period from 2005 to 2009; and WHEREAS, sewered residential development may only take place on properties in the Phase II, ilr, and IV MUSA expansion areas upon action(s) by the City Council that incorporate such properties into this policy; and WHEREAS, this policy does not apply to properties that are already within the MUSA and which have been granted preliminary plat approval prior to the date of adoption of this policy. WHEREAS, the establishment of a Growth Management Policy and allocation system will provide a public benefit by 1) preventing unplanned growth that may result in premature investment in the City's infrastructure; 2) encouraging development that accomplishes the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shakopee; and 3) insuring that the amount of growth occurring in the City can adequately be reviewed, implemented, and served within the limitations of the City's fiscal and personnel resources; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan provides for a phased MUSA allocation plan as a means of implementing the plan; and, WHEREAS, a phased allocation of development promotes a rate of growth consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, a phased allocation also promotes contiguous rational development and the orderly provision of infrastructure to developing areas within the city; and, y.... \,.....,...n"^I'\~\nn "t ,....\,., T t'\l"'nl"''''' r"\ ,1'" .r .n I'\nnnl"'\.t'\J"\l'" 'I 1 1 NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of implementing the land use and MUSA staging components of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council of the City of Shakopee does hereby adopt the following: SECTION 1: Purposes of Growth Management Policy The Shakopee City Council finds and determines: A. The city has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that has as one of its primary goals that;. "Promote development that generally occurs adjacent to existing development, can be readily served by urban services, and uses land efficiently." (1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, Goal 2) B. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new areas to be added to MUSA where 1. "... utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended, " 2. "... timed to enhance the City's abilities to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and community facilities...," 3. "... to serve the community as a whole," and 4. "preserves Shakopee's natural resources." C. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of "desirable and livable neighborhoods," which includes the improvement of the appearance of neighborhoods and important corridors in the City. D. Inadequately planned, speculative residential development has sometimes created, and may create or aggravate, the following conditions: 1. Wasteful construction of public facilities; 2. Overburdened municipal services and utilities; 3. Decreasing availability oflow-and-moderate-cost housing to serve the needs of the elderly and persons of low and moderate incomes; 4. Premature and inefficient commitment of undeveloped lands to urbanization; and, 5. Environmentally detrimental development patterns. 6. Developments that do not obtain the site planning and appearance standards the City is striving to achieve. E. By themselves alone, the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances (City Code Chapters 11 and 12) cannot provide the comprehensive development review procedures that will insure the high level of environmental protection, sequential and orderly development, and achievement of other goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. TT \ r'\rn"""^t'"\ nn .. ""'r'\ T n"nl"~ ,.., ,1' r ,n ^('\nn"",,^1" .. ... ... SECTION 2: Establishment of a Five-Year Phasing Plan for Residential Development in the City of Shakopee A. The city hereby establishes an initial five-year phasing program for development within the City of Shakopee in order to accomplish the following goals: 1. Prevent premature development in the absence of necessary utilities and municipal services; 2. Coordinate city planning and land regulation in a manner consistent with the land use plan; 3. Implement the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan; 4. Prevent unplanned growth which has no relationship to community needs and capabilities; and, 5. Encourage developers to dedicate additional public open space. SECTION 3: Phasing Plan A. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update includes a staging plan to show where development in the citY will be phased over the next 20 years. The phasing plan was developed to accommodate an average of approximately 500 housing units (approximately 200 acres) per year in each MUSA Phasing Area in order to help the city manage its growth. This policy establishes the phasing plan for the Phase 1 MUSA Staging Area of the overall staging plan that the city has set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Update. Sewered development in the Phase II, III, and IV MUSA Staging Areas may be allow once the Shakopee City Council has incorporated properties in those staging areas into the five-year phasing plan that is adopted as a part of this policy. B. A five-year Growth Management System is hereby adopted as Phase 1 of the city's MUSA Staging Plan, which distributes the platting of lots and/or residential units among the major properties/landowners/developers set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof C. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Phase I MUSA expansion areas will be developed at a rate of 500 dwelling units per year. The City Council may, at its discretion modify the phasing plan to 1) redistribute the allocations contained therein, 2) allow additional allocations upon a finding that there is significant public benefit to be obtained by making additional allocations. D. Every application for a preliminary plat, PUD, or CUP for any part of the properties set forth in Exhibit A shall include a phasing plan that complies with the five-year phased allocation plan set forth in Exhibit A. E. As part of each preliminary plat, planned unit development (PUD), and CUP approval process, a development-phasing plan shall be approved by the City Council for each of the tracts of land set forth on Exhibit A. Preliminary plats, PUDs, and CUPs shall be reviewed and approved only in accordance with the development schedule set forth in Exhibit A. TT \I""',I""4.\n/'\^t""r\n .., r\r\ T ^,.^~..., ,., ,1 '11' .n. "n^n/.H'\n~ t " " F. The number of lots and/or residential units created through the platting or other approval process in a given year shall be controlled through the extension of utilities and subsequent assessment of costs to benefited properties. G. The developer/landowner shall have the right to accrue lots/units, such that they may forgo platting lots and/or residential units in one year in order to plat more lots and/or residential units in a subsequent year. However, at such time that this policy is reviewed or revised in the future, the city reserves the .right to re-allocate lots/units that are not approved for development. H. This policy does not allow for the outright transfer or sale of the allocation of units between developers/landowners. However, through a Planned Unit Development, the city may allow lots/units from one tract of property to be transferred to another, ifit promotes the goals outlined in the purpose statement of this policy. SECTION 3: Exceptions A. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to properties that have been granted MUSA and received preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption of this policy. B. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) or Rural Residential (RR)-zoned areas of the city, or to plats or PUDs that are proposed consistent with the zoning requirements of those districts. Such areas are not served by City water and sewer systems, and if developed in accordance with zoning district limitations, would develop at relatively low densities that would have minimal impact on the overall rate of growth of the City. C. The Growth Management Policy will not apply to parcels that are 1) parcels of record as of the date of the adoption of this policy, and 2) that are less than 20 acres in size (even if such a parcel is purchased or owned by a developer or land owner set forth in Exhibit A, their successors, or assigns). The purpose of this exemption is to encourage the incorporation of smaller parcels into larger development plans to provide for more continuity of design and neighborhood compatibility. The City Council also recognizes the adverse affects that the inclusion of smaller parcels in the allocation process would have on the current owners of those parcels. The density and allocations assigned to the exception parcels ofless than 20 acres can be used anywhere within the adjacent development of which it becomes a part. D. In order to implement the city's greenway corridor and open space goals, in areas guided for single-family use, if the amount of open space dedicated as part of a PUD is more than fifteen percent but up to twenty percent, the project shall be eligible for a bonus of five percent of the total proposed lots and/or residential units. If the amount of open space dedicated as a part of a PUD exceeds twenty TT ''''I'''''''I'\t\I'\I'"'\nn '1 "-\n T r.l-r\l"''''' rt ,1.. I on I'\nl'\n~,,"I'\~ 1 A A percent, the project shall be eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent of the total proposed lots and/or residential units. Areas proposed to be dedicated to open space must be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan provisions for greenway opportunities, park plans, etc., or must be adjacent to or provide an enhancement to existing park facilities. Property dedicated must be useable upland (not wetlands, ponds or utility easements, etc.). The City Council will retain the discretionary right to determine whether or not it will accept the property proposed to be dedicated for open space or greenway corridors. Additional units allowed pursuant to this exception shall be divided equally over the entire five-year phasing plan so that an additional allocation will be made for each year of the phase. E. In order to implement the city's goal of providing affordable housing meeting Minnesota Housing Finance Agency/Metropolitan Council standards for affordability within the City, bonus lots or units may be approved for a PUD subject to the following schedule; A. In projects where at least two percent of the units are planned to be affordable, the project will be eligible for a bonus of up to three percent of the planned lots and/or units. In projects where between five and ten percent of the units are planned to be affordable, the project will be eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent of the planned lots and/or units. F. In order to maintain the spirit and intent of this growth management policy, the number of bonus units allowed to be platted in a given year, due to the inclusion or the dedication of green space or affordable housing, shall not exceed JO.O percent of the total units allocated for that year, as set forth in Exhibit A. These bonus units shall be awarded in the development agreement for each development as it is approved, until such time that the cap for that particular year is reached. SECTION 4: Review of Policy A. The City Staff shall prepare an annual report for the City Council detailing the numberoflots and/or residential units actually created by platting, CUP, or other mechanism.. B. The City Council shall review the report prepared by City staff and this policy annually in order to determine whether 1) it is managing the growth of the city as intended by the City Council, 2) whether there have been unintended consequences of the policy, and 3) whether this policy and the phasing plan should be revised. The city reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and re-allocate units that have not been approved by the City Council as part of a plat or PUD. TT \ r'\"",\,..,^"r-\nn .. ,.\~ T nt-n,-".,.... .11.. r ,.... ^nt"\n^nnl'" 1 l" l" C. The City Council may also review and revise this policy and the phasing plan in response to an application/petition, or on its own initiative. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of , 2005. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk TT '''''''I\''.r'\I'"'\^n 1 ,...,,., T r.l"^l"'\ ,.., ,1 .. .. ,.... nn^n^^",. 1 ,.. ,. EXHIBIT A Estimated Allocation of Lots in Phase 1 !Developm~nt Izooslzoo6.!zoo7Izo0slz009f1Total I . r--r-r-r-r-rr ISouth Countryside r-ono~roTor~ IACC [lOf3s-f3s-r-or-orr-so- I r-r-r-r-r-rr IRidgeline Bluffs . r-orsorsorsorson 200 !Riverside Bluffs** f25[761 . or-or-oet 101 IGlacier Estates /Wf25j 0 r-or-or~ IShutrop North I 40 r-or-or-or-orr-:w- IShutrop South (based on origin~l proposal) r-orsor-w~norl 209 . .. /Marystown L.L.C. r-or-rr-rr-rr-rrD / /Ryan ContractingID.R. Horton * * * r-orwor130f130fl3Orl 490. " . -'. . I Subtotal 11011 375/ 2261 2291220 fl1151 l. jTotaI Allowed I 5001 500 I 5001 5001 500 fI3,OOO ^. ~ce:j Bonus Allocation for the Year (10 J/~()I~Or60160 /60 fl ~300 -- ITotal with Bonus Units I 550 I 550,1 550 I 550.1 550fl3,,30D '" .. '. . . *These numbers are estimates, based on the gross acreage of property or planslplats currently under review. The numbers will be refined during the preliminary plat and planned unit development process, once detailed property information (wetland delineation, rights-of-way, etc.) can be obtained ** Ryland Homes Inc. has indicated a desire to perhaps plat the entire subdivision in one phase. ***The project proposer indicates the project would continue to the year 2012, with 130 lots/units in each of those years. ? indicates that estimated numbers were unclear at the time the table was drafted YT ,,.,,,,,..nr.t"'\nn ., r\r"\ T "1"',,,....... ~ ,1, r .n nnl'\n,",^", ~ 1 ... ... Developers . Land Investment . Property Managers August 8, 2005 Michael Leek - Shakopee Community Planning Director 1R l~t'1E" . . . ~ City of Shakopee .. '.,. , I BJ l:D ~ '. . 129 S. Holmes St. 4lJG 0 8 2005 Shakopee, l\1N 55379 RE: Countryside and Residential Growth Policy Ordinance Dear Mr. Leek: As City staff proceeds with revisions to the draft Residential Growth Policy Ordinance as directed by the City Council at its August 3rd, 2005 meeting, Tollefson Development, Inc. respectfully requests that City staff immediately take action to remove references to phasing of our Countryside development from this new proposed ordinance. As you are well aware, Countryside received full preliminary plat approval from the City of Shakopee on February 15th, 2005. In reliance upon the City's preliminary plat approval, Tollefson has, (i) fully financed its development; (ii) entered into noncontingent sales agreements with builders for virtually all of the lots in the development; and (iii) entered into contracts for all development construction required pursuant to approved plans, and is well along with completion of required subdivision improvements. A significant portion of the improvements being installed are for the benefit of the school district, the City of Shakopee, and Scott County, all pursuant to our Public. Improvements Reimbursement Agreement dated May 3rd, 2005. Phasing the development of CountrYside was never proposed by Tollefson Development, Inc. or the City and was not made a condition of the subdivision approvals which have been provided to d~te by the City of Shakopee. Tollefson., Development, lnc.. has consulted with counsel, who has advised that pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. g462.351, et. seq., and particularly by virtue of g462.358, Subd. 3(c), any attempt by the City of Shakopee to impose phasing requirements with respect to Countryside, after receipt of preliminary approval without such phasing requirements, is legally impermissible. Indeed, the cited statute specifically provides that unless the City of Shakopee and Tollefson Development, Inc. agree otherwise, no amendments to municipal "official controls" can apply to or affect our use or development of Countryside for a period of one year following preliminary approval (and, presuming that Tollefson solicits final plat approval in the near future) for two years following our receipt of final approval. Further, the City may not impose conditions upon approval of the final plat which were not a part of the preliminary approval. 17271l<enyon Ave., Suite #103 · Lal<eville, MN 55044 · Phone (952) 435-1010. FAX (952) 435-1020 Email - info@tdi-mn.com www.tdi-mn.com Michael Leek August 8, 2005 Page 2 By the clear and unambiguous language of the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act, referenced above, any act by the City to impose a phasing requirement on Countryside is unlawful in the absence of Tollefson Development's consent, which shall not be forthcoming. Any attempt to impose a phasing requirement would also be extremely injurious to Tollefson Development's economic interests, given that Tollefson has already negotiated sale prices for the Countryside lots . and the agreements in place neither allow Tollefson to unilaterally delay sales and conveyances, nor provide pricing adjustments. for any additional carrying costs. Further, imposition of phasing limitations on Countryside would put Tollefson Development i1:1 default under most, if not all, of its outstanding sales agreements with severarofthe most substantial.. residential building contractors in the state, which would cause adverse contractual consequences and have an extremely adverse effect upon our business reputation. To summarize, please be advised that Tollefson Development hereby objeqts to the imposition of any phasing requirements with respect to its preliminarily approved Countryside development, and hereby serves fonnal notice that any attempt to subject this subdivision to a phasing requirement is impennissible under the statute. Unless references to Countryside are deleted from the proposed ordinance prior to its enactment, we will be forced to take whatever action is necessary to preserve and protect our vested rights in this project. Should you or any other representative of the City of Shakopee have any questions concerning this correspondence feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, b7N~ Gary Wollschlager, Vice President cc: Mayor John Sclunitt - City of Shako pee City Attorney - James Thompson City Council Members: Joseph Helkamp Terry Joos Steve Menden Matt Lehman Carl Tollefson, President Tollefson Development, Inc. David Yung, General Counsel