reference materialspub/@ssrd/...232 reference materials | january, 2009 reference materials a...
TRANSCRIPT
REFERENCE MATERIALS
Reference Materials A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Bibliography of Key University of Minnesota Publications on UMore Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Reference Materials B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Source Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Reference Materials C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
LEED ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
232 Reference Materials | January, 2009
referenCe MaTerIals aAcknowledgements
Design Workshop’s assembled team of professionals is assisting the University of Minnesota in the visioning and concept master planning of the UMore Park development . This team, which includes the relevant experience of land planners, landscape architects, urban designers, economists, natural resource planners, transportation planners and engineers provides the UMore Park management team with a unified vision and identity for a new proposed community . In addition, Design Workshop has invited experts in development feasibility, funding, market strategy, entitlements, and governance to advise the design team . The following consultants contributed to this effort:
Design Workshop, Inc.Land Planning and Design Kurt Culbertson, Principal-in-ChargeAnna Gagne, Project ManagerStephen Faber, Project DesignerJennifer Pickett, Graphic DesignerJudy Navarro, Graphic DesignerBritt Palmberg, EditorSara Tie, Landscape DesignerPablo Silveira, GIS SpecialistBrandon Hardison, Landscape DesignerIzzi Gailey, Executive AssistantAdrian Rocha, DesignerPeter Adams, EconomicsAnnie Sutherland-Watts, Project Assistant
120 East Main StreetAspen, Colorado [email protected]@designworkshop.com
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Land Planning and Design Mark Koegler, PresidentJeff McMenimen, Director of DesignBryan Harjes, Landscape ArchitectRusty Fifield, Public Finance SpecialistAnna Claussen, Project Designer
123 North Third Street, Suite100Minneapolis, MN [email protected]
Robert Charles Lesser & Co.Real Estate AdvisorsAdam Ducker, Managing DirectorJon Trementozzi, Senior AssociateJonathan Bartlett, Vice President
7200 Wisconsin AvenueBethesda, MD [email protected]
233Reference Materials | January, 2009
Urban Design Associates (UDA)Community DesignRob Robinson, ChairmanJoe Nickol, Project ManagerDavid Csout, Illustrator
Gulf Tower, 31st Floor707 Grant StreetPittsburgh, PA [email protected]
Applied Ecological Services (AES)Environmental PlanningKim Chapman, Principal EcologistDoug Mensing, Senior Ecologist
21938 Mushtown RoadPrior Lake, MN [email protected]
Avant EnergyEnergy and Carbon PlanningDerick Dahlen, PresidentMolly Andvik, Project Manager and Senior Analyst
200 South Sixth StreetSuite 300Minneapolis, MN [email protected]
RLK IncorporatedCivil EngineeringJoe Samuel, Senior Professional Engineer
6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite100Minnetonka, MN [email protected]
Short, Elliot and Hendrickson (SEH)Transportation PlanningMark Benson, Transportation PlannerDave McKenzie, Railroad SpecialistHaifeng Xiao, Transportation Modeling
3535 Vadnais Center DriveSt. Paul, MN [email protected]
Broadband GroupTom Reiman, President
900 South Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 180Las Vegas, NV 89144-4584702-405-7000
234 Reference Materials | January, 2009
UMore Park Management TeamUniversity of Minnesota
Charles C. Muscoplat, ChairVice President for Statewide
Strategic Resource Development
Carla Carlson Assistant Vice President for Statewide
Strategic Resource Development
L. Steven GoldsteinPresident and CEOUniversity of Minnesota Foundation
Forrest IzunoUMore Park Director of Operations and Head, Rosemount Research and Outreach Center
Larry Laukka University Distinguished Fellow and Senior Advisor for UMore Park
Steven LottUMore Park Project Manager
Judith MartinProfessor of Geography and Director of the Urban Studies Program
Dewey Thorbeck Director of the Center for Rural Design
Management Team Program Staff and Advisors
Lorri ChapmanExecutive Assistant, Office of Statewide Strategic Resource Development
Janet Dalgleish Specialist, Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Ken TyraLegal Advisor to the Management Team
Susan WeinbergDirector of Real Estate
235Reference Materials | January, 2009
Bibliography of Key University of Minnesota Publications on UMore Park
Prosource Technologies, Inc. september 2008. Geological Assessment: UMore Park (rosemount and empire Township, Minnesota). Prepared for the University of Minnesota, in association with J.D. lehr, P.a. Minneapolis.
Center for rural Design. June 2008. Draft of Concept Master Plan for Vermillion Highlands: A Research, Recreation and Wildlife Management Area. Prepared for the Vermillion Highlands steering Committee: Minnesota Department of natural resources, University of Minnesota, and Dakota County. Center for rural Design/University of Minnesota. st. Paul.
Design Workshop, Inc. June 2008. Interim Brief: Concept Scenarios for UMore Park. Design Workshop Draft Report to UMore Park Management Team. aspen.
Muscoplat, C.C. June 2008. The Vision for the UMore Park Property: Serving the Public, Transforming the U. a summary of Planning activities, november 2006 – June 2008. Minneapolis.
University of Minnesota. March 2008. Distinctiveness through Academic Mission: the Vision for a University-Founded Community at the University of Minnesota Outreach, Research and Education Park. reports of the academic Mission Task forces on adding Value through University research, education and Public engagement. Minneapolis.
University of Minnesota. november 2006. Creating the Vision: The Future of UMore Park. The report by the strategic Planning steering Committee. Minneapolis.
sasaki associates, Inc. 2006. UMore Park Strategic Plan. sasaki report to the University of Minnesota outreach, research and education Park steering Committee. boston.
all publications are available at www.umorepark.umn.edu.
236 Reference Materials | January, 2009
referenCe MaTerIals bSource Data
general gis DaTa sources useD on mulTiple exHiBiTs:
Aerial Imagery from the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) Digital Orthorectified Images (DOQ), Minnesota, 2003. Provided by: Minnesota Land Management Information Center (LMIC) http://www.lmic.state.mN.us/chouse/naip03mrsid.html
Road and street data is from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and was updated in spring of 2008. Provided and interpreted by: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH®) http://www.sehinc.com/
Additional road and street data from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) and provided by the MNDNR Data Deli. http://deli.dnr.state.mN.us/data_catalog.html
Additional road and street data from the Metropolitan Council. Adapted, analyzed and presented by SEH®.
UMore Park internal roads and streets were digitized by staff at Center for Rural Design (CRD) using 2002 color DOQ provided by Dakota County, reprojected to UTM, NAD83, as a base.
Municipal Boundaries from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Provided by: The Minnesota DNR Data Deli. http://deli.dnr.state.mN.us/index.htmlNote- municipal locations are generalized on some exhibits based on Google Earth municipal locations and aerial devel-opment signatures.
Rivers, Lakes and Streams data is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Provided by: The Minnesota DNR Data Deli. http://deli.dnr.state.mN.us/index.html
UMore Park Boundary was digitized by staff at the CRD using 2002 color DOQ provided by Dakota County, reprojected to UTM, NAD83, as a base.
Vermillion Highlands Boundary was digitized by staff at CRD using 2002 color DOQ provided by Dakota County, re-projected to UTM, NAD83, as a base.
Two Foot contour data (Lidar)- (used for slope analyses and all contour lines)Derived by staff at CRD using 2004 LIDAR data provided by Dakota County, reprojected to UTM, NAD83.
237Reference Materials | January, 2009
speciFic gis DaTa sources:
1: Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)
MUSA data is from the Metropolitan Council. Provided by DataFinder.http://www.datafinder.org/metadata/comp_plan_composite.htmCultural Sites of Iconic or Interpretive Significance from the report “A Historical Interpretation and Preservation Plan for UMore Park,” by John Lauber; April, 2006.http://www.umorepark.umn.edu/History.html
2. Regionally Significant Parks and Recreation Map
Dakota County Greenways from Dakota County, 2007.http://www.co.dakota.mN.us/NR/rdonlyres/00001c6c/wonmyctotzheyiekzgdsozrghajqqbdh/map.pdfProvided by the Dakota County Office of Planning. http://www.co.dakota.mN.us/Departments/Planning/default.htm
Regional Parks from Metropolitan Council, 2002. Provided by the University of Minnesota. http://www.metrocouncil.org/parks/index.htm
3: Regionally Significant Biological and Ecological Area Map
Regionally Significant Ecological Area data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2003.http://www.dnr.state.mN.us/rsea/metro_methods.htmlhttp://files.dnr.state.mN.us/assistance/nrplanning/bigpicture/rsea/map.pdfProvided by the Metropolitan Council. http://www.metrocouncil.org/index.htm
Metropolitan Conservation Corridor from MNDNR, 2007. Provided by the Center for Rural Design as part of the DNR Greenprint package.http://www.dnr.state.mN.us/metroconservationcorridors/index.html
Mississippi River Critical Area from the Metropolitan Council, 1997. Provided by the University of Minnesota. ftp://gisftp.metc.state.mN.us/mnrra_a.ziphttp://gis.metc.state.mN.us/metadata/bg/mnrra_a.jpg
Wildlife Management Areas were provided by the MNDNR Data Deli.http://deli.dnr.state.mN.us/metadata.html?id=L390003970202
Metropolitan Council Lands were extracted by staff at CRD from 2006 parcel data provided by Dakota County, re-projected to UTM, NAD83.
Scientific and Natural Areas were provided by the MNDNR Data Deli.http://deli.dnr.state.mN.us/metadata.html?id=L220000150201
238 Reference Materials | January, 2009
4: Land Cover, Wetlands and Streams Map
MLCCS Land Cover (used to define native plant communities) from MNDNR, 2003. Interpreted and provided by Ap-plied Ecological Services, Inc. http://www.appliedeco.com/http://www.dnr.state.mN.us/mlccs/index.html
Wetlands and potential wetlands adapted from Bonestroo (2007) by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) in 2008.
FEMA 100 year flood plain provided by The Minnesota DNR Data Deli.http://deli.dnr.state.mN.us/metadata.html?id=L390004250202
5: Existing Land Use Map
City of Rosemount Land Use, January, 2007 provided the City of Rosemount, 2008.http://ci.rosemount.mN.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={24B6A3D1-1395-450C-92AF-C340317F1A18}http://ci.rosemount.mN.us/vertical/Sites/%7B9EB5E841-C29C-4154-8A28-AC41E049797A%7D/uploads/%7B7EBDCE8C-B2E2-4B01-9192-C80223406775%7D.PDF
Dakota County Land Use from Dakota County, 2005. Provided by Dakota County in 2008.http://www.co.dakota.mN.us/Departments/Planning/default.htm
6: Regional Transportation Map (SEH)
Proposed transit lines and stops were developed by SEH® in 2008 based on the Robert Street Corridor Study con-ducted by Dakota County.http://www.co.dakota.mN.us/EnvironmentRoads/Transit/PublicTransportation/Robert+Street+Corridor.htmhttp://www.co.dakota.mN.us/NR/rdonlyres/3991BBCD-E7D7-485B-90C8-9AFD8B765B83/8708/Longterm_Vi-sion_051309.pdf
Existing Local Bus Routes and Park and Ride locations are from the Metropolitan Council. http://www.metrocouncil.org/index.htmProvided by Datafinder. http://www.datafinder.org/catalog/index.asp#Transportation
239Reference Materials | January, 2009
7: Existing Utilities Map
Existing and Proposed Utilities from RLK Incorporated; June, 2008.http://www.rlkinc.com/index.php
8: Aggregate Resources Map
Approximate Aggregate Resource locations information created by ProSource Technologies, Inc; May, 2008. http://prosourcetech.com/
9: Built Environment Map
University Structures were digitized by staff at CRD using 2002 color DOQ provided by Dakota County, reprojected to UTM, NAD83, as a base.
Gopher Ordinance Works Associated Debris/buildings were digitized by staff at CRD using 2002 color DOQ provided by Dakota County, reprojected to UTM, NAD83, as a base.
Refineries and Mining areas were extracted by staff at CRD from 2006 parcel data provided by Dakota County, reproject-ed to UTM, NAD83.
10: Existing Roads Functional Classification Map
Road data provided by the Metropolitan Council and adapted, analyzed and presented by SEH®.
11: Existing Roads Jurisdictional Classification
Road data provided by the MNDOT and adapted, analyzed and presented by SEH®.
240 Reference Materials | January, 2009
referenCe MaTerIals CLEED ND
leeD neigHBorHooD DevelopmenT raTing sysTem
The Pilot Version of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Neighborhood Development (ND) Rating System (June 2007) was one of the measurement systems used to assess the effectiveness of the development project and the conceptual community design to address principles of smart growth, new urban-ism, and green building .
BackgrounD on leeD neigHBorHooD DevelopmenT
The U .S . Green Building Council (USGBC), the Congress for New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have partnered to develop this initial pilot program . The intent of the program is to establish a national set of standards for neighborhood location and design and assessing and rewarding environmentally superior development practices . LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a devel-opment’s location and design meets accepted high levels of environmentally responsible, sustainable develop-ment . LEED provides rating systems that are voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven, grounded in accepted energy and environmental principles, and that strike a balance between established practices and emerging concepts . For more information visit www .usgbc .org/LEED/ND
THe new communiTy aT umore park iniTial concepTual scoring
This initial scoring of the Concept Master Plan for the UMore Park property is not intended for submittal to the USGBC for certification at this time, but rather to identify how the project location and design meets, is chal-lenged or falls short of the LEED ND rating system at an early stage of conception . The consultant team found completing this scoring sheet to be a helpful exercise in informing the setting of goals and standards for the Concept Master Plan .
The Project Checklist on the following pages uses three categories for the scoring . A “yes” scoring indicates that the Concept Master Plan design meets this requirement, and/or the Concept Master Plan Book recom-mends this action as a “best practice” . Points in the question mark (“?”) category indicates that the achievement of this point is less certain because there are barriers making it challenging to meet the requirement, or the University or other authority is completely responsible for a key decision (such as a transit authority funding construction of a newly conceived route) . A “No” score indicates that a point is not possible or is not envi-sioned to be a promising concept for the plan design .
A total of 41 points were identified as a “yes” and 40 as possible but less certain to be achievable . This 81 point score places the initial assessment in the top certification category of “Platinum” range (80-106 points) . However, it is important to note that the prerequisites for certification of “Smart Location”, “Proximity to Water and Wastewater Infrastructure”, “Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities”, and “Farmland Conservation” are determined to not be certain at this time .
The large size of the nearly 5,000 acre property presents a challenge to achieving the many of the points that require the existing built environment within a radius of the property and/or high density averages across the property . Individual neighborhoods developed in phases within the overall property may discover greater potential for LEED ND certification as community mixed-use centers, for example, will provide the diverse uses, employment and housing, and density that meet the LEED ND requirements .
241Reference Materials | January, 2009
LEED
for N
eigh
borh
ood
Dev
elop
men
t Pilo
tPr
ojec
t Che
cklis
tPr
ojec
t Nam
e: U
MO
RE
PAR
KIn
itial
Eva
luat
ion
Sept
embe
r 4, 2
008
Expl
inat
ion
of th
e Ev
alua
tion
Yes:
The
Con
cept
Mas
ter P
lan
desi
gn m
eets
this
requ
irem
ent,
or th
e P
atte
rn B
ook
or C
once
pt M
aste
r Pla
n B
ook
reco
mm
ends
this
act
ion.
No:
Not
a P
ossi
bilit
yY
es?
No
413
0Sm
art L
ocat
ion
& L
inka
ge
30 P
oint
s Po
ssib
leC
omm
ents
?P
rere
q 1
Smar
t Loc
atio
nR
equi
red
Opt
ion
1: N
ot a
n in
fill s
ite (a
djac
ent l
and
is o
nly
roug
hly
25%
of t
he d
evel
opm
ent d
ensi
ty n
eede
d to
be
clas
sific
ed a
n in
fill s
ite) O
ptio
n 2:
Tra
nsit
agen
cy h
as
not c
omm
itted
to p
rovi
ding
tran
sit s
ervi
ce a
s sp
ecifi
ed. O
ptio
n 3:
The
pro
ject
bou
ndar
y is
cur
rent
ly w
ithin
1/4
-1/2
mile
of o
nly
thre
e (h
ealth
clu
b, c
omm
unity
ce
nter
, and
sch
ools
) of t
he L
EE
D N
D d
efin
ed d
iver
se u
ses
and
need
s ha
ve 4
-6 e
xist
ing
"div
erse
use
s". O
ptio
ns 4
and
5: D
oes
not m
eet t
he c
riter
ia o
f O
ptio
n 4
and
5 fo
r MP
O a
nd v
ehic
le tr
avel
.
?P
rere
q 2
Prox
imity
to W
ater
and
Was
tew
ater
Infr
astr
uctu
reR
equi
red
Opt
ion
1: A
ttain
able
if c
onne
ctio
n is
mad
e to
Ros
emou
nt/E
mpi
re w
aste
wat
er tr
eatm
ent p
lan,
or t
he M
etro
Cou
ncil's
"leg
ally
ado
pted
pla
nned
" wat
er &
w
aste
wat
er s
ervi
ce a
rea
is e
xten
ded.
?P
rere
q 3
Impe
riled
Spe
cies
and
Eco
logi
cal C
omm
uniti
esR
equi
red
1995
reco
rd o
f tw
o S
tate
end
ange
red
spec
ies.
Atta
inab
le if
coo
rdin
ate
with
DN
R N
HP
to c
ondu
ct s
urve
ys. I
f neg
ativ
e im
pact
is d
eter
min
ed th
en p
rote
ct w
ith
buffe
r, ea
sem
ent,
and
othe
r miti
gatio
n.
YP
rere
q 4
Wet
land
and
Wat
er B
ody
Con
serv
atio
nR
equi
red
Atta
inab
le:S
ite w
ork
prio
r to
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent w
ill c
ause
dis
turb
ance
to m
any
of th
e ex
istin
g w
etla
nds.
Wet
land
s th
at a
re d
istu
rbed
will
be
repl
aced
.
?P
rere
q 5
Farm
land
Con
serv
atio
nR
equi
red
Cou
ld q
ualif
y if:
(O
ptio
n 2)
Pre
requ
isite
1 O
ptio
ns 1
,2, o
r 3 is
met
in th
e fu
ture
. OR
(Opt
ion
4) it
is d
eter
min
ed th
at th
e m
etro
polit
an s
tatis
tical
are
a ha
s 75
%
or m
ore
of th
e to
tal v
acan
t lan
d in
clud
ing
infil
l site
s is
prim
e so
ils a
nd is
an
"adj
acen
t site
".
YP
rere
q 6
Floo
dpla
in A
void
ance
R
equi
red
Atta
inab
le: S
ite w
ork
prio
r to
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent w
ill c
ause
cha
nges
to th
e flo
odpl
ain.
Fol
low
NFI
P g
uide
lines
for s
iting
in 1
00 y
ear f
lood
plai
n if
one
exis
ts fo
llow
ing
site
wor
k.
2C
redi
t 1
Bro
wnf
ield
Red
evel
opm
ent
2A
ttain
able
: Mee
ts th
e fir
st re
quire
men
t of a
Nat
iona
l Prio
rity
List
. Als
o ne
ed re
med
iatio
n su
ch th
at th
e co
ntro
lling
pub
lic a
utho
rity
appr
oves
the
prot
ectiv
e m
easu
res
and/
or c
lean
-up
as a
ppro
pria
te fo
r the
futu
re u
se o
f the
site
.
0C
redi
t 2
Hig
h Pr
iorit
y B
row
nfie
lds
Red
evel
opm
ent
1S
ite is
not
on
the
fede
ral p
riorit
y lis
ts fo
r FE
Z, F
EC
, FR
C, C
OR
, LIC
S
2C
redi
t 3
Pref
erre
d Lo
catio
n 2
to 1
0N
ot c
urre
ntly
atta
inab
le: R
equi
rem
ent 1
: It m
ust b
e an
"Adj
acen
t Site
" and
/or "
Pre
viou
sly
Dev
elop
ed S
ite".
Req
uire
men
t 2:s
treet
grid
with
in o
ne m
ile o
f the
si
te b
ound
ary
is o
nly
5 ce
nter
line
mile
s pe
r squ
are
mile
and
mus
t be
10-4
0 to
rece
ive
poin
ts.
4C
redi
t 4R
educ
ed A
utom
obile
Dep
ende
nce
1 to
8O
ptio
n 1:
Tra
nsit
prov
ider
mus
t com
mit
to th
e le
vel o
f tra
nsit
serv
ice
they
wou
ld p
rovi
de b
efor
e th
is c
an b
e ca
lcul
ated
. Or O
ptio
n 3:
Veh
icle
-sha
re p
rogr
am
and
publ
iciz
e.
1C
redi
t 5
Bic
ycle
Net
wor
k 1
Atta
inab
le if
: 50%
of t
he d
wel
ling
units
and
bus
ines
s en
tranc
es a
re w
ithin
3 m
iles
of a
t lea
st fo
ur o
r mor
e di
vers
e us
es. M
ust h
ave
biki
ng n
etw
ork
and
bicy
cle
stor
age.
Pla
n pr
ovid
es s
pace
for a
mix
of u
ses-
but
futu
re te
nant
mix
will
det
erm
ine
if th
is is
ach
ieve
d.
3C
redi
t 6
Hou
sing
and
Job
s Pr
oxim
ity
3A
ttain
able
if: c
ente
r is
with
in a
1/2
mile
wal
king
dis
tanc
e of
a n
umbe
r of p
re-p
roje
ct jo
bs g
reat
er th
an 5
0% o
f the
dw
ellin
g un
its. I
nter
pret
atio
n re
ques
t may
be
nec
essa
ry d
ue to
the
larg
e ac
reag
e of
the
site
but
inte
nt m
ay b
e m
et.
1C
redi
t 7
Scho
ol P
roxi
mity
1A
ttain
able
: Res
iden
tial c
ompo
nent
is a
t lea
st 2
5% o
f the
pro
ject
's to
tal b
uild
ing
squa
re fo
otag
e an
d 50
% o
f the
dw
ellin
g un
its a
re w
ithin
1/2
mile
wal
king
di
stan
ce o
f a s
choo
l.
1C
redi
t 8St
eep
Slop
e Pr
otec
tion
1A
ttain
able
if u
ndev
elop
ed s
ites
avoi
d sl
opes
>15
%; a
ttain
able
on
prev
ious
ly d
evel
oped
site
s if
rest
ore
nativ
e pl
ant c
omm
uniti
es o
n >1
5% s
lope
s. N
eed
to
bette
r def
ine
site
slo
pes
with
resp
ect t
o de
velo
pmen
t lay
out
1C
redi
t 9Si
te D
esig
n fo
r Hab
itat o
r Wet
land
s C
onse
rvat
ion
1A
ttain
able
by
coor
dina
ting
w/ D
NR
NH
P to
con
serv
e up
land
& a
quat
ic h
abita
ts; p
rote
ct w
/ buf
fer,
ease
men
t, m
itiga
tion;
use
nat
ive
land
scap
ing
(and
no
inva
sive
pla
nts)
1C
redi
t 10
Res
tora
tion
of H
abita
t or W
etla
nds
1
Atta
inab
le if
terr
estri
al a
nd w
etla
nd/a
quat
ic h
abita
ts a
re re
stor
ed u
sing
nat
ive
plan
ts o
n >1
0% o
f dev
elop
men
t foo
tprin
t; re
mov
e in
vasi
ve p
lant
s; p
rote
ct w
ith
perp
etua
l eas
emen
t. Fi
ndin
g a
non-
prof
it co
nser
vatio
n/ed
ucat
ion
orga
niza
tion
to h
old
the
ease
men
t is
chal
leng
ing
due
to th
e co
st o
f mai
nten
ance
an
high
am
ount
of e
dge
cond
ition
.
1C
redi
t 11
Con
serv
atio
n M
anag
emen
t of H
abita
t or W
etla
nds
1A
ttain
able
if 1
0-ye
ar e
colo
gica
l res
tora
tion
& m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
is im
plem
ente
d fo
r nat
ive
habi
tats
or w
etla
nd/a
quat
ic h
abita
ts; i
nclu
de im
plem
enta
tion
task
s, s
taffi
ng, c
osts
, fun
ding
sou
rce,
sch
edul
e, th
reat
s as
sess
men
t and
thre
ats
resp
onse
pla
n
?:N
ot a
cer
tain
ty b
ecau
se th
ere
are
barr
iers
mak
ing
it qu
ite c
halle
ngin
g to
mee
t the
requ
irem
ent,
or th
e U
nive
rsity
or o
ther
aut
horit
y is
com
plet
ely
resp
onsi
ble
for t
he d
ecis
ion.
1
242 Reference Materials | January, 2009
Yes
? N
o19
120
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d Pa
ttern
& D
esig
n C
omm
ents
YP
rere
q 1
Ope
n C
omm
unity
R
equi
red
Mus
t be
publ
ic s
treet
s, n
ot g
ated
com
mun
ity
YP
rere
q 2
Com
pact
Dev
elop
men
t R
equi
red
Atta
inab
le b
y us
ing
cons
erva
tion
and
low
-impa
ct d
esig
n pr
inci
ples
; Mus
t mee
t den
sity
of 7
DU
/ac
of b
uild
able
land
for r
esid
entia
l; no
n-re
side
ntia
l at 0
.5
FAR
/ac
build
able
land
.
0C
redi
t 1
Com
pact
Dev
elop
men
t 1
to 7
Mus
t hav
e gr
eate
r tha
n 10
dw
ellin
g un
its p
er a
cre
resi
dent
ial a
nd g
reat
er th
an .7
5 FA
R n
on-r
esid
entia
l to
achi
eve
poin
ts. T
he a
vera
ge d
oes
not e
xcee
d 10
du
per
acr
e- b
ut in
divi
dual
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds m
ay c
hoos
e to
app
ly s
epar
atel
y.
4C
redi
t 2D
iver
sity
of U
ses
1 to
4A
ttain
able
if 5
0% o
f the
dw
ellin
g un
its a
re w
ithin
½ m
ile w
alk
dist
ance
of t
he d
iver
se u
ses
and
built
by
the
time
50%
of o
ccup
ancy
is in
pla
ce. T
his
is d
iffic
ult
to d
eter
min
e un
til te
nant
s ar
e in
pla
ce- b
ut a
mix
of u
ses
is a
ntic
ipat
ed in
the
plan
.
3C
redi
t 3D
iver
sity
of H
ousi
ng T
ypes
1 to
3se
e fo
rmul
a fo
r hou
sing
type
sco
ring-
Pla
n in
clud
es a
wid
e di
vers
ity o
f hou
sing
type
s
2C
redi
t 4
Affo
rdab
le R
enta
l Hou
sing
1
to 2
Atta
inab
le if
: At l
east
15%
of t
otal
rent
al u
nits
are
pric
ed fo
r hou
seho
lds
up to
50%
of a
rea
med
ian
inco
me
and
units
are
mai
ntai
ned
at a
fford
able
leve
ls fo
r am
inim
um o
f fift
een
year
s, O
R A
t lea
st 3
0% o
f tot
al re
ntal
uni
ts a
re p
riced
for h
ouse
hold
s up
to 8
0% o
f are
a m
edia
n in
com
e an
d un
its a
re m
aint
aine
d at
af
ford
able
leve
ls fo
r a m
inim
um o
f fift
een
year
s, O
R A
t lea
st 1
5% o
f tot
al re
ntal
uni
ts a
re p
riced
for h
ouse
hold
s up
to 5
0% o
f are
a m
edia
n in
com
e an
d an
ad
ditio
nal 1
5% o
f tot
al re
ntal
uni
ts a
re p
riced
for h
ouse
hold
s at
up
to 8
0% o
f are
a m
edia
n in
com
e an
d un
its a
re m
aint
aine
d at
affo
rdab
le le
vels
for a
m
inim
um o
f fift
een
year
s.
2C
redi
t 5
Affo
rdab
le F
or-S
ale
Hou
sing
1
to 2
Atta
inab
le if
: At l
east
10%
of f
or-s
ale
hous
ing
is p
riced
for h
ouse
hold
s up
to 8
0% o
f the
are
a m
edia
n in
com
e (1
poi
nt);
OR
At l
east
20%
of f
or-s
ale
hous
ing
is p
riced
for h
ouse
hold
s up
to 1
20%
of t
he a
rea
med
ian
inco
me
(1 p
oint
); O
R A
t lea
st 1
0% o
f for
-sal
e ho
usin
g is
pric
ed fo
r hou
seho
lds
up to
80%
of t
he
area
med
ian
inco
me
and
an a
dditi
onal
10%
of f
or-s
ale
hous
ing
is p
riced
for h
ouse
hold
s at
up
to 1
20%
of t
he a
rea
med
ian
inco
me
(2 p
oint
s).
2C
redi
t 6R
educ
ed P
arki
ng F
ootp
rint
2A
ttain
able
if: P
arki
ng lo
t siti
ng a
nd n
o m
ore
than
20%
of t
he to
tal d
evel
opm
ent f
ootp
rint u
sed
for s
urfa
ce p
arki
ng fa
cilit
ies
and
no s
ingl
e pa
rkin
g lo
t lar
ger
than
2 a
cres
and
bic
ycle
and
car
pool
spa
ces
prov
ided
.
8C
redi
t 7
Wal
kabl
e St
reet
s 4
to 8
The
proj
ect P
atte
rn B
ook
sugg
ests
thes
e sp
ecifi
c gu
idel
ines
for s
ite d
esig
n
1C
redi
t 8
Stre
et N
etw
ork
1 to
2A
ttain
able
if: O
ne p
oint
for S
treet
grid
den
sity
20-
29 c
ente
rline
mile
s/sq
. mi.
Or t
wo
poin
ts fo
r >30
1C
redi
t 9
Tran
sit F
acili
ties
1A
ttain
able
if: d
evel
oper
/tran
sit a
utho
rity
agre
es to
pro
vidi
ng tr
ansi
t she
lters
for a
ll st
ops
2C
redi
t 10
Tran
spor
tatio
n D
eman
d M
anag
emen
t 2
Opt
ion
1: A
chie
vem
ent o
f 20%
redu
ctio
n in
wee
kday
trip
s is
cha
lleng
ing
outs
ide
of th
e de
nse
deve
lopm
ent.
Or p
rovi
de c
omm
unity
tran
sit p
asse
s. O
r a
trans
it pr
ovid
er w
ould
hav
e to
com
mit
to tr
ansi
t ser
vice
s w
ithin
the
com
mun
ity w
ith s
ervi
ce n
o le
ss fr
eque
nt th
an fi
ve ri
des
per w
eekd
ay p
eak
perio
d.
1C
redi
t 11
Acc
ess
to S
urro
undi
ng V
icin
ity
1R
equi
res
thro
ugh
stre
ets
at th
e pr
ojec
t bou
ndar
y ev
ery
800
feet
- unl
ess
ther
e ar
e ph
ysic
al c
onst
rain
ts. T
he lo
cal j
uris
dict
iona
l req
uire
men
ts fo
r spa
cing
of
inte
rsec
tions
doe
s no
t allo
w fo
r thi
s (r
equi
rem
ent o
f no
less
than
1/4
mile
spa
cing
for r
ight
-in/o
ut a
nd 1
/2 m
ile s
paci
ng fo
r ful
l int
erse
ctio
ns).
1C
redi
t 12
Acc
ess
to P
ublic
Spa
ces
1A
ttain
able
: by
usin
g co
nser
vatio
n an
d lo
w-im
pact
des
ign
prin
cipl
es, b
uild
ing
man
y gr
eenw
ays
and
park
s; c
riter
ion
is 1
/6+
acre
par
ks w
ithin
1/6
wal
kabl
e m
ile o
f 90%
of d
wel
ling
units
and
bus
ines
s en
tranc
es, a
nd a
vera
ge p
ark
size
is >
1/2
ac. M
aste
r Pla
n de
sign
ed w
ith th
is c
riter
ia in
min
d.
1C
redi
t 13
Acc
ess
to A
ctiv
e Sp
aces
1
Atta
inab
le: O
ptio
n 1:
ope
n re
crea
tion
faci
lity
of a
t lea
st 1
acr
e w
ithin
1/2
mile
wal
king
dis
tanc
e of
90%
of t
he d
wel
ling
units
or O
ptio
n 2:
at l
east
50%
of
dwel
ling
units
and
bus
ines
s en
tranc
es a
re lo
cate
d w
ithin
1/4
mile
wal
king
dis
tanc
e of
a m
ulti-
use
trail
or b
ikew
ay o
f 3 m
iles
leng
th o
r mor
e. M
aste
r Pla
n de
sign
ed w
ith th
is c
riter
ia in
min
d.
1C
redi
t 14
Uni
vers
al A
cces
sibi
lity
1A
ttain
able
: For
eac
h re
side
ntia
l uni
t typ
e de
velo
ped
- 20%
of e
ach
type
mus
t com
ply
with
the
acce
ssib
le d
esig
n pr
ovis
ions
of F
HA
A a
nd th
e R
ehab
ilita
tion
Act
. App
ly A
DA
and
FH
AA
pro
visi
ons
for r
ight
s-of
-way
.
1C
redi
t 15
Com
mun
ity O
utre
ach
and
Invo
lvem
ent
1A
ttain
able
: Gai
n co
ncep
tual
des
ign
phas
e in
put f
rom
with
nei
ghbo
rs, l
ocal
pub
lic o
ffici
als,
com
mun
ity a
nd m
odify
the
proj
ect b
ased
on
inpu
t.
1C
redi
t 16
Loca
l Foo
d Pr
oduc
tion
1
Atta
inab
le b
y no
t res
trict
ing
hous
ehol
d ga
rden
s an
d gr
eenh
ouse
s A
ND
(Opt
ion
1) p
rovi
ding
suf
ficie
nt c
omm
unity
gar
den
spac
e fo
r res
iden
ts; o
r (O
ptio
n 2)
us
ing
CS
As
w/in
150
mile
s of
UM
ore-
-80%
of h
ouse
hold
s m
ust b
uy s
hare
s fo
r 2 y
ears
; Opt
ion
3 re
quire
s pr
e-ex
istin
g, d
iver
se fa
rmer
's m
arke
t ope
ratin
g fo
r 2
year
s w
/in 1
/4 m
ile o
f cen
ter o
f UM
ore
Par
k pr
oper
ty.
39 P
oint
s Po
ssib
le
2
243Reference Materials | January, 2009
Yes
? N
o18
110
Gre
en C
onst
ruct
ion
& T
echn
olog
y C
omm
ents
YP
rere
q 1
Con
stru
ctio
n A
ctiv
ity P
ollu
tion
Prev
entio
nR
equi
red
Atta
inab
le: C
reat
e an
Ero
sion
and
Sed
imen
tatio
n C
ontro
l Pla
n.
3C
redi
t 1
LEED
Cer
tifie
d G
reen
Bui
ldin
gs
1 to
3A
ttain
able
but
cha
lleng
ing:
1 p
oint
for 2
0% to
30%
of b
uild
ing
squa
re fo
otag
e LE
ED
cer
tifie
d; 2
poi
nt fo
r 30%
- 40%
; and
3 p
oint
s fo
r 40%
or m
ore
3C
redi
t 2
Ener
gy E
ffici
ency
in B
uild
ings
1
to 3
Atta
inab
le: R
esid
entia
l (3
stor
ies
and
less
) mus
t mee
t Ene
rgy
Sta
r rat
ings
. N
on-R
esid
entia
l and
Res
iden
tial (
over
3 s
torie
s) m
ust p
erfo
rm in
exc
ess
of
stan
dard
s.
3C
redi
t 3
Red
uced
Wat
er U
se
1 to
3
Atta
inab
e:In
door
use
ach
ieve
s 30
% o
f bas
elin
e us
e re
duct
ion
afte
r mee
ting
Ene
rgy
Pol
icy
Act
(non
-res
iden
tial/r
esid
entia
l >3
stor
ies)
and
low
flow
sta
ndar
ds
are
met
for r
esid
entia
l; 1
extra
poi
nt fo
r out
door
irrig
atio
n us
ing
non-
pota
ble
wat
er o
r xer
isca
ping
--im
plem
ent U
Mor
e's
wat
er b
udge
t and
use
dro
ught
-tole
rant
pere
nnia
ls in
land
scap
ing
11
Cre
dit 4
B
uild
ing
Reu
se a
nd A
dapt
ive
Reu
se
1 to
2A
ttain
able
: Rec
omm
enda
tion
of re
use
of o
ne b
uild
ing,
Reu
se o
f 20%
of t
he e
xist
ing
build
ing
stoc
k is
at t
he U
nive
rsity
's d
iscr
etio
n.
0C
redi
t 5
Reu
se o
f His
toric
Bui
ldin
gs
1N
ot li
kely
: Exi
stin
g bu
ildin
gs n
eed
to b
e de
sign
ated
as
hist
oric
by
loca
l, st
ate,
or n
atio
nal r
egul
atio
n au
thor
ity. R
ehab
ilita
te in
acc
orda
nce
with
loca
l or s
tate
st
anda
rds.
1C
redi
t 6M
inim
ize
Site
Dis
turb
ance
thro
ugh
Site
Des
ign
1A
ttain
able
afte
r agg
rega
te e
xtra
ctio
n di
stur
banc
e: D
o no
t dev
elop
or d
istu
rb 2
0% o
f pre
viou
sly
unde
velo
ped
site
are
a an
d pr
otec
t in
perp
etui
ty.
1C
redi
t 7
Min
imiz
e Si
te D
istu
rban
ce d
urin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
1C
halle
ngin
g bu
t pot
entia
lly a
ttain
able
follo
win
g gr
avel
ext
ract
ion:
For
por
tions
of t
he s
ite th
at a
re n
ot p
revi
ousl
y de
velo
ped:
iden
tify
limits
of c
onst
ruct
ion
impa
ct z
one-
see
requ
irem
ents
. Opt
ion
3. T
ree
prot
ectio
n m
ay b
e po
ssib
le. I
nter
pret
atio
n re
ques
t may
be
nece
ssar
y.
1C
redi
t 8C
onta
min
ant R
educ
tion
in B
row
nfie
lds
Rem
edia
tion
1A
ttain
able
if c
lean
up p
lan
redu
ces
(not
tota
lly e
limin
ates
) con
tam
inan
t vol
ume/
toxi
city
; no
poin
ts fo
r onl
y ca
ppin
g/of
f-siti
ng o
f con
tam
inan
ts- C
lean
up p
lan
is
not d
efin
ed to
-dat
e
5C
redi
t 9
Stor
mw
ater
Man
agem
ent
1 to
5
Atta
inab
le if
: pro
ject
mim
ics
natu
ral h
ydro
logy
of s
ite in
clud
ing
grou
nd w
ater
rech
arge
& e
mpl
oys
alte
rnat
ive
stor
mw
ater
mgt
tech
niqu
es a
nd a
chie
ves
pre-
Eur
opea
n se
ttlem
ent c
riter
ia (r
ate,
vol
ume
& w
ater
qua
lity)
; To
achi
eve
5 po
ints
: O
ptio
n 1
(pre
viou
sly
deve
lope
d si
te) c
riter
ion
is 1
.125
in ra
in in
filtra
ted/
re-
used
/eva
potra
nspi
red
(Ver
mill
ion
R J
PO
sta
ndar
d is
2.7
5in
rain
infil
trate
d at
pre
-dev
elop
men
t lev
el);
Opt
ion
2 (u
ndev
elop
ed s
ite) c
riter
ion
is 2
.25i
n ra
in.
1C
redi
t 10
Hea
t Isl
and
Red
uctio
n 1
Atta
inab
le if
>50
% o
f non
-roo
f im
perv
ious
sur
face
is s
hade
d or
non
-ref
lect
ive
(SR
I >29
) OR
roo
fs a
re >
50%
gre
en ro
ofs
or >
75%
of r
oofs
are
non
-ref
lect
ive
(SR
I >29
ste
ep ro
of; S
RI >
78 lo
w-s
lope
d ro
of);
com
bina
tion
of g
reen
/non
-ref
lect
ive
roof
allo
wed
if to
tal i
s >7
5% o
f roo
fs
1C
redi
t 11
Sola
r Orie
ntat
ion
1A
ttain
able
if >
75%
of p
roje
cts
alig
ned
to u
se s
olar
effe
ctiv
ely.
1C
redi
t 12
On-
Site
Ene
rgy
Gen
erat
ion
1A
ttain
able
as
a m
inim
um o
f 5%
load
mus
t be
prov
ided
for o
n-si
te.
Est
imat
e 3-
5 M
W n
eede
d to
com
ply.
Uns
ure
of c
ross
over
bet
wee
n C
redi
ts 1
2 an
d 13
.
1C
redi
t 13
On-
Site
Ren
ewab
le E
nerg
y So
urce
s1
Sho
uld
be a
ttain
able
as
a m
inim
um o
f 5%
load
mus
t be
prov
ided
for o
n-si
te b
y re
new
able
sou
rces
. E
stim
ate
3-5
MW
nee
ded
to c
ompl
y. O
ptio
ns: G
roun
d-ba
sed
heat
pum
p, s
olar
, win
d tu
rbin
e, b
iofu
el. U
nsur
e of
cro
ssov
er b
etw
een
Cre
dits
12
and
13.
0C
redi
t 14
Dis
tric
t Hea
ting
& C
oolin
g 1
Doe
s no
t app
ly to
site
, but
indi
vidu
al n
eigh
borh
oods
mig
ht a
pply
- Req
uire
s at
leas
t 80%
of p
roje
ct b
e co
nnec
ted
to d
istri
ct h
eatin
g/co
olin
g sy
stem
. Thi
s w
ould
onl
y w
ork
in h
igh
dens
ity d
evel
opm
ent.
1C
redi
t 15
Infr
astr
uctu
re E
nerg
y Ef
ficie
ncy
1P
ossi
ble
to a
ttain
usi
ng c
urre
nt c
onse
rvat
ion
tech
nolo
gies
. G
uide
lines
requ
ire a
15%
redu
ctio
n of
ann
ual e
nerg
y us
e. M
ay b
e co
stly
; gro
und
sour
ce h
eat
pum
ps m
ight
qua
lify.
1C
redi
t 16
Was
tew
ater
Man
agem
ent
1A
ttain
able
with
wat
er b
udge
t pla
nnin
g. 5
0% re
use
of w
aste
H2O
as
pota
ble
H2O
nee
ds to
be
furth
er re
sear
ched
.
1C
redi
t 17
Rec
ycle
d C
onte
nt fo
r Inf
rast
ruct
ure
1A
ttain
able
but
cha
lleng
ing:
Roa
dway
s, p
arki
ng lo
ts, s
idew
alks
mus
t use
90%
of t
he to
tal v
olum
e re
cycl
ed a
ggre
gate
etc
.
1C
redi
t 18
Con
stru
ctio
n W
aste
Man
agem
ent
1A
ttain
able
: Rec
ycle
and
/or s
alva
ge a
t lea
st 5
0% o
f non
-haz
ardo
us c
onst
ruct
ion
and
dem
oliti
on d
ebris
. Dev
elop
a c
onst
ruct
ion
was
te m
anag
emen
t pla
n.
1C
redi
t 19
Com
preh
ensi
ve W
aste
Man
agem
ent
1A
ttain
able
: Pro
ject
is in
mun
icip
ality
w/H
HW
and
recy
clab
les
drop
-off
site
; pla
cing
a H
HW
/recy
clin
g an
d co
mpo
stin
g si
te in
UM
ore
will
incr
ease
par
ticip
atio
n
1C
redi
t 20
Ligh
t Pol
lutio
n R
educ
tion
1D
o no
t exc
eed
80%
of t
he li
ghtin
g po
wer
den
sitie
s fo
r ext
erio
r are
as a
nd 5
0% fo
r bui
ldin
g fa
cade
s an
d la
ndsc
ape
as d
efin
ed in
AS
HR
AE
/IES
NA
. See
sp
ecifi
c re
quire
men
ts.
31 P
oint
s Po
ssib
le
3
Yes
? N
o4
Inno
vatio
n &
Des
ign
Proc
ess
Com
men
ts
1C
redi
t 1.1
In
nova
tion
in D
esig
n: P
rovi
de S
peci
fic T
itle
1 to
5pr
ojec
t's c
lose
d/su
stai
nabl
e w
ater
bud
get
1C
redi
t 1.2
In
nova
tion
in D
esig
n: P
rovi
de S
peci
fic T
itle
1ne
w a
lt. s
w m
gmt t
echn
ique
s/ap
plic
atio
ns/c
ombi
natio
ns
Cre
dit 1
.3
Inno
vatio
n in
Des
ign:
Pro
vide
Spe
cific
Titl
e 1
Cre
dit 1
.4
Inno
vatio
n in
Des
ign:
Pro
vide
Spe
cific
Titl
e 1
1C
redi
t 1.5
In
nova
tion
in D
esig
n: P
rovi
de S
peci
fic T
itle
1ta
rget
ed w
ildlif
e ha
bita
t res
tora
tion/
reco
very
pro
gram
--re
-intro
duct
ion
of e
xtin
ct w
ildlif
e; m
ultif
unct
iona
l gre
enw
ay s
yste
m (f
or s
w m
gmt,
hum
an tr
ails
, wild
life
corr
idor
s); e
tc…
1C
redi
t 2
LEED
® A
ccre
dite
d Pr
ofes
sion
al
1
Yes
? N
oPr
ojec
t Tot
als
(pre
-cer
tific
atio
n es
timat
es)
106
Poin
ts P
ossi
ble
4140
Cer
tifie
d: 4
0-49
poi
nts,
Silv
er: 5
0-59
poi
nts,
Gol
d: 6
0-79
poi
nts,
Pla
tinum
: 80-
106
poin
ts
81
6 Po
ints
Pos
sibl
e
4
For more information, contact:
Office of the Vice President Phone: (612) 624-6252
Statewide Strategic Resource Development
University of Minnesota Fax: (612) 624-4843
450 McNamara Alumni Center
200 Oak Street, S.E. Web: www.umorepark.umn.edu
Minneapolis, MN 55455
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its
programs, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin,
sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status or sexual orientation.