HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 349-04 7-T. may
` j J
•
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY ON
USE OF CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS TO IMPROVE SUBSTANDARD STREETS
WHEREAS, the United States faces a significant problem in maintaining existing public
infrastructure (streets, roads, highways, bridges, pedestrian walkways, bike paths). In
September, 2003, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion dollars
were needed nationwide over a five-year time period to bring public infrastructure up to an
acceptable state of repair and maintenance. This figure had increased by $300 billion since
2001 because of large growth and increased development; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester also faces a significant problem in maintaining its
existing public infrastructure. The City has over 300 miles of local streets for which it is
responsible for maintenance and repair. This network of local streets has been growing by eight
to ten miles per year during the past five years. Currently, the City faces a backlog of unfunded
street maintenance needs totaling about $26,500,000. The City's Public Works Director
estimates that $210,000,000 will be needed to maintain the existing street system and the new
streets added by new development over the next 20 years; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Public Works Director projects that over the next 40 years, there
could be over $175,000,000 (or approximately 80 miles) in arterial, and collector road
construction and reconstruction needed to support new growth; and,
WHEREAS, the City's infrastructure deficit is compounded by new development, its
impact upon adjacent public streets and the City's future financial and engineering plans to
improve the capacity of the adjacent public streets. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has
recognized the fact that subdivision development places a great burden on municipal services
including city streets. Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190, 193 (Minn. Ct. App.
1986). The City does not have the financial resources to upgrade or improve the available public
infrastructure for each and every new development proposed to be located somewhere within
the City's boundaries; and,
WHEREAS, the lack of adequate street and road facilities to handle the vehicular traffic
generated by new development results in enormous societal costs in the form of environmental
pollution, energy consumption, increased energy costs, decreased economic productivity and a
general decline in a citizen's quality of life as a person spends more and more time trying to get
from here to there. In addition, emergency services suffer as traffic congestion and accessibility
problems reduce response times; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota law addressing a city's ability to regulate development and
subdivision activities is found in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. la, states that "[t]o protect and
1
• promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and
safe development of land, ... and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water,
sewage, storm drainage ... and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by
ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures
for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions;" and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a, states that "[t]he standards
and requirements in the regulations may address without limitation: the size, location, grading,
and improvement of lots, structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and
gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; ... and
the protection and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air
quality, and geologic and ecologic features; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a states that "[t]he regulations
may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the construction and installation of
sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utilities and
improvements;" and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a states that "[t]he regulations
may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compliance with other requirements
reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts
embodying the terms and conditions of approval;" and,
•
WHEREAS, in response to and as authorized by the above-cited provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, the City of Rochester has adopted subdivision regulations. They can be
found in Chapters 60-65 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (commonly referred to as the
"Land Development Manual"); and,
WHEREAS, to facilitate the adequate provision of public facilities and services as
authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 1a, the City adopted adequate public
facilities standards as part of its adoption of the City's subdivision regulations. These standards
are found in Sections 64.130 — 64.139 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (R.C.O.). The City
adopted these standards in May, 1999. A copy of these standards is attached, identified as
Exhibit#A and incorporated herein; and,
WHEREAS, adequate public facilities standards have been recognized as one of the
most effective forms of growth management (Gary Pivo, Growth Management Planning &
Research Clearinghouse Local Government Planning Tools, (Aug. 1992)). Adequate public
facilities standards have been judicially approved in cases across the nation and in Minnesota
(Matter of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138,
285 N.E.2d 291, app. dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972); Woodbury Place Partners v. Town of
Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2929 (1993);
Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Larsen v. County of
Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Garipay v. Town of Hanover, 351 A.2d
• 64 (N.H. 1976); White, S. Mark. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation
Management (American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 465,
2
• 1996); and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of Adequate Public Facilities standards is:
1. To economize on the costs of municipal facilities and services to
carefully phase residential, commercial and industrial development
with efficient provision of public improvements;
2. To establish and maintain municipal control over the eventual
character of development;
3. To establish and maintain a desirable degree of balance among
the various uses of the land; and
4. To establish and maintain essential quality of community services
and facilities; and,
WHEREAS, by these adequate public facilities standards, the City seeks to regulate the
timing and sequencing of development so that the provision of adequate public facilities required
to accommodate the development growth occurs concurrently with the development growth. Put
another way, these adequate public facilities standards require development be timed and
sequenced in a manner consistent with the capacity of public facilities. The City's goal is to
insure that public facilities are capable of supporting and servicing the proposed development's
physical area and designated intensity; and,
. WHEREAS, in addition to the adequate public facilities standards listed in R.C.O. §§
64.130 — 64.139, the City's subdivision regulations also include adequate public facilities
standards within the criteria provided for the City review of particular subdivision processes.
Thus, a general development plan cannot be approved unless on and off-site public facilities are
adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under
consideration (see R.C.O. §61.215(5)). And, a preliminary plat (land subdivision) cannot be
approved unless the proposed land subdivision takes into account the City's six-year Long-
Range Capital Improvements Program (see R.C.O. §61.225(F)); and,
WHEREAS, the City's subdivision regulations allow the City to impose a condition on its
approval of a proposed development where the condition is needed to insure compliance with
the subdivision regulations (see R.C.O. §61.226); and,
WHEREAS, since the May, 1999, implementation of the City's adequate public facilities
standards as part of the City's subdivision regulations, there have been developments submitted
to the City for approval where the public facilities were inadequate. In these cases, one of three
consequences occurred in the processing of the development applications; and,
WHEREAS, consequence #1 of the existence of inadequate public facilities is City
approval of the proposed development, but with a very restrictive condition attached to the City's
approval. That condition restricts all development until such time as the Common Council
determines there are adequate public facilities to accommodate the proposed development; and,
•
3
WHEREAS, one example of consequence #1 is the following condition of approval placed
upon the General Development Plan #180 (Prairie Crossing):
Because on and off site public facilities are currently inadequate to handle
the proposed development, the development must be phased-in in a
manner consistent with the City's planned infrastructure improvements.
Specifically, there are no plans for sanitary sewer to serve the property
within the first three years of the City's current six-year Capital Improvement
Program. Further, no other arrangements have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development. Additionally, there are no plans to reconstruct 65th Street
N.W., or Bandel Road to handle the additional traffic that this development
will generate. As such, no development will occur and no further
development permit will be issued until the Council determines public
facilities are adequate to accommodate this development; and,
WHEREAS, consequence #2 of the existence of inadequate public facilities is the City
approval of the proposed development, but with a condition restricting the amount and extent of
development to coincide with the level of adequate public facilities that currently exists or may
occur in the future; and,
• WHEREAS, one example of consequence #2 is the following condition of approval placed
upon General Development Plan #142 (Weatherstone):
The development shall be phased so that 50th N.W., north of 55th Street
N.W., does not exceed approximately 3,000 average daily trips before it is
upgraded; and,
WHEREAS, consequence #3 of the existence of inadequate public facilities is the
execution of development contracts (commonly referred to as development agreements) as
specifically authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 2a. By these
development agreements, the developer and the City voluntarily agree as to how much each
entity should pay to bring the appropriate public facilities up to a level adequate to accommodate
the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, the decision to enter into development agreements is completely voluntary
and optional on each developer's part. Some developers have been willing to live with the
adequate public facilities' conditions of approval found in consequences #1 and #2. Other
developers, however, have chosen to help make inadequate public facilities adequate so as to
allow their proposed developments proceed as scheduled. To keep their developments on
schedule, some developers have decided to follow consequence #3; and,
WHEREAS, recently, there have been developers who have expressed an interest in
• development agreements for their proposed developments (consequence #3), but have also
expressed concern about the amount of their financial contributions towards the improvement of
4
the public facilities. They have indicated an interest in knowing in advance the scope and extent
of the current public facilities, the scope and extent of improvements needed to those public
facilities in order to accommodate future development and the costs associated with making
public facilities adequate; and,
WHEREAS, in response to the developers' call for more information on adequate public
facilities and the costs that might be associated with development agreements, the City of
Rochester Common Council wishes to establish a policy on the Use of Contribution Agreements
to Improve Substandard Streets ("UCASS"). The purpose of the UCASS policy is to address
inadequate existing township or county roads abutting proposed subdivisions and the manner in
which the roads can be made adequate should a developer and the City enter into a
development agreement. This policy seeks to equitably distribute the transportation
improvement costs created by new development between those property owners who benefit
from the transportation improvements and the City. The UCASS policy differs from the TID
policy by the types of streets covered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City establish the UCASS policy as follows:
1. The policy on the Use of Contribution Agreements for the Improvement to
Substandard Streets only applies to substandard streets. A "substandard street"
• includes the following:
A. A roadway whose cross-section does not meet any of the minimum
requirements #1 through #4 or#5 through #8:
(1) Two, 12-foot travel lanes;
(2) Two, six-foot paved shoulders;
(3) Separated walkway or bike path along one side of the roadway; and
(4) A three-to-one maximum in-slope.
OR
(5) Two, 12-foot travel lanes;
(6) One, eight-foot parking lane;
(7) Concrete curb and gutter;
(8) Separated walkway or bike path along one side of roadway.
B. A roadway that does not meet a minimum 40 miles per hour design speed
criteria as applied to vertical curves, horizontal curves and intersection sight
distances.
C. Notwithstanding anything in this definition to the contrary, the following
roadways are considered to be substandard as of the date of this
• resolution:
5
•
(1) 55th Street N.W., from CSAH 22 to 50th Avenue N.W.
(2) 19th Street N.W., from Valleyhigh Drive N.W., to CSAH 22.
(3) 55th Street N.W., from Highway 52 to County Road 133 (West River
Road).
(4) 11th Avenue S.W., from 48th Street S.W., to 60th Street S.W.
(5) 60" Street S.W., from 11th Avenue S.W., to Highway 63.
(6) 48th Street S.W., from 11th Avenue S.W., to Scenic Oaks Drive S.W.
2. This policy applies to any portion of a subdivision's frontage that abuts any
substandard city street, township road, County State Aid Highway or State Trunk
Highway.
3. Any substandard roadway that is reconstructed or otherwise improved pursuant to
this policy will remain "substandard" until such time as each undeveloped or
redeveloped parcel with frontage on the roadway has paid special assessments or
entered into a Contribution or Development Agreement.
4. If a developer and the City are willing to enter into a Contribution Agreement to
Improve Substandard Streets, the Agreement must include the following:
• A. The name of the property owner and that of the subdivision or development.
B. The legal description of the property.
C. The frontage dimension that abuts the substandard street.
D. The developable frontage dimension that abuts the substandard street.
E. The following contribution rates (used for calculating the property owner's
equitable share of the cost for the roadway and storm drainage
improvements):
(1) $80.00 per developable front foot for residential zoning.
(2) $100.00 per developable front foot for commercial zoning.
(3) $120.00 per developable front foot for industrial zoning.
The above contribution rates are subject to an annual adjustment on August
1 reflective of changes in the ENR Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis,
or as otherwise amended by the City Council.
F. The following contribution rates (used for calculating the property owner's
equitable share of the cost for the walkway or bike path improvements if
designated on the official ROCOG Bikeway Plan):
•
(1) $40.00 per developable front foot if the path is not graded.
6
• (2) $25.00 per developable front foot if path is graded.
The above contribution rates are subject to an annual adjustment on August
1 reflective of changes in the ENR Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis.
G. Any provision for the contribution of in-kind services or materials in lieu of
monetary contributions for improvements consistent with the final plan.
H. Any one or a combination of the following payment options:
(1) Lump sum payment within 30 days of execution of the Contribution
Agreement.
(2) Up to two uniform annual payments with annual adjustment reflective
of changes in ENR Construction Cost Index in Minneapolis.
(3) Payment for up to two years on a per lot sold basis with annual
adjustment in per lot cost reflective of changes in ENR Construction
Cost Index for Minneapolis.
All options require final and complete payments to occur within two years of
the date of the execution of the Contribution Agreement.
• 5. The City will assign a project number (J Number) to each roadway improvement
project at the time the first contribution agreement for the roadway is executed.
The contributed funds will be credited to that J Number and will only be used for
that project.
6. The City will reconstruct the roadway section within three years of the date when
all of the following events occurs:
A. 100% of the road right-of-way is annexed and within the City's jurisdictional
control either by easement or dedication.
B. 60% of the abutting frontage along the roadway has a city approved
General Development Plan or contribution agreement.
C. The City Council determines that sufficient funds are available to complete
the project.
7. This policy applies to all general development plans, meets and bounds surveys,
site development plans, certificates of survey and all other types of land
subdivisions that abut a substandard street.
8. This policy does not apply to plats filed before January 1, 1999, but does apply to
all plats filed on or after that date except as noted in paragraph 10 of this policy.
• The contribution amount will be prorated to reflect the respective portion of the
general development plan included in the plat. For example, if 60% of the general
• development plan has been previously platted and the developer now files a plat
for the remaining 40% of the general development plan, then the contribution
amount would be only 40% of the total contribution and the 60% would not be
required to be paid by that developer unless a re-plat was subsequently filed with
the City.
9. This policy would apply to areas that are re-platted if the re-plat increases the
density of the development. The contribution amount will be prorated to reflect the
respective portion of the re-platted area as compared to the entire general
development plan area. For example, if 10% of the general development plan is to
be re-platted, then the contribution amount would be 10% of the total contribution
required to be paid by that developer for the entire general development plan.
10. This policy applies to those portions of a general development plan that has been
previously approved by the City Council for land outside of the City's boundaries
on the date this policy became effective, unless land within a portion of the general
development plan is annexed, platted and recorded prior to January 10, 2001.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will not involuntarily impose any of the
contributions, charges, fees or costs described in the UCASS program. Instead, these
contributions, charges, fees and costs are solely for the use of potential developers and City
staff in responding to proposed developments involving inadequate public facilities that might
• be made adequate by way of voluntary development agreements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this policy becomes effective as of July 8, 2004.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by the adoption of this resolution the City Council
does rescind and invalidate any previously adopted policy addressing substandard street
improvements occurring by way of contribution agreements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS Zh DAY OF , 2004.
SIDENT Or SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
3--P11%7 CITY CLERI
APPROVED THIS ?+- A DAY OF , 2004.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Res2000\ResoluUCASS
8
i
EXHIBIT A
64.130 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITES STANDARDS
The requirements of this section supplement facility standards
established in the Stormwater Management Plan, the Long-Range
Transportation Plan and other adopted facilities plans, and identify
the standards to be followed in the establishment of infrastructure
improvements associated with any development. Adequacy is
defined in terms of the type, availability and capacity of public
facilities.
64.131. Required Facilities: In a proposed development the required
improvements include streets, sidewalks, public sanitary sewer,
and water utility extensions, storm water management facilities, soil
erosion and sedimentation control and monumentation. Other
items that are necessary or material to the project, such as school
sites or parkland, may be identified during the development
approval process.
64.132. Public Facilities: Public facilities and utilities shall be installed
according to the standards adopted by the appropriate agency.
The use of private sewage disposal systems and private water
supply to serve any new development shall not be permitted
unless: 1) the Common Council has determined that public utilities
will not be reasonably available and private utilities will not impair
the ability to extend services in the future, and 2) the Olmsted
County Health Department or County Sanitarian finds that
proposed geologic and soil conditions, and lot sizes are adequate
to support the proposed use of private utilities. There shall be
adequate area to relocate the drain field in case of soil saturation
for any lot authorized for on-site wastewater disposal. City
Engineer approval shall be required for all planned work involving
the use of public facilities or public right-of-way. The City Engineer
also shall review and decide on all requests to connect private
facilities to public facilities.
•
64.133. Funding Required Improvements: Required improvements
reasonably related to the development shall be installed at the sole
expense of the applicant. Assessment of costs to subsequent
users or public participation may in certain instances be applicable
to a proposed project. The City Engineer shall recommend to the
County when such policies may be applicable.
64.134. Guarantees for Improvements: Bonds or surety deposits shall
be required, unless waived in the development agreement prior to
commencing activity involving the installation of public
improvements, which shall be in amounts sufficient to cover the
cost of installation. Any unexpended portion of a surety deposit
shall be returned to the developer upon satisfactory completion of
the public improvements. (See Section 61.250)
64.135 Maintenance: Maintenance of newly installed public facilities shall
remain with the developer for a period of two years from final
inspection or as otherwise defined in an owner contract or
development improvement agreement. Following the expiration of
this period, the city shall assume responsibility for maintenance and
• upkeep of public facilities.
64.136. Dedications Required: Development plans, construction plans,
land subdivisions and site development plans shall identify needed
right-of-way or easement locations necessary for the provision of
utilities, drainage and vehicular or pedestrian circulation within the
development and connecting to adjacent development which meet
specified levels of service called for in adopted City plans and
regulations. Easements shall be granted and right -of-way
dedicated to the public by the applicant as part of the development
approval process or through separate instrument, which shall be in
a form approved by the City Attorney.
64.137. Cost Sharing: The City Engineer shall advise the Council
regarding costs and right-of-way widths for major streets. The
applicant shall provide right-of-way in accordance with the adopted
Long-Range Transportation Plan, Official Map legislation and
standards. However, an applicant may appeal a street dedication
requirement to the Council and if the applicant provides sufficient
evidence that the costs are not roughly proportional to the needs
generated by the subdivision, the Council may decide to purchase
a portion of the right-of-way that exceeds such rough
proportionality.
•
64.138. Drainage Easements Required: Drainage easements needed for
stormwater management as indicated on an approved drainage or
grading plans shall be provided. The document ENGINEERING
STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE DEVELOPEMTN OF SUBDIVISIONS, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, available from the Rochester Public
Works Department, should be consulted for current design
standards adopted by the City of Rochester.
64.139. Utility Easement Required: Utility easements required by the
various public and private utilities shall be provided. The various
utility agencies and the City Engineer shall be consulted as to
current policy on design and required easement widths. Vegetation
located on utility easements shall be placed so as to not interfere
with the free movements of service vehicles. Structures shall not
be placed on utility easements.
•