HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 157-05 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
WILLOW CREEK
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2004, the Common Council of the City of Rochester adopted
Resolution #350-04 establishing the Transportation Improvement District Program (a copy of the
resolution is attached and incorporated herein by reference); and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #350-04 stated that, by an additional resolution, the Council may
establish a Transportation Improvement District for any geographic area of the City experiencing
or anticipating new growth and substandard streets. The Council's determination of those areas
experiencing or anticipating new growth will be based upon its review of the City's urban service
boundaries and all other relevant factors that might reveal development trends over the next 40
to 50 years. The Transportation Improvement District will be established after reviewing the
growth areas containing substandard streets, the transportation system needs of the area based
upon its land use plan and zoning classifications, and the amount of each area's vacant
developable acreage; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution #350-04 states that, In creating a Transportation Improvement
*District, the Council will consider the following factors:
A. The transportation system improvements necessitated by current or
anticipated development in a particular geographic area of the City.
B. The particular geographic area of the City that would be served by the TID
improvements.
C. The total costs for the necessary transportation improvements.
D. The amount of the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to
serve a particular geographic area that should be allocated to the
development and to the City.
E. The method of cost allocation that should be used to establish a
proportional and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement
project costs; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Public Works Department has submitted information to the
Common Council regarding the establishment of a Willow Creek Transportation Improvement
District consisting of Attachments A— E (attached hereto and incorporated herein); and,
i
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2005, the Common Council met to consider all of the information
epresented to it including Attachments A— E and applied the five factors listed above as found in
Resolution #350-04 ; and,
WHEREAS, upon its review and consideration of the information presented to it in light of
the five factors listed in Resolution #350-04, the Council has determined that the Willow Creek
Transportation Improvement District should be established consistent with the provisions found
in Attachments A- E.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City establish the Willow Creek Transportation Improvement District
consistent with the provisions found in Attachments A— E.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will not involuntarily impose any of the
charges, fees, costs or costs allocations described in the Willow Creek Transportation
Improvement District Program (except to the extent the City utilizes the special assessment
process provided by Minn. Stat. ch. 429). Instead, any reference to or mention of any charge,
fee, cost or costs allocation occurs solely for the use by 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.
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DALOFQ , 2005.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
pepU,� CITY C E
/1
APPROVED THIS Jq. h DAY OF (�{� � , 2005.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Res05\PMReso1 u.W CTI D
•
2
..ti • � � x t.-q �` a.
r
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM
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
• Auld 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. la, 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
t;•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 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. S61.215(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,
0
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 Street 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 Transportation Improvement Districts ("TID") in
areas of the City where new development is likely to occur. The purpose of a TID is to designate
a geographic area of the City with existing substandard streets that would need to be improved
or replaced if new development were to occur within that area. For each TID, there would be
notice and information to a developer as to the costs that are at stake and the manner in which
the City believes the costs should be divided between the City and the developer should the
developer voluntarily enter into a development agreement for that development. The TID 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;
and,
WHEREAS, the recently-concluded Transportation Funding Task Force, which met to
discuss the City's growth-related transportation funding needs, supports the City's creation of a
TID. Among the Task Force's 28 recommendations to the Common Council was a
recommendation to create a TID as a tool to fund a portion of the growth in the City's street
system attributable to new development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City establish the TID program as follows:
1. For purposes oft this resolution, the term "development" means any man-made
change to improved or unimproved real estate including a change in use or the
creation of a subdivision. The term "developer" means any person engaging in
any development activity for which city approval is sought.
2. By an additional resolution, the Council may.establish a TID for any geographic
area of the City experiencing or anticipating new growth and substandard streets.
The Council's determination of those areas experiencing or anticipating new
growth will be based upon its review of the City's urban service boundaries and all
other relevant factors that might reveal development trends over the next 40 to 50
years. The TID will be established after reviewing the growth areas containing
substandard streets, the transportation system needs of the area based upon its
land use plan and zoning classifications, and the amount of each area's vacant
developable acreage.
3. In creating a TID, the Council will consider the following factors:
,• A. The transportation system improvements necessitated by current or
anticipated development in a particular geographic area of the City.
5
• B. The particul
ar r geographic area of the City that would be served by the TiD
improvements.
C. The total costs for the necessary transportation improvements.
D. The amount of the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to
serve a particular geographic area that should be allocated to the
development and to the City.
E. The method of cost allocation that should be used to establish a
proportional and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement
project costs.
4. The additional resolution will establish a cost allocation for each TfD. . The cost
allocation will be calculated as 75% of the costs of all the transportation projects
within the TID. These costs will include, but will not be limited to, the costs of
design and construction engineering services, acquisition of right=of--way and
construction. The cost allocation will be made up of two cost components.
A. A Substandard Street Reconstruction Cost ("SSRC"); and,
• B. A Substandard Street Capacity Cost ("SSCC").
The above two items will be added together based on the proposed street section
cost for the transportation improvements needed in the TID area to establish the
TID cost allocation.
5. An additional resolution will establish a cost allocation for each interchange TID.
The Interchange TID cost allocation will be calculated as a portion of the cost of
the interchange that would equal the cost of a signalized. expressway intersection
that would be necessary to serve properties in the district. The City will assume
the balance of the interchange project cost. Distance/proximity increments may be
used to apportion the Interchange TID cost allocation with property closer to the
interchange assuming a greater amount of the cost allocation. These costs will
include, but will not be limited to, the costs of design and construction engineering
services, acquisition of right-of-way and construction. The interchange TID will be
made up of two cost components:
A. A Substandard Street Reconstruction Cost ("SSRC'); and,
B. A Substandard Street Capacity Cost ("SSCC').
The above two items will be added together based on the proposed street section
• cost for the transportation improvements needed in the TID area to establish the
TID cost allocation.
6
r
6. A. When the proposed TO serves an area zoned for low density residential
uses, the SSRC and the SSCC are divided by the gross or net developable
acres in the TO area. The result is a cost per acre that is the basis for the
TO substandard street reconstruction and capacity cost allocation.
B. When the proposed TO serves an area not zoned for low density
residential uses, the SSRC and the SSCC are calculated differently. The
SSRC is divided by the gross or net developable acres in the TO area. The
SSCC is divided by the gross vehicle trips or the p.m. peak hour vehicle
trips generated from the acres in the TID area. The result is a SSRC per
acres and a SSCC per trip that is the basis for the TO substandard street
reconstruction and capacity cost allocation.
C. The City Council may, from time to time, elect to modify the basis for the
TID cost allocation from net or gross developable acres to trips or vice versa
if the Council determines that the alternative basis for the TID cost
allocation represents a more proportional or equitable distribution of costs.
7. A. For each TO area, 50% of the SSRC for the reconstruction of a roadway up
to a 40-foot wide rural section street or the equivalent 36-foot wide urban
street will be allocated to the City. Fifty percent of the SSRC equal to 50%
of the cost of reconstructing a 40-foot wide rural section street or its
equivalent urban section will be allocated to the developer.
B. For each TO area, none of the SSCC for the construction of additional
roadway and intersection capacity will be allocated to the City. The SSCC
equal to 100% of the cost to construct additional roadway capacity up to a
maximum 52-foot roadway width will be allocated to the developer.
Additionally, the SSCC equal to 100% of the cost to construct additional
intersection capacity regardless of the intersection width will be allocated to
the developer.
8. The applicable development agreement will provide the details as to when these
cost allocations are assumed by each party. The time for payment set forth in the
development agreement is related to the timing of the impacts of construction of
the development. In all cases the cost allocations must be assumed within three
to five years of the development agreement's execution.
9. Revenue collected within a specific TID must be spent only within that TID.
Revenue collected in excess of that ultimately needed in the respective TID must
be refunded to the property owners in the TO at the time the TO is dissolved (It is
the City's understanding that cost allocations will ultimately be,borne by individual
property owners).
7
• 10. The City may, from time to time, secure new or one-time revenue such as federal
transportation funds or local option sales taxes for certain transportation projects
within any particular TID or Interchange TID. The City will use these new revenues
to reduce the City's cost allocation of that TID or Interchange TID. If after reducing
the City's cost allocation to zero, the City will apply any remaining revenue to
reduce the TID or Interchange TID cost allocations. In those cases where the
State or County contributes to the funding of certain projects within any particular
TID or Interchange TID, the City will use these State and County funds to reduce
the overall project cost for that TID or Interchange TID project before calculating
the TID or Interchange TID cost allocation.
11. The City Council may from time to time elect to use Municipal State Aid System
(MSAS) funds for TID or Interchange TID projects. In any given fiscal year the
Council's use of MSAS funds for TID or Interchange TID project(s) shall be limited
to not more than 50% of that year's available MSAS construction account
allocation. In no case shall an individual TID or Interchange TID project be funded
with more than 50% MSAS funds.
12. Prior to the award of a contract to construct a proposed TID or Interchange TID
improvement, and by way of a contribution agreement executed by benefiting
property owners, the City may require an initial, upfront commitment of at least
60% of the cost of a particular transportation project in a TID or Interchange TID.
• . 13.. The City Council may, from time to time, review and revise by resolution the TID
cost allocation for any specific TID if the Council determines that prior TID cost
allocation established by the City are inadequate to fund the remaining projects
within the specific TID. Revised TID cost allocations will not apply to fully executed
development agreements that address TID cost allocation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will not involuntarily impose any of the
charges, fees, costs or costs allocations described in the TID program. Instead, any reference
to or mention of any charge, fee, cost or costs allocation occurs solely for the use by 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.
s
i
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this policy becomes effective as of July 8, 2004.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF , 2004.
e _ /
Grw
ESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: (,U
CI CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2004.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
• Rochester, Minnesota)
Res2000\ResoluTiD
9
•
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,
P P � p ,
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.
C
ATTACHEMENT A
Willow Creek TID
MODIFIED RECOMMENDATION April 11, 2005
TID Designation Roadways Roadway
Y Roadway Limits Description of Improvements Length
Willow Creek
11 th Avenue SW to St.Bridget 4-Lane Urban divided section with ped
48th Street Road facilities
5,250
11th Avenue SW to St.Bridget 4-Lane Urban divided/undivided section
40th Street SW/SE Road with ed facilities
5,400
St.Brid et Road 48th Street to 40th Street SE facilities ne Urban divided section with ped
North of 40th Street 3,950
Commercial Drive Frontage Station 400+00 to 416+00 and 3-Lane Urban undivided section with ped
EERoad Station 434+00 to 443+00 facilities
North of 40th Street 1,600
Wood Lake Fronta a Road [Ae
on 200+00 to 212+50 2&3-Lane Urban undivided section with
ped facilities 1,250
section of 48th Street/11 th
Traffic Signal ue SW Future Si nal
ection of 48th Street SW and
Traffic Si nal t Fronta a Road Future Signal
ection of 48th Street SE and
Traffic Signal e Street Future Si nal
ection of 40th Street/11th
Traffic Si nal ue SW Future Si nal
ection of 40th StreetTraffic Si nal ercial Drive SW New Si nal
ection of 40th Street/
Traffic Si nallake Drive SE Future Signal
Traffic Signal 40th Street Interchan a Ramps(2) New Si nal
Traffic Si nal 48th Street Interchange Ramps(2) Future Signal
• Total Modified Estimated Project Costs (City's portion of cost allocation only)
$14,776,978
• Developer's/Owner's Estimated Cost Share (75% share)
$11,082,734
• R-1/Rlx $2,613 per buildable acre
• R-2/R-3B5 $5,227 per buildable acre
• B-1B-5 $9,409 per buildable acre
• B-4/M-1 $23,522 per buildable acre
• M-2 $5,331 per buildable acre
•
I Willow Creek TI D Boundary
• Attachment B
-77
� I
� j
F
•
1
i/
tt
48 S1e
S.W 48 ST
SE
u I
_ f _......._._.
F t
Legend 77
TID AREA 'f j
Parcel Bounda
Major Roads
1
City Limit
ATTACHMENT C
Total Project Costs of Willow Creek Transportation District Improvements
Phase 2
Project Costs 1 i
Allocated to
Phase 2 Phase 1 Commercial Drive
Project Costs I Project Cost Allocated) and Woodlake Drive Total WCTID Project
---------------
Allocated to WCTID to WCTID Frontage Roads Total Project Costs Costs
- - , _._ 1.
Construction Costs $4,948,073.701 $3--.�_-- --------__-- . -. 656 882.00 $541,315.001 __.._$9,146,270_70 - --- -$8,604,955.70
Design and Construction -
Engineering Casts $833,602.94� $616,075.62
$91 195
44 $1,540,874.00 $1,449678.5
Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs _ $1,785,278.80'
—_ ( $1,319,413.23 $195,307.96 $3,300,000.00
.. .... ......
Future Traffic Signals(6) $540 524. $399 475.
�_ 51 $0.00 $940,000.00 $940,000.00
Contingency Costs $494,807.37i $182,844.10 $54,131.50
731,782 97 $677,651.47
TOTAL Project Costs $8,602,287.301 $6,174,690.471 $881,949.91 $15,658,927.67 $14,776,977.76
Prepared by Richard W. Freese April 7, 2005
ATTACHMENT D
Willow Creek Transportation Improvement District
Allocation of Transportation District Improvement Costs to Vacant
Undeveloped Property and to the City
Phase 2 Phase 1
Project Costs Project Cost
Allocated to Allocated to Total WCTID
WCTID WCTID Project Costs
Construction Costs $4,948,073.70 $3,656,882.00 $8,604,955.70
Design and Construction
Engineering Costs $833,602.94 $616,075.62 $1,449,678.56
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Costs $1,785,278.80 $1,319,413.23 $3,104,692.03
• Future Traffic Signals (6) $540,524.49 $399,475.51 $940,000.00
Contingency Costs $494,807.37 $182,844.10 $677,651.47
TOTAL Project Costs $8,602,287.30 $6,174,690.46 $14,776,977.76
TOTAL Transportation Improvement District Cost $14,776,978
75% Share Allocated to 670.13 Acres of Vacant Developable Property $11,082,734
25% Share Allocated to City of Rochester $3,694,244
Substandard Street Reconstruction Costs $7,388,488
Substandard Street Capacity Costs $7,388,488
•
ATTACHMENT E
Willow Creek Transportation Improvement District
• Method of Allocation of Project Costs
A _B C D E E G H
P.M.Peak Hour
Net Zoning Trips P.M.Peak
Assessable' Gross Developable;: per Net Trips per Scenario:Zoning
_.. Segment Developments_ _ Zoni Front a Acres Acres ! Developable Oe eb merit: /Net Acre Assessment Amount
.__. ._.. l..__..ag --- - -_....._p._. _ _Trips
481h S[_reet from 11th A e_t0 St Br dget.Road
West 80 _- M 1 664.48. 38.16 36.90i _ 32.58 1.202.20:_ _5870 317: 5887,978.58
-__._ _._ - _.. _"--_-_ _ --_,.Soutnem Woods__ --_-_ __ _-M•1 930_00 15_77 15.771 _-_32_58 517_79; 53713370,948.25
Watertront _-.___ :M•1 0.00; 23.65 20.45: 32_58 666.26 ___-- $482330_ S481,033.08
M Its - - ._ __ - _._ -
- __ M 1 I_1,970.( 69_52__ 68 04 L- 32.58_ _2,216.74 _ __$1,604 780 S1,600,464.10
.,_Maine Street :Mi 2,050.00i 104.34 74.21; 3258 2,61778' _ 51,750305� 51,745,597.30
•Forest Knoll rcon R 2 0 00 76.50 60.00 7.2d 434.40- S31d 478 5313,632.00
St.Bridget Road from 48th Street to 40th Street SE
_-Marne Street M 1 28a000
South Broadway Partners(Speedee d Vacant parcel) M71 0.00 __4._84•_.__..,..-a_84. 32.58•. 157.69 5714.755:-_ 57/3,848.d2
. . ;Tractor Supply CompanY . M 1�- - 350.00; .._2 8a_-._-__2 84.- _ 32.58_ 92.53--- $66,984_. 566.803.6;
.. -, CalliR -- Mt 0.48-_ _Oa6'. 32.58 1C.96- ---Si0829 510.800.00
Cant ne[ial - - -- - --
._. --_ M t -- ---- 1.42-_---1_42 32.58i__ 4626� .._533,492 $33,401.81
. .. _•Garden _ __. M-1 - _-.._.. .
-.. _ _..._-..._.._.. _.... --.___.__. ..-.... .____.__ 0_92 0.92�-_ RM 29_92_-..-_.__327,858� $21.600.00
._. Moore M-1 - 1.30 1.30 32.58 a2.35 930,662i $30,579.12
-. ,Sorenson - ..._------- -------�--------------------
._M:? -,-. -_-- •_"-.L68___,_,_.1.68; J2.58 Sa.73 539 ___
._ __ e ...._ .... .-._._....__._ _.....-_-_.----__--- --_-•-.___.-'----5202133__ 520.228.94
The Gardens
sen M-1 0.83 0.83. 32.58 27.Oa, _ _ 579,578: S19,523.59
The Gardens R 2 2.500 00 80.00 61 42 7.N- 444.67. 5321,918 5321,049.59
50.00__80.00- 62.53; 9258 _. 31 47d,822 .67 57,470,855
.__ Kellner M-1 000 3.30 3,30! 32.58 107.51 577,8331 57,855.67
... .. Le stme ster M-1 0.00- 0.85 - 0.85 3258--- 27.69 .--- -_.- 520,048'-- 519,994.04
._,Le uesTrenchs Produce, --_. _..M•1 i._. 0:�- 26.00_ 17.W 2M 423.54__ $306.616 $305,791.20
;DeGues Tile M1_. 350.00j72.00 iL90L 32.SB__---387.70: •5280,671: $279,918.56
40th Streel from 11fh Ave to St Bridget Road I------
Wrlbw Creek Commons-Pin 54360 M 1 865 00 22 31 9 501 32 581 - 309 51 _ ___5224 O65y- 5223,a62.80
.. �.--__
-.-W lbw Creek commons Pm 56226 M 1 _260 00 _ 25.70 21.82._ 32 58 711.2.2 - 5514.179y S513,493.99
.,;Wdbw Creek Commons_Pm 56229 M1 -_0_.00! 12.05. 1205_ 32.58_ 392_59-- 5284,209• 5283,44a.92
56230 :M 1 _ 0.00-1J.83 13.83 32.58! 450.58 S326,192`- 3325,314.79
._ W4Ww Creek Commons-Pin Sfi227M1 0.00' 7.10 7.10, 32.SB 231.32 5167,459• 5167,009.04
Comnans-Pin 56225 R-3 _0 00: __18.00- 10.00;- 7.24 72.a0 _ S52,413 _ $52,272.00
:Willow Creek Commons Pin 56228 R-3 0 00 _ 32 70 19 00__ 7.24' 1 t5 T_- _583,861 _ 583,635.20
_WIIbw Creek Commons•F'n __ R.1 2 820 00 -3fi 80-- _3 00 - _162 10 86'- 37,862y- S7,Bd0.B0
Wllb Creek Commons--Pin 56228 R-1 __-0 00 21 60- 9 00 3.62 32.58- $23.586 $2],522.40
"N Ib Creek Commons-Pm 56225 R-2 _----
-_ .. _ ' 970 7.00 7.2d 18.10 336,689' 538,590.60
_..__.__-_.._._-.- ,-_Willow Creekk Commons-Pin d8224 TwnsWR-_ 180.00 11.50 S.00I 3.62: /8.10 __W,103 $13.068.00
Prow Prow 67979.87981,6798] .M 1"-_-___- 20000_-_- 1.50 __-_1 50.____32.58-__48_87.___ 535,3791 $35,283.60
300.00
__...._..-. _____
_._.._.._-__ _
_._ ... -....._?row. _._. .
Penz 38.50 -18_50 3.62_---59.77" -__ 543.241. S43,1244o
Commercial Drive fmm 401h Street to 33r0 Street SW
..City Pin 67979.67981,67983
_Copar merit Pin -•R- - - 3.62
_ .__.._ .. bey-el_p _ _.__ __ .......... ._..1540_ .__12 00• -_ ... 3.62__ 43.44 _S31 448_-_ _337.363.20
_CoPar Development Pin 71205 M-1 "•_..__973.00 _ 16.40 12AOy 32.58:__ 390.96 5283,030: __-5282,268.80
SMber Pin 47006 .. .._ .R 1 _ .. .._ _ __.
- - ... . ._. _ 000 .__Yam -_25.'._ _ 3.62 90.50_ _ _S65,516 _ 565,340.0O
- .. 'MillsShlF Pin 26032 R•1 0.00 39.30 19 65 3 62 71.13 - 551,498�-_S51,357.24
s Fleet Fann Pin 71206, ___.M-1 . _-p_0o_-_-3.00 _3_00_ .32.58 _97.74." ._ _$70.758.__.-_ $70.567.20
Wood Lake Drive front40th Street to 36th Str 1.eet SE - '-- --�----'--�---�---'--- ---�� _.-. _. ... ... _..___._-.___ ___-_,__..--_
Prow
.. .. .._ _ .Prow- 33 5C 76.75 ----]2 58 -_-545 72 3395,063! 339d,000.20
-- .-.- .__.. _._.... _.. .. ... ... ..... ...._-.__-_ _--,_-__--•.-_ 22,83946-952.03 670.13 1,0389d 15.30900, 311,082,733.50: S11.-2,928.39
Constrvabn Costs Sfi,604,958 i-�- ,
Engineering Costs
ROW Costs _-_.____-__ $3,104,692 T -----..--_:------
Future Traffic S'nals 8
g-1 L__..--...-._.._._.__------- S94o.o001
Conti en
To-al Pro)e-a C-o-s-ts---..._._...-_ _--_- 514,778978' _r-_-__ 1_161_9_ , .2_7.
0.00: 723.94:
M7 16,014.46'i 533.43 425.56; 977.40' 13,864.6fi 1003712582'
-- --- -- I I I $0.541456
- --I
Use$0.54
$23,522.40/Acre
I iR•2/R-3 1 5 320,OOi 218.90� 154.421 36.201 1,117.991 $809,356.241
I $0,120324
I I I I I Use SO.12
1 I $5 227 20/Acre
iR 1 1,305.00i 201.701 90.15 25.341 326.341 5236.251.441
I 50.060182
' Use So.08
32,813.80/A:
Total 952.03, 870.13, 1038.94, 15.309.001 $11,082.733.50;
•
Prepared By Richard Freese April 5,2005
Tr A'
COUNTY OF
Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE—Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507)285-8232
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Freese
Rochester Public Works
FROM:Transportation Planning Division
Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department
RE: Calculation of Trip Generation Ratios for estimating Willow Creek TID Charges
The Transportation Planning Division was requested to prepare an analysis of comparative trip generation rates for
various zoning district classifications to serve as the basis for calculating Transportation Improvement District(TID)
charges in the Willow Creek and other mixed use TID's. Public Works and Planning staff concluded in earlier
discussions that zoning classifications provided an equitable basis for assigning transportation costs and a
straightforward means of measuring the relative share to be assigned to each property within a TID. Staff also felt
that zoning classifications could be categorized into five groups for purposes of this process.These five groups and
the zoning classifications associated with each are:
o Low Density Residential(R-1 and R-Ix districts)
o Medium Density Residential(R-2 and R-3)
o General Commercial and Business(B-4 and M-1)
o Neighborhood Commercial(B-1 and B-5)
o I'ndustrial(M-2)
The Qoal of this analysis was to develop a comparative ratio of traffic impact for each land use group using the Low
Density Residential group as the benchmark(ratio= 1.00).Table 1 on Page 3 summarizes the analysis.The resulting
ratios for the five categories are:
Low Density Residential= 1.00 General Commercial=8.99 Industrial=2.04
Medium Density Residential= 1.99 Neighborhood Commercial=3.58
The assumptions and data used for this analysis as shown in Table 1 area as follows:
1) (Column B)The analysis is based on calculating the traffic impact created by theoretical 40 acre site(net
developable acreage)being fully developed with the predominant land uses permitted by the zoning.within
each zoning group
2) (Column C)Column C shows the land use types utilized for purposes of this analysis.Land use types that
typically account for the majority of traffic within a given zoning group were used for purposes of this
analysis.
3) (Column D)Column D indicates the percentage of the typical 40 acre development area assigned to each land
use type for purposes of this analysis.In the case of the B-4/M-1 zoning group,the percentage distribution
was arrived at based on an evaluation of how existing non-residential square footage in the city is distributed
among the different primary land use types used in the analysis.In the case of the B-1B-5 zoning group,
distribution ratios for specialty retail and hi-intensity retail were set at a level to effectively provide for a
. small specialty retail center of approximately 25,000 sgft and a single hi-intensity use(drive-in bank or
convenience store) for every 40 acres of development, with the remainder divided between office and small
business use
4) (Column E)Column E reflects the intensity of development that is assumed for each land use type.This is
calculated in terms of either density(dwelling units per acre)or Floor Area Ratio(reflecting the amount of
floor area that can be developed as a%of available land area).The factors used are reflective of development
that has occurred in the city over the last 10-15 years.
5) (Column F)Column F simply reports the resulting level of development when the density or floor area ratio
factors are applied to the share of the acreage assumed to be developed for each specific land use type within
a group.
6) (Column G)Column G reports the PM Peak Hour trip generation rate for each type of land use used in the
analysis.These figures are taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual,
which is recognized as the primary source of trip generation data in the United States.The trip generation rate
reflects external trips per unit of development; for example,in row 6 the figure 1.01 means that we can expect
to see 1.01 trips for each dwelling unit in a single family development in the late aftemoon/early evening peak
hour. Similarly, in row 20,the figure 3.75 means we can expect to see on average 3.75 trips for every 1000
square feet of floor area in a shopping center development.
In the Industrial zoning group(rows 29-32)an adjustment is made for heavy truck traffic to reflect the added
impact to traffic operations created by length,speed,turning radius and other operational characteristics of
heavy trucks.In column G the percentage of traffic accounted for by heavy trucks is reported; in the analysis
each heavy truck is counted as the equivalent to 1.5 passenger cars or light trucks in the traffic estimate
• reported in Column H.The% factor is based on information found in a report from the Transportation
Research Board(NCHRP Synthesis 298—Truck Trip Generation)and the article"Truck Trip Generation
Characteristics of Non-Residential Land Uses"that appeared in the July 1994 issue of the ITE Journal.
7) (Column H)Column H simply reports the total PM peak hour trips that are expected arrived at by multiplying
the PM rate(column G)by the assumed level of development(column F). A trip total for each zoning group
is reported that illustrates the assumed level of traffic given full development of the theoretical 40 acre site.
8) (Column 1)Column I reports the comparative ratio for each zoning group, which is calculated by dividing the
total trips estimated for the theoretical 40 acre development site by the level of trips estimated for a
theoretical 40 acre low density site(which is 144.85 trips as shown in row 8)
2
Trip 1: Trip Generation Ratios for TID Charges
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
A B C D E F G H I
Developab PM Peako a
Zoning le Area Share of Units per Hour Trip Peak hour
Group (acres) Use Area acre Total units Rate Trips Ratio to R1-R1x
R1, R1x 40 single family 50% 3.25 65 1.01 65.65
townhouse 50% 5.5 110 0.72 79.20
Totals 100% 175 144.85 1.00
9.° `i�1*'��"s` ."'b `T `ate fgw, ,r'"';-_ 'R�-. _.,'t3 _ RatlO
A, Y-!1SrR'. '�C w S�"r..�}T; ..r n? .r ✓p�ve J...i i
R2, R3 40 Irowhouse 50% 8.51 1701 0.781 132.60
apartments 50%1 12.51 2501 0.621 155.00
Totals 100% 420 287.60 1.99
tio
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Developab PM Peakotal PM
Zoning le Area Share of Floor Area Total Hour Trip Peak hour
Group (acres) Use Area Ratio Floor Area Rate Trips Ratio to RI-R1x
64, M1 40 business park 22% 0.25 95,832 1.29 123.62
high intensity retail 2% 0.25 8,712 45.33 394.91
shopping center 21% 0.25 91,476 3.75 343.04
. bigbox retail 8% 0.25E204,732
3.87 134.86
office development 47% 0.25 1.49 305.05
Totals 100% 435,600 1,301.49 8.99
Ratio
B1, 135" 40 business park 35% 0.15 90,169 1.29 116.32
specialty retail 10% 0.15 26,136 2.71 70.83
hi intensity retail 1% 0.15 2,614 45.33 118.47
office development 55% 0.15 142,441 1.49 212.24
Totals 100% 261,360 517.86 3.58
Ratio
M2 40 Industrial Park 50%° 0.25 217,800 0.86 167,31
with heavy truck factor applied(1.5) 15.5% 201.82
Warehousing 50% 0.20 174,240 0.47 81.89
with heavy truck factor applied(1.5) 28.7% 93.64
Totals 100% 392,040 295.47 2.04
Ratio