• 04Aug

    Plymouth trees bow to development
    LAURIE BLAKE, Star Tribune

    Timber will be on the chopping block in Plymouth Tuesday when the City Council is set to zone 28 wooded acres to build 46 new homes. About 800 trees will be taken out by the proposed Willows development on Hwy. 47 in northwest Plymouth. The number includes 133 oaks, many of them more than 100 years old.
    That’s not sitting well with Steve Gardner, 50, a self-described whistleblower who goes through development plans filed at City Hall to add up tree loss and report his findings at council meetings. Gardner says city officials talk about tree loss in total diameter inches, as dictated by the city tree ordinance, which doesn’t convey the effect. To counter a city report that says the Willows would remove 65 percent of the combined tree inches on the site, he plans to show up to give the exact count. “I want people to know what is going on.”
    By Gardner’s tally, more than 2,000 trees will be taken down for the development. He includes trees that the city doesn’t count: those smaller than 8 inches across, and trees lost to roads and utilities and drainage ponds.  “Can’t we build the houses in amongst all these beautiful oak trees? Why do we have to cut everything down?” he said.
    Plymouth’s approach to tree protection is less aggressive than some of its neighboring communities and is considered overly simplistic by the Department of Natural Resources’ community forester. The city is seeking a balance between tree preservation, density requirements and the rights of land owners to develop as they wish, said Steve Juetten, community development director. Pulte Homes, the Willows’ developer, said it strives to preserve trees and worked with Plymouth officials to minimize the number that will be lost.
    By Gardner’s estimate, the city has lost about 50,000 big and small trees to about 30 big developments since 2000. Gardner blames the loss on the city’s tree ordinance, which lets developers cut down half of the combined tree “inches” on a residential lot and provides no more protection for a 120-year-old oak than an 8-inch-round ash.
    Plymouth Mayor Kelli Slavik said, “It’s difficult to balance the needs of preserving the trees with property rights and developers’ interest in the community. If we could preserve more trees and still allow more development, that would be everybody’s goal.”

    Tree ordinances differ by city

    Ken Holman, the DNR’s community forestry coordinator, recommends that cities preserve stands of trees rather than individual trees. He called Plymouth’s 50-percent removal allowance too simplistic and said it warrants discussion about how the city can preserve valuable, long-growing trees in significant stands of woods, Holman said. Along with the maximum clearing allowance, there should be other references to protect groves of healthy, longer-growing trees, he said, Plymouth stands out from neighboring Minnetonka and Maple Grove, which take the DNR-recommended approach. Minnetonka adopted a tree preservation ordinance to protect remnants of woodlands. “We are still preserving peoples’ rights to subdivide,” but they have to site the homes to fit in and around the protected trees, said community development director Julie Wischnack.
    Developers can gain approval for greater density with designs that protect trees; otherwise they may build just one lot per acre, Wischnack said. Maple Grove has set up so-called “T-zone” areas to protect prime forested land, reflecting a “very high” community priority for trees, said Frank Kampel, staff representative to the Maple Grove arbor committee. The T-zones apply only to areas with important stands of trees, Kampel said. If trees are cut beyond allowed amounts, “you need to replace them on a two-to-one basis. If it’s a 100-year-old tree that is 40 inches in diameter, you have to replace it with 80 inches of trees,” Kampel said. That cost “typically stops or hinders people from taking down trees” but it has not deterred development, Kampel said. In Plymouth the replacement is 1.25 for every inch of tree taken beyond the 50 percent allowance.
    That policy is the product of what politics would allow when it was adopted in 1985 after residents complained about tree loss, said Plymouth city forester Paul Buck. Although large, old trees are not specifically protected, ” by counting caliper inches, you at least force them [developers] to look at the size of the tree.” Plymouth has a lot of mature sugar maples and oaks, Buck said. “No matter how much it may pain me to see the trees go, as long as they are following the rules, that is all I can enforce.”
    Gardner wants the city to try harder to save the remaining old trees. “What I see is a beautiful forest with all kind of wildlife in it,” he said, “and then I see it gone.”

    Tags: , ,

  • 24Jun

    Olmsted County is one of Minnesota’s fastest growing areas. Growth increases the pressure on natural habitats and the demand for recreational facilities. The Olmsted County Board of Commissioners has directed the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department to draft an “open space” plan. For purposes of this plan, “open space” is defined as an area that is managed in its natural state or used for outdoor recreation and is free from intensive development for residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional use.

    This plan will cohesively document existing open space policies found in the components of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, map natural and environmentally sensitive areas found throughout the County, relate those areas to existing public and private landholdings, and provide a toolbox for their conservation or acquisition as funding becomes available. Private sportsmen’s and environmental organizations may also find this plan useful to target their efforts and support applications for grant monies.

    As part of this effort, the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department is conducting a survey of public officials and commission members, recreation and environmental organizations, and the general public. The goal is to collect information on our area’s open space strengths and weaknesses as well as find out what areas people consider to be important to our County’s natural and recreational environment. The survey is located on Survey Monkey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VY3ZYVZ and should take about 15 minutes to complete; the survey will be open until July 16th.

    Tags: , ,

  • 20Apr

    The following was submitted by Dave Edmondson, KPNA President. This memo regarding a restricted development proposal was sent to city council ahead of the April 5th meeting.

    1126_west_center_restricted_development1

    Tags:

  • 28Mar

    Here is a link to a site detailing the Mayo Civic Center Expansion. This includes a lot of good information on why the Civic Center is important for Rochester and the surrounding communities. There is also an video that gives a brief overview of the history of the MCC which includes all of the additions to the center since it’s opening. Donna Drews explains the reasoning behind the current expansion ideas with testimonials from organizations that use the MCC for their functions and meetings. It goes on to discuss the economic impacts a first class convension center facility would have for Rochester in terms of revenue including jobs created, restaurants visited, catering services needed, and hotel rooms utilized. Finally, the video details all of the state of the art features a new expanded MCC would include and why those features are important.

    Tags: , ,

  • 07Mar

    The following comments were submitted to MNDOT…

    I am an elected official in the city of Rochester and I would like to submit some comments on behalf of myself and many I represent in my community.  This is not an official action of the city of Rochester.  Official comments will be submitted via ROCOG.  I would like to also address some addition points that I don’t feel are being given enough attention.

    Regardless of the final decision, I would like to lend my strong support to the concept that decisions should be made on a data driven decision basis. The position or vocal activism of certain politicians should not be a driver. The decision should also be made on the basis of lifecycle benefits, not on the basis of immediate gratification or expediency.

    I support an eventual high-speed passenger and freight rail infrastructure with the ability to connect Minnestoa’s two most vibrant economies, that of the Twin Cities metro and Rochester. The data that has been gathered clearly shows the ridership potential of Rochester/Rosemount vastly exceeds that of any combination of River communities. Further, the ongoing myth that the River Corridor can support high-speed rail given geometric and congestion limitations must be examined and given its proper regard. The medium speed travel on the river corridor may have adverse consequences for what is a key migratory pathway for many bird species including the American Bald Eagle.

    In addition, not enought respect is being given to the reality that the CAPX 2020 electricl transmission project will potentially allow for a shared corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities, further eliminating any up front cost differential. This will also offer needed infrastucture for potential electrification of the line.

    In considering the true long term cost/benefit of high-speed rail, it is foolish to not consider the reality that the key Minnesota airport is currently land-locked without potential of further expansion. As capacity is reached in Bloomington, a high-speed connection to the Rochester Airport will enable Rochester to act as the third terminal in an integrated system. Further, air freight congestion can potentially be relieved at both O’Hare and MSP by utilizing existing infrastructure present at RST. This includes major North-South and East-West freeway, freight rail, skilled labor, industry, and air capacity. The cost of building a second major Minnesota airport could potentially be in the tens of billions and we can alleviate that cost by being smart now.

    In closing, we live in a situation where Minnestoa only has one growing city of the first class, Rochester. To not leverage the wise decision making and leadership this community has shown and instead give preferential treatment to rail corridors designed for the 19th century, in the name of politics and expediency, would be a mistake.

    Michael Wojcik, Rochester City Council, Ward 2

    You are invited…

    Please join Michael every third Wednesday from 4-6 pm at Beetle’s Bar & Grill (230 20th Ave SW, Rochester) for casual conversation and discussion about issues of concern to you and Ward 2.

    Contact Information…

    Please contact Michael about any concern, any time at votewojcik@gmail.com

    Tags: ,

  • 07Mar

    Common Myths pertaining to the Skyway $1.3/1.4 million subsidy.

     Myth 1:  This route has been analyzed and determined to be the best route.

    This is false; no group has ever been tasked to determine what downtown connections most benefit the public.  The RDA and its director only allowed their development subgroup to comment on the aesthetics of this project.  Further, this discussion took place with the developer in the room.  I would contend that if we wanted to connect this building, this is not even the direction to do it from.  Because we have an unwilling partner in the Holiday Inn Express we have turned a short connection into a long, complex connection that is vastly more expensive and potentially destroys public space.  I suspect that an independent group would verify that this is not where or how we should build this connection.  But we are willing to spend $1.4 million with out studying what is best for our citizens.

     

    Myth 2:  There is a precedent that should guide us in paying for this connection.
    I suspect that in the 1880’s we had a precedent of equipping police officers with horses, but we do not consider that as a precedent.  10 years ago we had options available to us for funding projects like this, which we no longer have.  In today’s climate we can not afford to make these kinds of subsidy payments and low interest rate loans.  We have never before done this in this financial climate.

    Myth 3: There is a public benefit to building this skyway.

    There is a private benefit to City Centre LLC to building this skyway. There is no significant public benefit to this. We are not bridging a difficult crossing; we have not built skyways to help out other vacant buildings. If a skyway is required for this project to be successful, the private developer should have factored that in and built it. If the contention is that later this will connect to something that actually benefits the public, we could wait and build it at that point.

     

    Myth 4: This money could not be used for other more worthwhile projects.

     

    This money is absolutely competing with dollars for things like public safety, parks, library, and programs like Boys & Girls Club, the Senior Center, or the arts. This is because abatement dollars could b eused to pay the public portion of othe rcore projects like the 2nd Streed rebuild, which would then free dollars for other items that actually benefit the public.

     

    Myth 5: This bridge should be built for purposes of improving handicap mobility.

     

    Councilmember Snyder suggested, and I strongly agree that the mobility of citizens with a physical handicap could benefit from an expanded skyway system. I would that children and seniors and children would as well. However, the street being crossed by this massively expensive bridge (3rd St SE) is one of the more easily crossed in the core of the city. The crossing of Broadway would be a far better investment. If 3rd St SE is our standard for building skyways to aid access, we will be building more than $100 million in new skyways.

     

    Myth 6: We should build a skyway because otherwise the building may sit empty.

     

    There are beautiful historic buildings on the other side of Broadway from City Centre that are also vacant. We have never discussed building them a skyway immediately. So, why are we concerned about bailing out this particular building?

     

    Myth 7: We can not control the interest rate applied to this skyway.

     

    Really Myth 7A is that this project is not risky to us, if it wasn’t, any bank would be loaning the money. They are not because this is very risky. That is why we are being asked to pretend that we are a bank again. Myth 7B is that we can not charge a higher rate on this loan. Staff informed the council that we could not charge a fair interest rate in order to properly compensate the city for its risk. This in not ture because we could modify the principle amount of the loan to synthetically create any rate we felt was appropriate.

     

    Michael Wojcik

    Rochester City Council (and now Lender of Last Resort)

    Tags: