HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-22 Council Packet
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25,2022AT CITY HALL
6:00PM, or immediately following preceding
Worksession,whichever is sooner
6:00p.m.Call to Order/PledgeofAllegiance/Approval of Agenda
Estimated
times
6:00p.m.Council/Staff Reports
Mayor McComber
Councilmember Dougherty
CouncilmemberJohnson
Councilmember Liljegren
Councilmember Runk
Staff
Chief of Police
Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk(pg. 3)
6:05 p.m.AED Presentation and Thank You
6:10p.m.Visitors/PublicComment
This is an opportunity for the public to address the Council with questions orconcerns on issues not part of the regular agenda (Please
limit comments to 3 minutes in length).
Consent Agenda(RollCall Vote)
6:10p.m.
Approve Bills & Investments
Approve City Council Minutes October 11, 2022 (pg.5)
th
EurekaConstruction,Inc. 6Payment for Norell Avenue (pg.9)
Rate Increase M.J. Raleigh Trucking, Inc. (pg.21)
PublicHearings
6:15p.m.
OldBusiness
6:15p.m.
MPCA Information A.S. King Plant Closure Possible Joint Worksession (pg. 23)
New Business
6:20p.m.
Senior Housing Partners/VSSA for Planned Unit Development General Plan,
Conditional Use Permits,Preliminary and Final Plat, and Architectural Design
th
Guidelines/SitePlan Review of the Area North of 58Street at Norwich Avenue
(pg.25)
Appointment of Two Full-Time New Hire PoliceOfficers(pg.109)
Comments on Washington County Capital Improvement Plan (2023-2027) (pg.
111)
PotholeSurvey Oak Park Crossing Park (pg.117)
Other Council Itemsor Announcements
6:40p.m.
Adjournment
6:45p.m.
Page 1 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 2 of 118
Page 3 of 118
Page 4 of 118
Page 5 of 118
Page 6 of 118
Page 7 of 118
Page 8 of 118
Page 9 of 118
Page 10 of 118
Page 11 of 118
Page 12 of 118
Page 13 of 118
Page 14 of 118
Page 15 of 118
Page 16 of 118
Page 17 of 118
Page 18 of 118
Page 19 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 20 of 118
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
th
Meeting Date October 25, 2022
Time Required: 1 Minute
Agenda Item Title: Rate Increase Request – M. J. Raleigh Trucking, Inc.
Agenda Placement Consent Agenda
Originating Department/Requestor Andy Kegley, Director of Public Works / Eric Johnson,
City Administrator
Requester’s Signature
Action Requested Approve Amendment #2 – MJ Raleigh Trucking – Related to Rate
Increase for Snow Plowing Services
Background/Justification (Please indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public
bodies have advised):
The City has a contract with M. J.Raleigh Trucking Inc. (Raleigh) through April 2024 that outlines a
2.5% increase each year through April 2024. Despite this, Raleigh has requested a 7.5% increase over
their Agreement rates for the 2022-2023 and 2.5% over their 2023-2024 cycle. Their rationale is that their
pricing of DIESEL FUEL has increased signficantly and they report they cannot afford to provide
services and are asking for a consideration.
Raleigh has not necessarily stated that it will refuse to honor the current Agreement, but staff does have
concerns about a snowplowing contractor in this situation who might suddenly claim in the middle of a
major snowstorm that some manner of economic duress or commercial impracticability allows them to
back out of the agreement (related to unforseeable fuel increase , unforseeable nationwide inflation
issues, or some other excuse) and seek an increase or claim an ability to walk-away from a contract. Such
an argument by Raleigh would be a difficult justification and then would need some ajudication and
enforcement, but nonetheless may leave the City in a lurch. In the interim – should a contractor not
perform its obligation, the City would capture the cash deposit of any such contractor and seek damages
related to costs associated with finding an alternative firm – which too would be procedurally time
consuming – if the City could find such plowing contractor in such short notice.
It is worth noting that unlike solid waste or other optional services cities may provide if they desire, the
City is obligated to ensure its streets are passable for general public travel and emergency services. And,
in rough costs, the City spends +/- $180,000 annually in such services. ($216,000 in 2019; $143,904 in
2020; $181,648 in 2021)
Given the circumstances of the fuel market and the City’s 25+ year relationship with Raleigh, Staff does
understand that this is not an ideal request but does recommend approval. In some limited return for this
request, the Amendment includes a provision that the City may opt-out of the Agreement with Raleigh
th
after April 30 2023 – one year early at no penalty. Staff would expect to be out for quotes in May 2023
for a new 3-5 commitment.
Please see the enclosed contract Amendment #2.
Page 21 of 118
AMENDMENT #2 - TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY SNOW REMOVAL
AND SANDING
M.J. Raleigh Trucking, Inc. and the City of Oak Park Heights maintain an AGREEMENT FOR
ROADWAY SNOW REMOVAL AND SANDING and the parties desire to enter into
Amendment #2 to the Agreement . Accordingly, the terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT
FOR ROADWAY SNOW REMOVAL AND SANDING – (Signed April 2018 and previously
extended to April 30th 2024) is further revised and/or clarified to also include:
1.Annual rate increases follow the prior year(s) adjustments, see Sec. 10. of the Agreement
and are 2.5% annually. The parties however agree that the rates for the 2022-2023 year shall be
increased 7.5% over the current 2.5% totaling 10.0%; And, 2.5% over the current 2.5 % totaling
5.0% for 2023-2024.
2.In addition to other provisions of the Agreement, the City may in its sole discretion
th
terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason and without penalty after April 30,
2023. The City must inform M.J. Raleigh Trucking, Inc via written communication of such
st
decision to terminate the Agreement by July 31, 2023. Absent such written communication,
th
the Agreement remains in effect through April 30, 2024.
3.In preparation, during and in response to a snow event requiring M.J. Raleigh Trucking
Inc. services, the parties re-affirm that they shall promptly communicate and respond to calls
for services and when questions or related needs arise.
Agreed Upon by the Parties Below:
IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties have set forth their hands and seals this day of , 2022.
CONTRACTOR – M.J. RALEIGH TRUCKING, Inc.
By:
Mr. Mike Raleigh Date
Notary for Contractor’s Signature: __________________________________
AFFIX STAMP HERE
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
By: ______
Mary McComber- Mayor Date
By: ____________
Eric Johnson – City Administrator Date
Notary for City Signature(s): ____________________________
AFFIX STAMP HERE
Page 22 of 118
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
th
Meeting Date , 2022
Time Required: Minutes
Agenda Item Title: MPCA Information A.S. King Plant Closure - Possible Joint Worksession
Agenda Placement Business
Originating Department/Requestor Mary McComber, Mayor
Requester’s Signature
Action Requested Discussion, Possible Action
Background/Justification (Please indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public
bodies have advised):
Page 23 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 24 of 118
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date October 25th, 2022
Time Required: 5 Minutes _____________________
Agenda Item Title:SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS/VALLEY SENIOR
SERVICE ALLIANCE (VSSA) FOR PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES/SITE PLAN
TH
REVIEW OF THE AREA NORTH OF 58STREET AT
NORWICH AVENUE
Agenda Placement New Business
Originating Department/Requestor: Eric Johnson, City Administrator
Requester’s Signature
Action Requested _Discussion, Possible Action
Background/Justification (Please indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public
bodies have advised):
Please see the attached from Scott Richards, City Planner
1.Planning Report – dated: 10/6/22
2.Planning Commission – Summary Memo and Findings dated: 10/20/22
3.Proposed City Council Resolution.
Page 25 of 118
Page 26 of 118
Page 27 of 118
Page 28 of 118
Page 29 of 118
Page 30 of 118
Page 31 of 118
Page 32 of 118
Page 33 of 118
Page 34 of 118
Page 35 of 118
Page 36 of 118
Page 37 of 118
Page 38 of 118
Page 39 of 118
Page 40 of 118
Page 41 of 118
Page 42 of 118
Page 43 of 118
Page 44 of 118
Page 45 of 118
Page 46 of 118
Page 47 of 118
Page 48 of 118
Page 49 of 118
Page 50 of 118
Page 51 of 118
Page 52 of 118
Page 53 of 118
Page 54 of 118
Page 55 of 118
Page 56 of 118
Page 57 of 118
Page 58 of 118
Page 59 of 118
Page 60 of 118
Page 61 of 118
Page 62 of 118
Page 63 of 118
Page 64 of 118
Page 65 of 118
Page 66 of 118
Page 67 of 118
Page 68 of 118
Page 69 of 118
Page 70 of 118
Page 71 of 118
Page 72 of 118
Page 73 of 118
Page 74 of 118
Page 75 of 118
Page 76 of 118
Page 77 of 118
Page 78 of 118
Page 79 of 118
Page 80 of 118
Page 81 of 118
Page 82 of 118
Page 83 of 118
Page 84 of 118
Page 85 of 118
Page 86 of 118
Page 87 of 118
Page 88 of 118
Page 89 of 118
Page 90 of 118
Page 91 of 118
Page 92 of 118
Page 93 of 118
Page 94 of 118
Page 95 of 118
Page 96 of 118
Page 97 of 118
Page 98 of 118
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: October 20, 2022
RE: Oak Park Heights – Senior Housing Partners/Valley Senior Service
Alliance – Planned Unit Development – General Plan, Conditional
Use Permit, Subdivision, and Architectural Design Guideline/Site
Plan Review
TPC FILE: 236.02 – 22.07
BACKGROUND
Kevin Lohry, representing Senior Housing Partners/Valley Senior Service Alliance
(VSSA), has submitted an application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) General
Plan, Conditional Use Permits for multiple family development and building height,
Preliminary and Final plat, and Architectural Design Guidelines/Site Plan Review for the
th
development of the area north of 58 Street at Norwich Avenue North. The General
Plan application includes the first phase of the development, a 79-unit multiple family
apartment buildingthat will be constructed just north of existing parking loton the
subject property.
The PUD General Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat and design review for the McKean
th
Square Historic Village and the 58
Street tunnel and parking was approved by the City
Council on May 27, 2008. The remaining portion of the subject property was not part of
Concept or General Plan approvals.
th
The Concept Plan of the area north of 58 Street for the three phase development was
approved by the City Council at their August 23, 2022, meeting.
The Planning Commission at their October 13, 2022, meeting held a public hearing,
took the Applicant’s and public’s testimony, and after consideration of the application,
unanimouslyrecommendedapproval with conditions. The recommendedconditions are
found below and in the City Council resolution.
The review is based upon the following submittals:
Exhibit 1: Planning Report with Exhibits – October 6, 2022
Page 99 of 118
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
Subject to the preceding review, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
th
the following listed requestsfor the development of the area north of 58 Street at
Norwich Avenuewhich includes a 79-unit multiple family apartmentbuilding, subject to
the conditions that follow:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan
Preliminary and Final Plat
Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Development
Conditional Use Permit for Building Height
Architectural Design Guidelines and Site Plan
1. The Final Plat for Boutwells Second Addition, as well as the dedication and
vacation of any easements, shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer and City Attorney.
2. A Preliminary Plat for Boutwells Second Addition shall be submitted subject to
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
3. The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the
east buildingsetback of 28 feet, where 30 feet is required.
4. The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the
alcove units at 487 square feet, where 600 square feet is required.
5. The tree removal, tree replacement and landscape plan shall be subject to
review and approval of the City Arborist.
6. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and the
Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization approval.
7. All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
8. The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the
reduction of parking spaces, where 154 spaces are provided and 158 spaces
are required, and whether to allow this variation through the General Plan
approvals.
9. The Fire Chief and Police Chief shall review and approve thefinal plans to
determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the
development.
10. Any mechanical equipment that is ground mounted or visible from adjacent
streets shall be screened as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
11. All trash and recycling storage shall be internal to the building.
Page 100 of 118
12. The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the
proposed building height.
13. The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the
building appearance, colors, and materials. The Applicant shall provide a
materials board for the buildings to be discussed at the City Council meeting.
14. The Applicant shall be required to enter into an amended development
agreement with the City should approval of the General Plan be granted. The
development agreement shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney and City Council.
Pc: Julie Hultman
Page 101 of 118
RESOLUTION NO._______
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
REQUEST BY KEVIN LOHRY, REPRESENTING SENIOR HOUSING
PARTNERS/VALLEY SENIOR SERVICE ALLIANCE (VSSA) FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES/SITE PLAN REVIEW OF
TH
THE AREA NORTH OF 58STREET AT NORWICH AVENUE BE
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the City of OakPark Heights has received a request fromKevin
Lohry representing Senior Housing Partners/Valley Senior Service Alliance (VSSA) for Planned
Unit Development General Plan, Conditional Use Permits for multiple family development, and
building height, Preliminary and Final Plat, and ArchitecturalDesign Guidelines /Site Plan
th
Review for a 79 unit multiple family apartment building of the area north of 58 Street at
Norwich Avenue; and after having conducteda public hearing relative thereto, the Planning
Commission of Oak Park Heights recommended that the request be approved with conditions.
The City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact and
resolution:
1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as
follows, to wit:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
and
2. The applicant has submitted an application and supporting
documentation to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items:
SEE ATTACHMENT B
and
3. The subject property is zoned B-4, Limited Business District which allows
multiple family development with a Conditional Use Permit. As such, the underlying base
zoning district is B-4, Limited Business District with a PUD overlay. The performance standards
of the R-3 Multiple Family District must be complied with for residential development in the B-4
Limited Business District; and
4. The three phase development consists of phase one with a 79 unit multi-
family housing building at the north end of the subject property, and two other phases, one a
brownstone senior living facility and the other mixed use with senior living. The plans and
Page 102 of 118
potential uses for phase two and three have not been determined by Senior Housing
Partners/VSSA; and
5. The PUD General Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat and design review for
th
the McKean Square Historic Village and the 58Street tunnel and parking was approved by the
th
City Council on May 27, 2008. The remaining portion of the subject property, north of 58
Street was not part of Concept or General Plan approvals. A Planned Unit Development Concept
Plan has been requested at this time for the three phase development; and
6. The application requests approval of a Planned Unit Development General
Plan, Conditional Use Permits for multiple family development, and building height, Preliminary
and Final Plat, and Architectural Design Guidelines /Site Plan Review; and
7. City staff prepared a planning report dated October 6, 2022, reviewing the
request for the application; and
8. Said report recommended approval of the application subject to the
fulfillment of conditions; and
9. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their October 13, 2022,
meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and
recommended the application with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE
FOLLOWING:
A. The application submitted by Kevin Lohry representing Senior Housing Partners/Valley
Senior Service Alliance (VSSA) for Planned Unit Development General Plan, Conditional Use
Permits for multiple family development, and building height, Preliminary and Final Plat, and
Architectural Design Guidelines /Site Plan Review for a 79 unit multiple family apartment
thth
building of the area north of 58Street at Norwich Avenue of the area north of 58 Street at
Norwich Avenue affecting the real property as follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
Be and the same as hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights the
following, subject to the conditions as follows:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan
Preliminary and Final Plat
Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Development
Conditional Use Permit for Building Height
Architectural Design Guidelines and Site Plan
1. The Final Platfor Boutwells Second Addition, aswell as the dedication and vacation
of any easements, shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer
and City Attorney.
Page 103 of 118
A Preliminary Plat for Boutwells Second Addition shall be submitted subject to
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the east
building setback of 28 feet, where 30 feet is required.
The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the alcove
units at 487 square feet, where 600 square feet
is required.
The tree removal, tree replacement and landscape plan shall be subject to review and
approval of the City Arborist.
The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and the Middle St.
Croix Watershed Management Organization approval.
All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the reduction
of parking spaces, where 154 spaces are provided and 158 spaces are required, and
whether to allow this variation through the General Plan approvals.
The Fire Chief and Police Chief shall review and approve the final plans to determine
the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development.
Any mechanical equipment that is ground mounted or visible from adjacent streets
shall be screened as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
All trash and recycling storage shall be internal to the building.
The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the proposed
building height.
The Planning Commission was favorable to, and City Council approves the building
appearance, colors, and materials. The Applicant shall provide a materials board for
the buildings to be discussed at the City Council meeting.
The Applicant shall be required to enter into an amended development agreement
with the City should approval of the General Plan be granted. The development
agreement shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney and City
Council.
Approved by the City Councilof the City of Oak Park Heights this 25th day of October
2022.
Page 104 of 118
_______________________________________
Mary McComber, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator
Page 105 of 118
ATTACHMENT A
Planned Unit Development – GeneralPlan,
Conditional Use Permits
For Multiple Family Development & Building Height,
Subdivision and Design Guidelines / Site Plan Review
To Allow
Construction of A 79 Unit, Multiple Family Apartment Building
Valley Senior Services Alliance/Senior Housing Partners
Washington County Property Identification Number: 05.029.20.13.0010
Legal Description:
Lot C SubdivisionCd 02095 SubdivisionName OAK PARK COMMONS
Physical Address: Unassigned
Page 106 of 118
ATTACHMENT B
Planned Unit Development – General Plan,
Conditional Use Permits
For Multiple Family Development & Building Height,
Subdivision and Design Guidelines / Site Plan Review
To Allow
Construction of A 79 Unit, Multiple Family Apartment Building
Application Materials
Application Form
Fees
Plan Sets
Written Narrative and Graphic Materials Explaining Proposal
Proof of Ownership or Authorization to Proceed
Planning Commission Review & Recommendation: October 13, 2022
PUD:
Unless a General Plan of Development covering the area designated as inthe General Concept
Plan as the first stage of the PUD has been filed within twelve (12) months from the date Council
grants General Concept Plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file General
Plan of Development Stage and Final Plans and to proceed with development in accordance with
the provisions of this Ordinance and of an approved General Concept Plan, the approval may be
revoked by Council action. (401.06.C.2.e)
Conditional Use Permit:
Unless the City Council specifically approves a different time when action is officially taken on
the request, the conditional use permit shall become null and void twelve (12) months after the
date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started the construction
of any building, structure, addition or alteration, or use requested as part of the conditional use.
An application to extend the approval of a conditional use permit shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator not less than thirty (30) days before the expiration of said approval.
(401.03.C.4.a and b)
Page 107 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 108 of 118
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
th
Meeting Date October 25, 2022
Time Required: 5 Minutes
Agenda Item Title: Appointment of 2 full-time new hire Police Officers
Agenda Placement New Business
Originating Department/Requestor Chief of Police Steve Hansen
Requester’s Signature
Action Requested Appointment of 2 full-time new hire Police Officers
Background/Justification (Please indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other
public bodies have advised):
I am requesting the appointment of Brian Fuhrmann and Will Gustafson as new hire full-time
Police Officers. Both candidates have successfully completed the hiring process approved by
council. These positions fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Sgt. Givand and the
additional officer position approved by Council.
Fuhrmann and Gustafson were ranked one and two within the top four applicants of the
hiring process. This was concluded after two rounds of interviews with police and city staff.
After the final Chief’s interview and review of backgroundinformation along with
employment references, both Fuhrmann and Gustafson remain our final selected candidates.
Quick background on both candidates:
o Fuhrmann has 6 months of sworn law enforcement experience with a large west
metro MN police agency and also has experience as a CSO for two agencies too.
Fuhrmann has his bachelor’s degree from Metro State University and is very
excited to be working for a smaller city.
o Gustafson has been with the MN National Guard for the past 10 years; he is a
certified combat medic/EMT and has acted as team leader for a battalion aid
station during deployment. Gustafson has his bachelor’s degree from Mankato
State University and is very excited to start his law enforcement career with
OPH.
Both candidates I feel will be a good fit for this community. Both Fuhrmann and Gustafson
have successfully completed the physical and psychological exam as required by POST
licensing. Final conditional hire of employment would be Council approval tonight.
thth
Expected start date would be on November 9 for Fuhrmann and November 10 for
Gustafson. With appearance before Council for the swearing in ceremony at the date TBD
upon completion of the supervised field training program.
Per the patrol union (LELS) contract, their starting wage for 2022 will be $5,257.22/month.
Page 109 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 110 of 118
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
th
Meeting Date: October 25, 2022
Time Required: 5 minutes
Agenda Item Title:Comments on Washington County - Capital Improvement Plan (2023-2027)
Agenda Placement: New Business
Originating Department/Requestor Eric Johnson, City Administrator___
Requester’s Signature
Action Requested Discussion, Possible Action
Background/Justification (Please indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other
public bodies have advised):
Each year, Washington County offers its Capital Improvement Plan (2023-2027) to the public inviting
th
comments related to its contents and projects. Staff notes that Project # RB2652- 58Street/County
Highway 15 S. Segment Project – remains in the CIP for possible construction 2025 – See next page.
Like the City’s CIP, these can be planning tools subject to change, but it is important for the City to
remain engaged in this continuing matter. Considering the recent construction of the west-bound
slip/auxiliary lane and prospective timelines – staff would offer that the attached Resolution and
related Letter be discussed and possibly adopted by the Council to provide such comments.
The full plan can be found here:
https://www.co.washington.mn.us/1257/Capital-Improvement-Plans#submissionConfirmation
Page 111 of 118
Page 112 of 118
RESOLUTION _______________
A RESOLUTION ESTABISHING THE CITY POSTION ON ELEMENTS OF THE DRAFT
WASHINGTON COUNTY 2023-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) AND
REQUESTING POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN EASTBOUND SLIP-LANE CONNECTING
MANNING AVE AND STILLWATER BLVD.
Whereas, Washington County continues to pursue a north-south connection of Manning Ave. that does not
utilize the eastbound corridor of STH 36 and instead only considers designs that further the Project known
th
as the 58 Street / County Highway 15 S. Segment; and,
Whereas, City Council has provided significant commentary to Washington County outlining its concerns
relative to this Project including, but not limited to the fact that such connection is inconsistent with the
City’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan; and,
Whereas, the Washington County CIP document outlines costs of $10.4 Million for such Project but such
amount is inconsistent with past estimates that exceeded $13.0 million as provided to the City in 2020 and
is inconsistent with the 2021 estimate of $18.1 Million as provided to the State of Minnesota as part of the
recent Washington County Sales Tax increase - see County Resolution No. 2021-072; and,
Whereas, Washington County has recently constructed a west-bound Manning Ave connection via a “SLIP
LANE”/auxiliary lane on STH 36 from Stillwater Boulevard to Manning Ave which does not require traffic
merging into the STH 36 mainline and takes approximately 52 seconds to travel the distance from the top of
the ramp at Stillwater Blvd. to the top of the ramp at Manning Ave.; and;
Whereas, Washington County had a similar east-bound concept in 2019; and
Whereas, Washington County removed the similar east-bound concept without justification and without
public evaluation of such concept, or alternatives, in favor of an $18.1 million project for which no
meritorious local engagement occurred, nor has municipal consent to advance the Project been secured from
Oak Park Heights; and,
th
Whereas, the installation of a 58
Street/County Highway 15 S. Segment, even if municipal consent could
be secured would likelytake years to install , meanwhile drivers will be left with the STH 36 connection in
its current form which likely would increase eastbound usage of STH 36 when a reasonable, cost-effective,
and safe alternative – the slip/auxiliary lane can be constructed quickly; and,
Whereas the installation of an east-bound slip/auxiliarylane long-termwill likely be a faster, safer, and
more affordable alternative to link the proposed $18.1+ Million Project and which will also potentially
benefit buses if there is an expansion of Bus Rapid Transit along the STH 36 Corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Draft
Washington County 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan be revised to include the following clarifications
and documentation:
1.Please provide within the CIP page the specific “regional traffic and safety goals” as referenced and how
these would be achieved while also not creating other safety concerns.
2. Please clarify within the CIP page or consider deleting the sentence: “From a County standpoint, this
proposed south segment of CSAH 15 connects Manning Ave to Stillwater Blvd, which currently
Page 113 of 118
requires access to TH 36.” This sentence is vague as access to TH 36 is available at Stillwater Blvd.
and Manning Avenue and is directly and immediately adjacent to both roadways and major access
points exist. Please document what access is missing and that demonstrates a justification for this
Project.
3. Please provide within the CIP page, the citation details and specific studies that outline how the County
has determined that this Project will reduce local trips on TH 36 AND how this directly relates to the
construction of the St. Croix River Crossing.
4. County Staff and Elected Officials have stated that the County is “agnostic” to a potential commercial
development at the south side of TH 36 relative to its Project. The CIP now demonstratesthat the
County is no longer agnostic to the outcomes of such development proposal which – as a direct result of
the County’s Project - may negatively impact City of Oak Park Heights businesses. We would ask that
the County delete from its Project Justification its relationship to a commercial development from the
CIP page. Alternatively, if the County desires to continue to utilize this as a justification, the City
requests that the County provide copy of its market analysis or other documentation that supports its
conclusions that such commercial development and/or Project benefits our community.
5. Asthis will be a roadway forever in the hands of the County and is suggested to be at least five-lanes
wide at its eastern terminus; please provide in the section titled “Budget Impact / Other” a 50-year
operational cost estimate for this new roadway including but not limited to annual snow/ice
maintenance, seal-coating , striping, mill & overlay, resurfacing, stormwater maintenance and at least
one reconstruction.
6. Please correct the continuing discrepancy in the costs for such Project as it is inconsistent with past
estimates that exceeded $13.0 million as provided to the City in 2020 and is inconsistent with the 2021
estimate of $18.1 Million as provided to the State of Minnesota as part of the recent Washington County
Sales Tax increase - see County Resolution No. 2021-072; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council requests that the County—if it continues to desire a
north-south Manning Ave. connection that it revise the Draft Washington County 2023-2027 Capital
Improvement Plan to only include at this time funding for a meritorious public-community process that
attempts to document needs and impacts of such east-west Manning Ave connection and evaluates
alternatives including an east-bound slip/auxiliarylanefrom Manning Ave to Stillwater Boulevard.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this _____ day of ______________2022
__________________________________
Mary McComber, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Eric Johnson, City Administrator
Page 114 of 118
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574
October 25th, 2022
Washington County Board of Commissioners
C/O: Jennifer Wagenius, Deputy County Administrator –
Washington County
PO BOX 6
Stillwater, MN 55082 ALSO - VIA EMAIL: Jennifer.Wagenius@co.washington.mn.us
th
RE: Comments on CIP – Project # RB2652- 58 Street/County Highway 15 S. Segment Project
Dear Chair Johnson and Commissioners:
Thank you for providing the opportunity for the City of Oak Park Heights to comment on the 2023 - 2027 Capital
th
Improvement Plan (CIP). We offer comments on the 58 Street/County Highway 15 S. Segment Project; please
recall this is a project in which the County desires to make a connection of Manning Ave – generally north-south
through our community. The City has expressed broad concerns about this Project that have not been fully
addressed relative to establishing a clear need for such roadway and its lack of a public process.
Moving beyond these challenges, Washington County has enabled a west-bound STH 36 - “SLIP
LANE”/auxiliary lane connection between Stillwater Blvd and Manning Ave which can be traveled in 52
seconds. Unfortunately, a similar east-bound slip lane – initially included in 2019 concept maps - has been
rejected by the County with little justification or public evaluation of such concept - apparently in now favor of
the current proposed Project with an estimated cost of $18.1 million?
Like the west-bound lane now constructed, such east-bound slip lane is safer than a connection through a
prospective and potentially busy commercial area, could be constructed well before 2025, at a significantly lower
cost, require far less maintenance and would provide numerous benefits for all that depend on Highway 36 and
County Highway connectivity. Similar to the west-bound, it would allow drivers to get between the roads without
having to merge into traffic lanes on Highway 36 or compel them to drive through a busy commercial area. Such
a route would drastically improve the ease of north-south connectivity for local residents and facilitate future
rapid transit options along STH 36.
The County CIP and underlying policies continue to promote an inefficient, expensive and non-resilient Project
without justification or demonstration of benefit. And, is further gambling on the ability to secure municipal
consent from our City. Therefore, we are asking the County to consider an east-bound slip lane as a possible
solution for is desired north-south connectivity along Highway 36. Again -- Why? - because it is safer, far more
cost-effective, and could be installed almost immediately.
We look forward to continued conversations regarding these points and I have attached the accompanying City
Council resolution that correlates to this communication. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Johnson,
City Administrator
Page 115 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 116 of 118
Oak Park Heights
Request for Council Action
October 25, 2022
Meeting Date__________________________________________________________________
Pothole Survey Oak Park Crossing Park
Agenda Item___________________________________________________________________
Time Req.____
5
New Business
Agenda Placement_____________________________________________________________
Administration/Jennifer Pinski
Originating Department/Requestor _________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Authorize cost-share for survey with funds from Moelter Fly Ash fund
Action Requested_______________________________________________________________
Background/Justification (Please indicate any previous actionhas been taken or if other public
bodies have been advised).
On October 31, Xcel Energy will be doing a drone survey of Oak Park Crossing Park. Following
that, Xcel Energy would like to conducta pothole survey, hopefully in November,that will help
confirm soil depths to the membranethroughout the park.
The survey will provide a thorough topo map that should be useful for any future park uses. As
this will be beneficial to both Xcel Energy and the City, Mike Wilhelmi from Xcel Energy has
requested the City consider cost-sharing. The total cost is $6,000so that would be $3,000 by
each party.
The Parks and Trails Commission has considered the request and is recommending that the City
Council authorize a cost-share in the amount of $3,000. Funding would come from the Moelter
Fly Ash Fund which has abalance of $93,737.75.
Page 117 of 118
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 118 of 118