HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-28 ' c
• RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 0 7 - 2 8
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMMENTS
OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS RELATIVE TO
THE ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT
STATEMENT AS ISSUED JUNE 16, 2006 BY THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has received from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation a 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
affecting the St. Croix River Crossing project; and,
WHEREAS, the commentary period provided under law closes as of July 19, 2006;
and,
WHEREAS, review and reports have been received from City staff relative to the
final environmental impact statement; and,
0 WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and had the opportunity to discuss the
aspects of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4F Evaluation as prepared
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and approves the staff recommendation with regard
to the communication of concerns and comments by the City of Oak Park Heights relative to the
aforementioned 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of
Oak Park Heights that the annexed letter directed to MnDOT, Metro District, ATTN: Monty Hamri
— SFEIS Comments, Waters Edge Building, 1500 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota
55113 be and the same is hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights as
and for its commentary to the 2006 supplemental and final environmental impact statement
affecting the St. Croix River Crossing Project. That the City Clerk shall forward a true and correct
copy of this correspondence to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for inclusion into its
file and for purposes required under law affecting the commentary to be provided for the 2006
Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Passed by the City Council for th Park Hei s 13'' day of July,
2006.
au ayor
7 ATT
ty Administrator
July 13, 2006
MNDOT, Metro District 1) R`'`
ATTN: Monty Hamri — SFEIS Comments
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project
Supplemental Final EIS Revieiv and CommentlComments Suhtnitted
by the City of Oak Park Heights
Dear Mr. Hamri:
Pursuant to the office memorandum dated June 16, 2006 to the City of Oak Park Heights enclosed within
your copy of the 2006 Supplemental Final Impact Statement provided the City of Oak Park Heights, we
are herewith providing on behalf of the City the City's comments as to the Supplemental Final EIS. They
are as follows:
1. The entire section, Purpose and Need (2 -1) focuses its attention on the impacts, needs and
improvements of the corridor will benefit either regional needs and /or those in Downtown
Stillwater. Little to no beneficial analysis is provided that cites benefits to the Oak Park
Heights and /or in a degree that would be incrementally different from any other regional end -
user, without that analysis on impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights little fruitful review
from an environmental standpoint can occur.
2. In section 3.0, the document discusses various alternatives that have been "dismissed from
further consideration ". The City notes that Concept (alternative) F has not been included on
this listing. The City of Oak Park Heights was of the impression based on MNDOT
comments that concept F had been withdrawn or was no longer being pursued. Concept F is
not a modification to the 1995 layout it is rather an entirely new layout. The City of Oak Park
Heights has not approved Concept F as a viable concept for the corridor and this should be
acknowledged in the document.
Monty Hamri
• MnDOT, Metro District
July 13, 2006
Page 2
3. Section 3.0 discuses various bridge alignments across the St. Croix River. The City of Oak
Park Heights has not approved nor endorsed any corridor for the new crossing and this should
be acknowledged in the document.
4. On page 3 -11, the document states that, "$400,000 was allocated to Oak Park Heights as part
of the federal surface transportation bill in support of additional studies for TH 36 through
Oak Park Heights and Stillwater ". MNDOT has omitted commentary that acknowledges the
limitations on the access and use of the fiends is such that the federal allocation is practically
unusable for any substantive purpose.
5. Section 3.3.2.2 discusses a Preferred Alternative and the City of Oak Park Height's
conditional municipal consent granted in 1995. However, the City's consent at that time was
based on an MOU between the City and MnDOT which required certain performances and
commitments including the reimbursement of City staff and infrastructure expenses related to
moving of city utilities. This section should be amended to convey a more complete and
accurate history. Further there have been significant changes to the currently proposed layout
as compared to the 1995 version and which have not been approved nor formally presented to
the City.
6. Section 5.1.1.3 indicates that there are no other adverse impacts to community cohesion in
the Oak Park Heights Area anticipated to result from the preferred alternative. This analysis
is marginal, the document should provide a discussion that incorporates and gives an
evaluation of the community and environmental disruption already experienced by Oak Park
Heights residents as a result of the 60+ home takings, displacements and demolitions that
occurred in 1995 as well as the impacts that will be experienced by the projected takings that
the new project may have on the City since the elevations of such new bridge will be high
and directly adjacent to the City's "Village" neighborhood and Cover Park. Analysis of those
environmental and visual impacts is lacking. Further projected takings within the report
appear to have omitted a required taking in the TH36/ Oakgreen Greeley Corridor -
Intersection and no reference to that impact is made. The document also fails to sufficiently
analyze the impact to the City from the projected takings necessary for this project as it goes
forward.
7. Section 5.1.3.3 discusses impacts to fire services being provided to the City by the City of
Bayport as not being adversely effected. The statement is conclusory with no supporting data
or background. Who made this determination? What criteria were used? Was the Fire
Department consulted? Please insert clarifications as requested. How will the City receive
fire protection services during construction as fire services are provided from Bayport when
Monty Hamri
MNDOT, Metro District .
July 13, 2006
Page 3
primary roadways necessary to the service will be disrupted? This analysis needs to be
completed and inserted. Further please demonstrate in the document definitive information
and sources utilized to determine impacts on the fire and ambulatory services in Wisconsin
both during and after construction.
8. Section 5.1.4.4 discusses the installation of a new public boat access by MNDNR.
Conclusory statements on the impact of such a location, traffic, use, policing and related
impacts are unsupported factually The City of Oak Park Heights has on numerous occasions
informed MNDOT that no such boat access or park may be located in the City w /out an
agreement between the City and what ever particular agency will be charged with siting.
Further, please insert language that should MNDOT wish to provide funding from this
project to MNDNR for ultimate construction it should only do so when MNDNR can provide
a copy of the final agreement completed between the City and MNDNR.
9. Section 7.0 discusses visual impacts; the City of Oak Park Heights has to date not been
presented or approved a final layout, bridge design or other visual criteria related to the
Project. The City of Oak Park Heights has not yet been provided a final copy of the Visual
Quality Manual. Further several elements of the VQM may discuss or imply that the local
units of government may be responsible for maintaining certain elements such as plantings,
trails, lighting, etc. No arrangements, commitments contracts or agreements on municipal
assumption of responsibility for those facilities has yet occurred. The SFEIS should outline
long term finding sources or provide mitigations for these improvements.
10. Section 10 discusses numerous elements related to storm water management and sub
watersheds. The document should include a detailed discussion regarding current areas in the
City of Oak Park Heights that are claimed to be not managing stormwater in an appropriate
manner. Further, the document does not indicate what percentages of flow are a result of new
road construction and /or redirection. Mitigations should be listed and fully funded to
impacted homeowners that may either lose property or are required to pay for new
stormwater facilities as a result of the Project. To date MNDOT has not provided the City a
cost estimate for stormwater facilities and necessary land acquisitions and this should be
provided and inserted.
11. Section 12.2.2. indicates that additional coordination has occurred between MNDOT and
local units of government related to the relocation of utilities. The paragraph should note that
this "coordination" has been limited to MNDOT's demonstration of their preferred
alternatives and has not included complete cost estimates for land acquisition or other
impacts. Cost estimates should be inserted into the document that reflects all anticipated
costs.
40
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 13, 2006
Page 4
12. Section 12.3.1 only generally describes the impacts of the construction on temporally access
of fire protection services and is not satisfactory. A detailed report should be inserted that
discusses how the City of Oak Park Heights will retain adequate fire services during
construction. This report should be prepared by a qualified source that also offers solutions
should the findings result in inadequate services.
13. Section 12.3.3 indicates that the costs of moving these utilities will be discussed in a separate
MOU between the cities and MNDOT. To date there is not an agreed upon MOU and such
fact should be noted. Similarly, under section 12.4 the document states that an MOU "will"
address the costs for the relocation of utilities in each city, again it should be noted that an
MOU is not yet completed and is required. Many references are made within the document to
a "Memorandum of Understanding ", "MOU ", "Municipal Consent ", all with reference to a
host of issues unresolved between MNDOT and the City of Oak Park Heights. Many of the
issues have significant environmental impact and have simply been deferred in analysis
avoiding discussion of the environmental impact. For example, the existing right of way for
TH 36 and the bridge corridor proposed to be used is full of existing municipal utilities. In
• the event that no agreement is reached between MNDOT and the City on that relocation
within the existing Right of Way then a multitude of significant impacts occur including but
not limited to: loss of water, sewer and storm sewer service for all areas north of TH 36 now
served by the City of Oak Park Heights; loss of additional lands through condemnation to
provide for the relocation of all major municipal utilities, environmental impacts to the area
for relocation of all such utilities, etc.
14. The listing of mitigations calls for a $2,000,000 expenditure for the completion of the loop
trail system and includes significant grading of the existing Barge Facility. We request a
detailed cost breakdown of this cost center to better understand the nature of the
improvement.
15. Management and Location of existing power lines are not specified within the document and
should provide that they be buried including those that lie in or directly adjacent to the south
frontage road. The SFEIS should incorporate this element.
The SEIS does not specify that Standard Construction Practices will be followed and /or exceeded
during the construction phase of this Project. This should be clarified
"C. The current projected roadway has a negative impact for downtown Stillwater and the
TH 36 corridor through Oak Park Heights, as the proposed river crossing triples the
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 13, 2006
Page 5
traffic through the City of Oak Park Heights onto a highway corridor that is
insufficient in capacity to provide for it by the time the Bridge is completed, this will
have a negative impact on local traffic flows, accidents, pollution and traffic safety
needs."
"E. The size of the bridge will encourage the sprawl of Residents, traffic and businesses
into Wisconsin rather that solve traffic problems now in place. The dimension of the
superstructure of the Bridge as proposed is greater than originally specified and will
thus have a greater impact on visual impairment of the scenic river valley than
originally proposed."
"F. The diversion of traffic from the I -94 River crossing for traffic relief to the new river
Bridge is not justification of the proposed new river bridge size. The proposed new
river bridge does not fit into the Twin City Regional plan. The current 1 -94 river
crossing the St Croix River has the same lane capacity of the recently reconstructed
Mississippi River 1 -94 crossing. The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of
Transportation are not suggesting that I -94 over St Croix will have more traffic that I-
94 crossing the Mississippi any time in the future."
"A. The noise impacts and sound mitigation facilities of the project should be included
into SEIS with a acceptable highway 36 layout in the City of Oak Park Heights. The
documentation indicating that the SEIS have the conditionally approved 1995 plan is
incorrect as the plan in the SEIS effectively mirrors the Braun layout 2000 ..."
Supporting Technical Memoranda, Section I Page 7:
"C. MNDOT's own origin- destination traffic study, prepared by George Cepress, State
traffic Forecast Engineer and dated July 19, 1993, showed that over 33% of the
westbound traffic from Wisconsin that crosses the current bridge has a destination
within Stillwater. The TAG group work indicates that traffic on Osgood, Greeley and
Churchill increase. The traffic from the proposed river bridge to downtown Stillwater
has not been revised and studied by any city group. The SEIS has failed to evaluate
where that traffic is going and whether the proposed bridge and corridor will actually
resolve the downtown and neighborhood area Oak Park Heights /Stillwater traffic
problems."
"C. With the proposed new river crossing cost projected at $480 million, the project cost
benefit analysis must be updated and bridge location reevaluated since the proposed
SEIS bridge location may not be the most cost effective."
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 13, 2006
Page 6
"D. Considering the current Preferred Alternative, public input sessions should be held
that accurately display and demonstrate the current layout and elevations in an
appropriate scale and demonstrating differences with the 1995 proposal."
"E. Table 5.1.c and page 5 -15 indicate that there are to be 19 residential and 32
commercial partial takes as a result of the Preferred Alternative. The SEIS does not
clearly describe what properties these are nor does it acknowledge that these
properties could be impacted to a degree that would cause them to fall out of
compliance with the City Zoning Code requirements relating to existing use, setbacks,
drainage, parking or other land use elements rendering the properties as unsuitable.
As such, these properties must be evaluated individually for their impacts relative to a
partial taking versus a total tal<ing. "The City's zoning code Chapter. 401 can be found
at the City's website for reference - www.cityofoakparkheights.com."
"F. Project Boundaries /Local collector streets. The project boundaries established for this
project seem arbitrary and in some cases without logic or rational. In the area of the
TH 36 Oakgreen /Greeley interchange the boundary has the project improvements
ending 100 feet north of an established intersection. The result is a wide lane of traffic
abruptly narrowing into a short segment of road immediately prior to a 4 way stop
intersection. The project boundaries should be adjusted to carry out to logical end
points and intersections wherever possible."
Supporting Technical Memoranda, Section 4:
"The proposed noise analysis- preferred Alternative, This plan has not been presented to or
reviewed by the City of Oak Park Heights.
SEIS Executive Summary ES -3 High crash rates, crash rates on the highway 36 corridor in
Oak Park Heights and Stillwater are not statistical higher than the Twin City average crash
rates. Thus justification for the improvement should not be based on this statistic.
SEIS Executive Summary ES -3 Poor Traffic operations on TH 36 and in Downtown
Stillwater, the final SEIS proposes no significant roadway changes to the existing TH 36 in
the Oak Park Heights and Stillwater corridor."
Monty Hanlri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 13, 2006
Page 7
Supporting Technical Memoranda, Section 3:
"With the proposed new river crossing cost of $480 million, the project cost benefit analysis
must be updated and bridge location reevaluated since the proposed SEIS bridge location is
may not be the most cost effective.
Balance in treatment and consideration for the issues raised by the local communities do not
appear to have been equitably managed. N/INDOT largess appears to have been
disproportionately dispersed in favor of Stillwater on parks and open areas as opposed to Oak
park Heights immediacy of need for municipal utility relocation.
A. The City incorporates by reference all comments and statements made in earlier
resolutions and /or correspondence to MnDOT and that such statements and concerns
are to be satisfactorily addressed in the SFEIS. Such documents are, but not limited
to, the following and are attached.
Correspondence:
Feb 22, 2006 — Staff Approved Layout — Level l Geometric,
Feb 28, 2006 — Comments on Draft Visual Quality Manual,
Feb 17, 2006 — Commentary on MOA / N40LJ:
Current Comments on the MOA — Section 106
Current Comments on the MOU - Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items
Current Comments on the MOU — Growth Management Mitigation Items
Current Comments on the MOU — Water Quality Management Advisory Committee
Current Comments on the MOU — Between Xcel Energy (N. States Power and
MnDOT
Feb 16, 2006 — Various MOU Comments — Bridge Location
Sept 15, 2005 — HR3 — State Grant Application,
August 4, 2005 — Comments on SDEIS,
June 27 t ", 2005 — To C. Martin — early commentary on the 106 MOU
January 18, 2005 — Concept F — STH 36 Layouts & attached letter to A. Eller
August 31, 2004 — 1995 EIS Statement
August 18, 2004 — Boat Ramp Facility
August 2, 2004 — Concept F — Buttonhook Design
July 22, 2004 — Comments on Coop. Agency SDEIS and Mitigation — as revised.
City Resolutions:
40
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 13, 2006
Page 8
05 -01 -13 — Response to MnDOT Jan 6 "' 2005 Letter,
04 -10 -49 — City Position on location of proposed bridge (corridor),
04 -09 -47 — City Resolution conveying commentary on SDEIS,
03 -10 -54 — City Resolution conveying commentary on Project and needed improvements.
The City's comments were specifically approved by Council action dated July 13, 2006. The written
commentary has been forwarded. If you would require a copy of the City's resolution specifically
approving same, we would be happy to supply that as well.
Yours very truly,
Eric Johnson
City Administrator
City of Oak Park Heights
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park 131vd. N • Box 2007 . Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 a Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
July 14, 2006
MnDOT, Metro District
ATTN: Monty Hamri — SFEIS Comments
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project
Supplemental Final EIS Review and Comment /Comments Submitted
by the City of Oak Park Heights
Dear Mr. Hamri:
Pursuant to the office memorandum dated June 16, 2006 to the City of Oak Park Heights enclosed within
your copy of the 2006 Supplemental Final Impact Statement provided the City of Oak Park Heights, we
are herewith providing on behalf of the City the City's comments as to the Supplemental Final EIS. They
are as follows:
1. The entire section, Purpose and Need (2 -1) focuses its attention on the impacts, needs and
improvements of the corridor will benefit either regional needs and /or those in Downtown
Stillwater. Little to no beneficial analysis is provided that cites benefits to the Oak Park
Heights and/or in a degree that would be incrementally different from any other regional end -
user, without that analysis on impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights little fruitful review
from an environmental standpoint can occur.
2. In section 3.0, the document discusses various alternatives that have been "dismissed from
further consideration ". The City notes that Concept (alternative) F has not been included on
this listing. The City of Oak Park Heights was of the impression based on MNDOT
comments that concept F had been withdrawn or was no longer being pursued. Concept F is
not a modification to the 1995 layout it is rather an entirely new layout. The City of Oak Park
Heights has not approved Concept F as a viable concept for the corridor and this should be
40 acknowledged in the document.
Page 1057
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Page 2
3. Section 3.0 discuses various bridge alignments across the St. Croix River. The City of Oak
Park Heights has not approved nor endorsed any corridor for the new crossing and this should
be acknowledged in the document.
4. On page 3 -11, the document states that, "$400,000 was allocated to Oak Park Heights as part
of the federal surface transportation bill in support of additional studies for TH 36 through
Oak Park Heights and Stillwater ". MNDOT has omitted commentary that acknowledges the
limitations on the access and use of the funds is such that the federal allocation is practically
unusable for any substantive purpose.
5. Section 3.3.2.2 discusses a Preferred Alternative and the City of Oak Park Height's
conditional municipal consent granted in 1995. However, the City's consent at that time was
based on an MOU between the City and MnDOT which required certain performances and
commitments including the reimbursement of City staff and infrastructure expenses related to
moving of city utilities. This section should be amended to convey a more complete and
accurate history. Further there have been significant changes to the currently proposed layout
as compared to the 1995 version and which have not been approved nor formally presented to
the City.
6. Section 5.1.1.3 indicates that there are no other adverse impacts to community cohesion in
the Oak Park Heights Area anticipated to result from the preferred alternative. This analysis
is marginal, the document should provide a discussion that incorporates and gives an
evaluation of the community and environmental disruption already experienced by Oak Park
IIeights residents as a result of the 60+ home takings, displacements and demolitions that
occurred in 1995 as well as the impacts that will be experienced by the projected takings that
the new project may have on the City since the elevations of such new bridge will be high
and directly adjacent to the City's "Village" neighborhood and Cover Park. Analysis of those
environmental and visual impacts is lacking. Further projected takings within the report
appear to have omitted a required taking in the TH36/ Oakgreen Greeley Corridor -
Intersection and no reference to that impact is made. The document also fails to sufficiently
analyze the impact to the City from the projected takings necessary for this project as it goes
forward.
7. Section 5.1.3.3 discusses impacts to fire services being provided to the City by the City of
Bayport as not being adversely effected. The statement is conclusory with no supporting data
or background. Who made this determination? What criteria were used? Was the Fire
Department consulted? Please insert clarifications as requested. How will the City receive
fire protection services during construction as fire services are provided from Bayport when
Page 2 of 57 40
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
. Monty Hainri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Page 3
primary roadways necessary to the service will be disrupted? This analysis needs to be
completed and inserted. Further please demonstrate in the document definitive information
and sources utilized to determine impacts on the fire and ambulatory services in Wisconsin
both during and after construction.
8. Section 5.1.4.4 discusses the installation of a new public boat access by MNDNR.
Conclusory statements on the impact of such a location, traffic, use, policing and related
impacts are unsupported factually The City of Oak Park Heights has on numerous occasions
informed MnDOT that no such boat access or park may be located in the City w /out an
agreement between the City and what ever particular agency will be charged with siting.
Further, please insert language that should MNDOT wish to provide funding from this
project to MNDNR for ultimate construction it should only do so when MNDNR can provide
a copy of the final agreement completed between the City and MNDNR.
9. Section 7.0 discusses visual impacts; the City of Oak Park Heights has to date not been
presented or approved a final layout, bridge design or other visual criteria related to the
Project. The City of Oak Park Heights has not yet been provided a final copy of the Visual
Quality Manual. Further several elements of the VQM may discuss or imply that the local
units of government may be responsible for maintaining certain elements such as plantings,
trails, lighting, etc. No arrangements, commitments, contracts or agreements on municipal
assumption of responsibility for those facilities has yet occurred. The SFEIS should outline
long term funding sources or provide mitigations for these improvements.
10. Section 10 discusses numerous elements related to storm water management and sub
watersheds. The document should include a detailed discussion regarding current areas in the
City of Oak Park Heights that are claimed to be not managing stormwater in an appropriate
manner. Further, the document does not indicate what percentages of flow are a result of new
road construction and /or redirection. Mitigations should be listed and fully funded to
impacted homeowners that may either lose property or are required to pay for new
stormwater facilities as a result of the Project. To date MnDOT has not provided the City a
cost estimate for stormwater facilities and necessary land acquisitions and this should be
provided and inserted.
11. Section 12.2.2. indicates that additional coordination has occurred between MnDOT and
local units of government related to the relocation of utilities. The paragraph should note that
this "coordination" has been limited to MNDOT's demonstration of their preferred
alternatives and has not included complete cost estimates for land acquisition or other
impacts. Cost estimates should be inserted into the document that reflects all anticipated
costs.
Page 3 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District •
July 14, 2006
Page 4
12. Section 123.1 only generally describes the impacts of the construction on temporally access
of fire protection services and is not satisfactory. A detailed report should be inserted that
discusses how the City of Oak Park Heights will retain adequate fire services during
construction. This report should be prepared by a qualified source that also offers solutions
should the findings result in inadequate services.
13. Section 12.3.3 indicates that the costs of moving these utilities will be discussed in a separate
MOU between the cities and MNDOT. To date there is not an agreed upon MOU and such
fact should be noted. Similarly, under section 12.4 the document states that an MOU "will"
address the costs for the relocation of utilities in each city, again it should be noted that an
MOU is not yet completed and is required. Many references are made within the document to
a "Memorandum of Understanding ", "MOU ", "Municipal Consent ", all with reference to a
host of issues unresolved between MNDOT and the City of Oak Park Heights. Many of the
issues have significant environmental impact and have simply been deferred in analysis
avoiding discussion of the environmental impact. For example, the existing right of way for
TH 36 and the bridge corridor proposed to be used is full of existing municipal utilities. In
the event that no agreement is reached between MNDOT and the City on that relocation
within the existing Right of Way then a multitude of significant impacts occur including but
not limited to: loss of water, sewer and storm sewer service for all areas north of TH 36 now
served by the City of Oak Park Heights; loss of additional lands through condemnation to
provide for the relocation of all major municipal utilities, environmental impacts to the area
for relocation of all such utilities, etc.
14. The listing of mitigations calls for a $2,000,000 expenditure for the completion of the loop
trail system and includes significant grading of the existing Barge Facility. We request a
detailed cost breakdown of this cost center to better understand the nature of the
improvement.
15. Management and Location of existing power lines are not specified within the document and
should provide that they be buried including those that lie in or directly adjacent to the south
frontage road. The SFEIS should incorporate this element.
The SETS does not specify that Standard Construction Practices will be followed and /or exceeded
during the construction phase of this Project. This should be clarified
"C. The current projected roadway has a negative impact for downtown Stillwater and the
TH 36 corridor through Oak Park Heights, as the proposed river crossing triples the
Page 4 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Page 5
traffic through the City of Oak Park Heights onto a highway corridor that is
insufficient in capacity to provide for it by the time the Bridge is completed, this will
have a negative impact on local traffic flows, accidents, pollution and traffic safety
needs."
"E. The size of the bridge will encourage the sprawl of Residents, traffic and businesses
into Wisconsin rather that solve traffic problems now in place. The dimension of the
superstructure of the Bridge as proposed is greater than originally specified and will
thus have a greater impact on visual impairment of the scenic river valley than
originally proposed."
"F. The diversion of traffic from the I -94 River crossing for traffic relief to the new river
Bridge is not justification of the proposed new river bridge size. The proposed new
river bridge does not fit into the Twin City Regional plan. The current 1 -94 river
crossing the St Croix River has the same lane capacity of the recently reconstructed
Mississippi River 1 -94 crossing. The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of
Transportation are not suggesting that 1 -94 over St Croix will have more traffic that I-
le 94 crossing the Mississippi any time in the future."
"A. The noise impacts and sound mitigation facilities of the project should be included
into SEIS with a acceptable highway 36 layout in the City of Oak Park Heights. The
documentation indicating that the SEIS have the conditionally approved 1995 plan is
incorrect as the plan in the SEIS effectively mirrors the Braun layout 2000 ..."
Supporting Technical Memoranda, Section 1 Page 7:
"C. MNDOT's own origin - destination traffic study, prepared by George Cepress, State
traffic Forecast Engineer and dated July 19, 1993, showed that over 33% of the
westbound traffic from Wisconsin that crosses the current bridge has a destination
within Stillwater. The TAG group work indicates that traffic on Osgood, Greeley and
Churchill increase. The traffic from the proposed river bridge to downtown Stillwater
has not been revised and studied by any city group. The SEIS has failed to evaluate
where that traffic is going and whether the proposed bridge and corridor will actually
resolve the downtown and neighborhood area Oak Park Heights /Stillwater traffic
problems."
"C. With the proposed new river crossing cost projected at $480 million, the project cost
benefit analysis must be updated and bridge location reevaluated since the proposed
SEIS bridge location may not be the most cost effective."
Page 5 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Page 6
"D. Considering the current Preferred Alternative, public input sessions should be held
that accurately display and demonstrate the current layout and elevations in an
appropriate scale and demonstrating differences with the 1995 proposal."
"E. Table 5. Lc and page 5 -15 indicate that there are to be 19 residential and 32
commercial partial takes as a result of the Preferred Alternative. The SEIS does not
clearly describe what properties these are nor does it acknowledge that these
properties could be impacted to a degree that would cause them to fall out of
compliance with the City Zoning Code requirements relating to existing use, setbacks,
drainage, parking or other land use elements rendering the properties as unsuitable.
As such, these properties must be evaluated individually for their impacts relative to a
partial taking versus a total taking. The City's zoning code Chapter. 401 can be found
at the City's website for reference - www.cityofoakparkheights.com."
'T. Project Boundaries/Local collector streets. The project boundaries established for this
project seem arbitrary and in some cases without logic or rational. In the area of the
TH 36 Oakgreen/Greeley interchange the boundary has the project improvements
ending 100 feet north of an established intersection. The result is a wide lane of traffic
abruptly narrowing into a short segment of road immediately prior to a 4 way stop
intersection. The project boundaries should be adjusted to carry out to logical end
points and intersections wherever possible."
Supporting Technical Memoranda, Section 4:
"The proposed noise analysis- preferred Alternative, This plan has not been presented to or
reviewed by the City of Oak Park Heights.
SEIS Executive Summary ES -3 High crash rates, crash rates on the highway 36 corridor in
Oak Park Heights and Stillwater are not statistically higher than the Twin City average crash
rates. Thus justification for the improvement should not be based on this statistic.
SEIS Executive Summary ES -3 Poor Traffic operations on TH 36 and in Downtown
Stillwater, the final SEIS proposes no significant roadway changes to the existing TH 36 in
the Oak Park Heights and Stillwater corridor."
Page 6
g of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Wage 7
Supporting Technical Memoranda, Section 3:
"With the proposed new river crossing cost of $480 million, the project cost benefit analysis
must be updated and bridge location reevaluated since the proposed SEIS bridge location is
may not be the most cost effective.
Balance in treatment and consideration for the issues raised by the local communities do not
appear to have been equitably managed. MNDOT largess appears to have been
disproportionately dispersed in favor of Stillwater on parks and open areas as opposed to Oak
park Heights immediacy of need for municipal utility relocation.
A. The City incorporates by reference all comments and statements made in earlier
resolutions and /or correspondence to MnDOT and that such statements and concerns
are to be satisfactorily addressed in the SFEIS. Such documents are, but not limited
to, the following and are attached.
• Correspondence:
Feb 22, 2006 — Staff Approved Layout — Level I Geometric,
Feb 28, 2006 Comments on Draft Visual Quality Manual,
Feb 17, 2006 — Commentary on MOA / MOU:
Current Comments on the MOA — Section 106
Current Comments on the MOU — Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items
Current Comments on the MOU -- Growth Management Mitigation Items
Current Comments on the MOU — Water Quality Management Advisory Committee
Current Comments on the MOU --• Between Xcel Energy (N. States Power and
MnDOT
Feb 16, 2006 — Various MOU Comments — Bridge Location
Sept 15, 2005 — HR3 -- State Grant Application,
August 4, 2005 --- Comments on SDEIS,
June 27`', 2005 — To C. Martin — early commentary on the 106 MOU
January 18, 2005 — Concept F — STH 36 Layouts & attached letter to A. Eller
August 31, 2004 — 1995 EIS Statement
August 18, 2004 — Boat Ramp Facility
August 2, 2004 — Concept F — Buttonhook Design
July 22, 2004 — Comments on Coop. Agency SDEIS and Mitigation -- as revised.
Citv Resolutions:
Page 7 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MNDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Page 8
05 -01 -13 — Response to MnDOT Jan O h 2005 Letter,
04 -10 -49 — City Position on location of proposed bridge (corridor),
04 -09 -47 — City Resolution conveying commentary on SDEIS,
03 -10 -54 — City Resolution conveying commentary on Project and needed improvements.
The City's comments were specifically approved by Council action dated July 13, 2006. The written
commentary has been forwarded. A copy of the City's resolution specifically approving same is
available to you upon request. Lastly, the City expressly reserves its right to amend, delete or supplement
our comments on the SFEIS document as well as other related documents.
r
Y rs very tr
Eric Jo s n
City A mistrator
City o ak Park Heights
•
Cc: City Council Members
Mark V ierling, City Attorney
Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT
Nick Thompson, MNDOT
Adam Josephson, MNDOT
Page 8 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Monty Hamri
MnDOT, Metro District
July 14, 2006
Page 9
ATTACHMENTS -- Correspondence and Resolutions
Page 9 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
t.
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
February 22, 2006
Adam Josephson, P.E.
Minnesota DOT - Waters Edge Bldg.
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Staff Approved Layout — Level 1 Geometric — Dated Jan 9 2006
As attached.
Dear Mr. Josephson,
On February 15` 2006 you had delivered to the City a set of plans defined as a "Staff
Approved Layout" for the St. Croix River Crossing Project and contained the cover
memo as attached hereto. You further indicated that it was not the intent of MnDOT to
initiate any municipal consent process with the delivery of this document nor was there
any particular action necessary on the part of the City to respond or comment on the .
document.
Accordingly, the City thanks you for the information and acknowledges the receipt of
such materials, but per your comments, shall not undertake any particular review at this
time. As you know we have been working toward the following approvals, but to date the
City has not approved a project layout or alternative, provided its municipal consent nor
has there been a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the City and
MnDOT.
_.............. ....... _ _........__ ................... ........_......._........___._.
We also notice that the "Scheduled Letting Date" is for 2024. Considering this timeline, it
remains imperative that MnDOT address the critical needs of the frontage roads and their
continued deterioration, as the current conditions are deplorable. Please advise us as to
MnDOT's plan to address, maintain or improve these frontage roads in the immediate
future. It is our understanding that the $4 million dollars recently allocated under the
2005 federal Transportation Bill could also be utilized for frontage road improvements;
what is that status and scope of MnDOT's plan to utilize these funds?
Lastly, the letter indicates four key purposes for the Project; three of the four directly
relate to Downtown Stillwater and /or the lift bridge and the last item discusses the
1
Page 10 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Project's importance as an "interregional corridor ". It is therefore valid that the City
questions MnDOT policy on requiring that the City fund various elements, (utilities) as
the purposes for the Project, as stated by MnDOT, are not in Oak Park Heights nor are
these benefits directly serving Oak Park Heights residents more so than any other
regional end -user. Accordingly, the City anticipates and hopes that MnDOT will reflect
on these stated positions and correctly agree to appropriate terms as would be contained
in an MOU.
Please let me know' ou any questions,
ncer ,
uric Jo s
City d nistrator
Cc: City Council Members
Mark Vierling, City Attorney
Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT — via email
Alanna Getty, MNDOT — via email
Ken Holte, SRF Consulting — via email
fS Monty Hamri, MNDOT
4D 2
Page 11 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
iq
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Memo
Metropolitan District - Design Office Tel: 651-582 -'1606
Mail Stop 050, Waters Edge Building Fax: 651- 582 -1308
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
January 9, 2006
To: Addressees
From: Alana Getty, Preliminary Design Project Manager
Monty Hannri, Final Design Project Manager
Todd Clarkowski, East Area Eng;incer
Ken Holte, SRI' Consulting;
Subject: Mn/DOT Staff Approved Distribution of Level 1 Geometric Layout fox -
S.P. 8214 -114 and S.P. 8217 -12
T.H. 36, St. Croix River Crossing Project - Preferred Alternative
Layout No. 2A Part A and Layout No. 3 Parts B and C
Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights, Washington County, Minnesota
and the 'Town of St. Joseph, St Croix County, Wisconsin
Scheduled Letting Date: 2024 (currently unfunded)
Attached is a file copy of Ivan /DOT Staff approved Level 1 Geometric Layout for the St.
Croix River Crossing Preferred Alternative.
Part A = '11136 west of Osgood Ave in Minnesota
Part 13 =T11,16/95 east of Osgood Ave in Minnesota
Part C = STI•I 35/64 in Wisconsin)
The project area. extends along; "TH 36 from the TT-1 36 /TI-1 5 interchange in Stillwater and
Oak Park Heights, Minnesota to 150 Avenue on STH 36/64 in the 'Town of St. Joseph,
Wisconsin. The preferred alternative package includes: (1) river crossing location
rilte>rnafim B -:1, (2) extradosed new bridge type, (3) future use of the Lift Bridge as a 12ed 117ike
A il — lit - 111 and (4) appropriate nnitigation items.
With continued input from multiple stakeholders, representing various social, economic,
cultural and natural environment interests, this project proposes to provide the following:
• Improved traffic operations to relieve existing and future congestion in downtown
Stillwater and on approach roadways to the Lift Bridge by increasing roadway
capacity;
• Address concerns related to interrupted service provided by the Lift Bridge due to
daily operations, seasonal flooding, and repairs as well as maintenance, operations, and
repair costs;
1
Page 12 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS -July 14th, 2006
I.5
Improved safety of the approach roadways and pedestrian safety in downtown
Stillwater; and
Improved operations 01141 corridor that has been identified as an interregional corridor
Connecthig Minnesota and Wisconsin.
A new four -lane bridge will cross the river at a point in Minnesota 7,450 feet south of the
Lift Bridge. 'The B -1 alignment uses a south ravine align extent Ineeting the Wisconsin bluff
5,465 feet south of the Lift Bridge (the B -1 alignment is 1,000 feet south of the 7.995 project,
B alignment). Additional information is available on the project website:
���ti >.dot.state �rc>jr /stcroix /intiex.htlnt
This layout is being used to complete. the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact
Statement (S P l I S). The anticipated release date of the (S F E I S) is March 2006•
•
2
Page 13 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
i�
ADDRESSEE LIST
Addressees: (Including 100 scale Layout)
- Municipalities (One layout per municipality within project limits) -
1. Stillwater
2. Oak Park Heights
3. Bayport
4. Washington County
5. Town of St. Joseph
6. St Croix County
3
Page 14 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
k
1
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082. Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
February 28, 2006
Mr. Adam Josephson, P.E.
Minnesota DOT - Waters Edge Bldg.
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: DRAFT Visual Quality Manual
Dear Mr. Josephson,
Thank you for providing the City an opportunity to review the DRAFT Visual Quality Manual
(VQM). Below you will find our preliminary commentary. The City does reserve its rights for
further review and commentary on these and other documents.
i ) Generally, the City does not find the current aesthetic design of the proposed Beach Road
Bridge to be acceptable. Please revise the design to a more natural and organic
appearance. However, please note that the City has not approved a final layout for a new
Beach Road crossing.
2) The City was unable to locate any language in the document that discusses maintenance
responsibility for any of the proposed improvements such as planters, gardens, sidewalks,
trails, etc. To date the City has not agreed to maintain these, or any other facilities.
3) It is the City's understanding that there shall be a "pumphouse" located in this project to
provide the new bridge deck with a de -icing system. The City has not been provided any
information regarding this item and will require full planning and engineering review at
MnDOT expense. How will utilities be provided to this facility?
4) On page 2 -1, second paragraph, right -hand column, please remove the last sentence in
that paragraph that begins, "The name Oak Park Heights implies..."
5) Page 3 -1 discusses the proposed ST14 36/95 area in terms of its relationship to Stillwater
and Bayport, but fails to mention that this interchange is in fact in the City of Oak Park
Heights. Please revise this page to properly frame the location of the new facilities to be
in the City of Oak Park. Heights.
6) Page 3 -6 discusses that STH 95 will serve as a "gateway" to the cities of Bayport and
Stillwater. Please also add that STH 95 also is a gateway to the City of Oak Park Heights,
SEE PAGE 2
1
Page 15 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
i
Overall the VQM that the City has received as a draft document is incomplete with several
sections, maps or drawings missing. Accordingly it is premature for the City to comment on
the viability of the entire document until opportunity has been provided to review the material
in its entirety.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Aluo
Chic Johnson
City Administrator
Cc: City Council Members
Mark Vierling, City Attorney
Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT — via email
2
Page 16 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
City of Oak. Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007.Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
February 17, 2006
Adam Josephson, P.E.
Minnesota DOT - Waters Edge Bldg.
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113 ** *also via email * **
RE: Commentary on MOA / MOU:
Current Comments on the MOA - Section 106
Current Comments on the MOU - Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items
Current Comments on the MOU - Growth Management Mitigation Items
Current Comments on the MOU - Water Quality Management Advisory Committee
Current Comments on the MOU - Between Xcel Energy (Northern States Power and MnDOT
Dear Mr. Josephson,
Thank you for providing the City an opportunity to review the above draft documents. Enclosed you will
• find our preliminary commentary. The City does reserve its rights for further review and commentary on
these and other documents.
Please let me know o ave. questions.
egards,
ne Johnson —
City Ad / en' strator
Cc: City Council Members
Marts Vieriing, City Attorney
Dennis Postler, City Engineer
Todd Clarkowski, via email
Terry Pederson, via email
Cheryl Martin, FHA via email
Page 17 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Preliminary Comments on the MOU — ImWementation of Riverwav Mitieation
Items
Item 1: i
Item 1 indicates that the new St. Croix River crossing lies between Oak Park Heights and Stillwater and St.
Joseph Township. Why does this include Stillwater? See letter to Adam Josephson dated 2/16/06 as
attached.
Item 6;
The paragraph states that there is a "graphic" describing Mitigation for Riverway Impacts, this was not
attached.
Item 8 f— Riverway Interpretation:
This paragraph discusses the placement of information or interprative faciiities/kiosks. The City of Oak
Park Heights has been only generically approached on the placement of these facilities. The City is
concerned with potential conflicts with city systems, land use plans, traffic management and other conflicts
within the City's zoning ordinance. Detailed plans and locations must be provided to the City prior to any
final authorizations.
Item 8 g — Public Boat Access:
The document discusses a public boat access. The City of Oak Park Heights has provided commentary to
MNDOT and MNDNR as to the terms and conditions under which a boat launch facility may be located
within the City. That document is again attached hereto. To date, neither MNDOT nor MNDNR has
approached the City in advancing this discussion — See letter dated August 18 2004 to Rick Arnebeck
MNDOT.
Item 8 h — Loop Trail System:
(i) The City of Oak Park Heights has not approved a final project layout nor approved a final trail .
location(s). MNDOT has not approached the City of Oak Park Heights to discuss trail layouts.
(iv) The City of Oak Park Heights has not approved the Visual Quality Manual.
(viii) The City of Oak Park Heights has not yet agreed to accept or maintain any trait infrastructure.
Maintenance features to be appear absent from the MOD's
Item 8 i —Recreation, Education and Riverway Restoration:
Item c in this subheading discusses the placement of a restroom facility along the river. The City of Oak
Park Heights has not been approached nor has approved this facility to be located in Oak Park Heights.
Item 8 j — Covenants on Excess Property:
This item discusses that there will not be excess property on the Minnesota side of the project. To date the
City of Oak Park Heights has not approved a final project layout nor granted municipal consent.
Accordingly, the determination that there will be no excess property is premature. The comments made
within the document conflict with previous discussions between MNDOT and the City of Oak Park
Heights.
Item 8:
This paragraph discuses the creation of an'OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, why does this not include the
local units of government representing the people most impacted by the Project.
Page 18 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Preliminary Comments on the MOU -- Growth'lVlanagement Mitisatiou Items
Item 1:
Item 1 indicates that the new St. Croix River crossing lies between Oak Park Heights and
Stillwater and St. Joseph Township. Why does this include Stillwater? See letter to Adam
Josephson dated 2/16/06 as attached.
Missing Item - Funding should also be provided to the City Oak Park Heights to
examine impacts of the new Bridge and Corridor on current populations, especially for
impacts on lower Oak Park Heights — "Village Area ".
•
Page 19 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Preliminary Comments on the MOU — Water Oualitv Management Advisory •
Committee
The first paragraph indicates that the new crossing lies between Stillwater and the Town
of St. Joseph. Please correctly state that the crossing lies between the City of Oak Park
Heights and the Town St. Joseph. See letter to Adam Josephson dated 2/16/06 as
attached.
Wetland Permitting - The attached table 16 -2 "Agency Permits, Approvals and other
Required Documents" should also indicate that the City also .maintains a Wetland
Ordinance for which any project must meet the terms and conditions.
•
Page 20 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• Preliminary Comments on the MOU — Between Xcel Energy !Northern States
Power and MnDOT
Item 6 - Permits
NSP (Xcel Energy) operates its facility under the terms and conditions of a Conditional
Use Permit as issued by the City. Any variation or alterations of land use not consistent
with that CUP or within the Riverway District must first be approved by the City. Any
items contemplated within the MOU must be first reviewed in detail by the City to
determine if permits are required including but not limited to: demolition, construction,
wetland elimination or filling activities. To date the City has not been provided
documentation or a proposal outlining the contemplated work.
Item 10 — Boat Ramp f
The City has not authorized the placement of a Boat Ramp or other river access facility.
Any such placement will first require written approval by the City incorporating the
necessary terms and conditions. — See letter dated August 18' 2004 to Rick Arnebeck
MNDOT
Page 21 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Preliminary Comments on the MCA — Section 106 •
To date the City has elected to not be a signatory on the 106 MCA, please ensure that the
City's name is removed in the signature block, versus stating that we have "declined to
sign" or leaving it blank.
Page 22 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (65 1) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
February 16'', 2006
Adam Josephson, P.E.
Minnesota DOT - Waters Edge Bldg.
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
* * *Also via email* *'
Dear Mr. Josephson,
The City is in receipt of three MOU documents that discuss project mitigations which you have asked for
the City's input and comment.
One concern the City maintains is that these documents indicate that the bridge crossing is to be located in
Stillwater or references "Oak Park Heights and Stillwater ". Please advise if the proposed alignment has
moved further north, placing the bridge crossing in Stillwater, rather than in Oak Park Heights.
If the proposed alignment has not been altered, please revise the documents to indicate that the bridge
crossing lies between Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, and the Town St. Joseph, Wisconsin.
We are still reviewing the MOUs and compiling additional comments that we hope to send out by the end
of the week.
Thank you, /
Eric Johnson
City Administrator
Cc: Weekly Notes
Todd Ciarkowski — via email
Terry Pederson, W lsDOT — via email
Page 23 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
CITY OF
UAK PARK HEIGHTS
14168 'Oak Park Boulevard No. • P.O. Sox 2007 '-'Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 =2007 • Phgne: 651/439 -4439 • Fax: 651/439 -05740
September 15, 2005
Lieutenant Governor Molnau /'Secretary of Transportation
Transportation Building
395 John Ireland Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55155
RE: H.R. 3 —Federal Funding, STH 36 Reconstruction /St. Croix River Crossing'- .State Grant
Application..
Dear Ms. Molnau,
With the passage of the Federal Transportation Act, it is our understanding that the State of Minnesota will
preparing a "grant request" to the United States Secretary of Transportation in order to secure.the allocated
funding and on approved timelines. As intended in the legislation, the City is to receive appropriate funding
for City utility relocations as necessary with.the implementation of the STH 36 /St Croix River Crossing
Project.
Accordingly, the City of Oak Park 1- leights desires to be part of and have input into this grant application
process. How these funds are to be allocated is of great importance and- is an item the City wish6s to clarify
as soon as possible. Please advise us.as to what next steps MnDOT is taking in this process and how the
City is to be involved.
The City requests that a response to this letter be provided that identifies what the City's role shall be in
making the grant request to the Secretary. Should the City not receive an effective response to this request
by October 7th, 2005 the City most consider taking a non - supportive position iri "St'akeholders" /consensus
process.
Picas f i ou have any questions.
e--^
;ric J
City /
Cc: City Counc il Members ✓
Congressman Mark Kennedy,
Minnesota 6"' District
1415 Longworth 11013
Washington, DC 20515
Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary=
U.S. Department of'rransportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C..20590
Mr. Rick Arnebeck, MnDOT
Page 24 of 57
vdh tommen rs on SI-tls - - July r % u
e airy u.s.A.
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
August 4 rd , 2005
To: Mr. Todd Clarkowski
MNDOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113 AND via facsimile — 651- 582 -1308
Beth Bartz
SRP Consulting Group, Inc.
I Carlson Parkway North
Minneapolis, MN 55447 AND via facsimile — 763- 475 -0010
Mr. Rick Arnebeck
MNDOT - Metro Division
fa Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113 AND via facsimile -- 651 -582 -1308
Ms. Cheryl Martin
United States Federal Highway Administration
VIA EMAIL, — Cheryl.Martin @Mwa.dot.gov
From: Eric Johnson, City Administrators
Enclosed you will fund comments from the City of Oak Park Heights on the Cooperating
Agency Draft — Supplement Environmental Final Impact Statement. Please note that the City
providing the comments herein, does not waive or delete its authority to provide additional
commentary or make further statements on the final EIS document. The City does anticipate
having full authority to review and comment on the final document when released as
permitted by law.
Comments 1 to 18 are as follows:
Page 25 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
I. The City of Oak Park Heights did not approve a particular "Preferred Alternative ", for
either the bridge or for a STH 36 layout please exactly state who selected the currently
utilized Preferred Alternative and clearly identify what date the Stakeholder's group did
approve this Preferred Alternative. Was this selection done by a voice vote, ballot, etc?
This discussion should be inserted into Section 1.2.4.7. and Section 3.3.8.
2. Related to the above (1.), there should also be a discussion on why the Stakeholder's
group did not select the least costly bridge alternative.
3. The Preferred Alternative has significant impact on the City of Oak Park Heights, please
indicate where in the FEIS document where there has been an agreement with the City of
Oak Park Heights to alter the location of Beach Road or place a cul -de -sac at the north
end of Lookout Trail. While these discussions may be part of a final MOU, to date the
concept of such actions have not been discussed nor the impacts studied. If MnDOT has
performed these impact studies please insert as an appendix.
4. Page 9 -7 contains a discussion of a Public Boat Access; the City of Oak Park Heights has
not approved the location of such a facility with its jurisdiction. A separate and
satisfactory agreement will be required to locate this facility in Oak Park Heights, either
as part of this Project or as a future element separate from the Project. The City hereby
asserts its jurisdiction and shall preclude the placement of such facility by any agency,
MnDOT, MnDNR etc, without the written approval of the City of Oak Park Heights.
5. Section 12 contains a discussion of construction staging and it appears that the will be a
temporary shut down of the access between lower Oak Park Heights and the area both
north of STH 36 and west of Osgood. Please identify ]low the fire protection services will
be able to move from Bayport to the City of Oak Park Heights. Bayport Fire Department
provides services to Oak Park Heights, I-low will response times be impacted, what will
be the routes? At what Stage of the project will Beach Road be closed, please clearly
indicate this scenario.
Additionally, Beach Road may be relocated which may cause significant traffic
disruptions at other intersections. Please describe these projected impacts and how will
these be addressed?
6. On Page 15 -19, 4' paragraph , there is a discussion on the proposed Loop Trail. At no
point has MnDOT approached the City of Oak Park Heights to discuss this system in an
official capacity. This discussion must occur and should be address in the final EIS. As
part of this discussion, the City and MnDOT would be required to execute a specific
agreement on management and maintenance of the proposed trail systems.
Additionally, the Loop Trail appears to have missing links, please provide a clear and
distinct map laying out the entire system from the Projects' eastern limits in Wisconsin to
it western limits in Minnesota in a single cut- sheet.
7. On Page 17 -174 RESPONSES, Item B, there is a statement that the "...City Council in
May 2003 approved the PAC Recommendations from the STH 36 Partnership Study ",
please identify the exact date the City Council of Oak Park Heights approved this
Page 26 of 57 40
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• document or approved a particular concept alternative and attached these resolutions as
appendices to the FINS.
8. On Page 17 -73 RESPONSES, Item 13, second and last paragraph, there is a discussion
that there was a meeting between the City and the author of the economic study. While
there was a short meeting where questions were raised, there was no solution generated
nor offered to the City that was acceptable. Accordingly, to date the City of Oak Park
heights maintains its previously stated objections to that study. Please recall that the
author of the study made no attempt to contact the City to advise that the study was
proceeding or if it agreed with its methodology. Language should be inserted into the
FEIS document that the City of Oak Park Heights has rejected this study in total.
9. On Page 15 -8, Commitment of Financial Resources, the discussion states that the
previous land takings in 1995 were not included in the current project cost estimate.
Please indicate why not. ']'here should be additional analyses provided in the economic
impact section of the FEIS that addresses prior land takings, their costs and impacts on
the City tax base to date.
10. What have been the fiscal impacts to date of this Project on the local units of
government? A specific study should be included that provide some insight into these
impacts. This should be inserted into Section 5.
1 l . Page 15 -10, Financial Resources — states that there would in fact be an increase in the
overall tax base due to the improved accessibility to developable land. Please indicate and
demonstrate what lands and whose tax base will be improved. In same section, loss of tax
base currently endured by the City is not, according to the FEIS, considered a DIRECT
IMPACT; please state why it is not.
12. The FEIS should endeavor to be more consistent in its identification of what jurisdictions
the STH 36 project or Bridge impacts. Please clearly and consistently utilize the same
nomenclature. For example, in some areas the document refers to improvements from
STH 5 in Stillwater while in other places it refers to STH 5 in Oak Park Heights.
13. On Page 7 -5 the St Croix Overlook Viewshed, 7.3.1.5 is discussed. There should be
language inserted into this section that states that this overlook shall be reconstructed to
the extent as agreed upon by the City and MnDOT in the MOU.
14. On Page 12 -6, Construction Related Impacts to Wetlands, the City of Oak Park Heights
also maintains a Wetland Ordinance. Language should be inserted into this paragraph that
states that the Project shall secure specific City approval for impacts to any wetlands and
that these would be in addition to these from MnDNR or the Army Corps.
15. On Page 12 -8, Relocation of Utilities 12.3.3, there is a discussion that the design and
costs of utility relocations will be discussed in a Memorandum of Understanding. The
City of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT to date have not yet agreed on the terms of a final
MOU. This fact should be distinctly referenced in this paragraph.
16. Oil Page 18 and 19, Appendix G, (Appendices), Please clarify how the FHWA will notify
parties that may not ultimately sign -on as a Concurring Party of filed disputes to the
Amended MOA.
40
Page 27 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
17. On Page 7, Appendix F, (Appendices), Item l of E. Proposed Mitigation Package; Please •
include the City of Oak Park Heights.
18. The final SEIS Highway 36 Plan should indicate the freeway design in the scoping
document through Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. The State of Minnesota has
indicated that a new study should be undertaken to determine the type of highway to be
constructed through the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. This study is funded
and is likely to begin soon. The Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater could then
choose the final design before the local communities consider or grant municipal consent
for the entire Project. If the communities agree to do highway upgrades that are more
significant than the 1995 approved layout, then the SEIS work would be required prior to
constructing and funding the roadway though Oak Park Heights and Stillwater.
Accordingly, the report should indicate whether or not MNDOT will approve a Highway
36 study without a commitment from the local communities that what ever the outcome
of the report, the local communities must approve.
The SEIS indicates that the Highway 36 layout in the 2005 report is the approved 1995
plan. This roadway layout is not similar to 1995 layout; this report should indicate that
this highway layout is different and these changes have has not been discussed with or
approved by the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater; and was not given any form
of municipal consent in 1995, as the 1995 plan was never brought back to the local
communities for final layout approval.
Page 28 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007 . Oak Park heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
June 27, 2005
Ms. Cheryl Martin
United States Federal Highway Administration
VIA -- EMAIL Cheryl. Martin@fhwa.dot.gov
Dear Ms. Martin,
Enclosed you will find our commentary on the proposed Amended 106 MOU. We thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the various provisions through noon today. The following are items that should
be addressed in the document. Please note that the City Council has not taken action on this document nor
have they committed to be a concurring party at this time. At some future point, the Council may discuss
the "final' version, request additional revisions and may vote to support this 106 MOO.
Please note, to date the City of Oak Park Heights has not completed its own MOO with MnDOT and may
• not be completed for some time. As you can understand, the City could not support language in the 106
MOO that may be contrary to the provisions of our own MOO; accordingly revisions may be necessary to
this 106 MOU if the City is to be a concurring party. The City does realize that there are many partners in
this process and that we hope that you will find our comments are constructive, as you are aware that Oak
Park Heights will be specifically impacted by this protect and that we must ensure that our residents and
businesses are provided for.
Our comments are as follows;
• In the first paragraph, it indicates that the bridge is to run between Houlton, WI and Stillwater,
MN. We know that this is probably not the case and should be amended to state Oak Park
Heiglits not Stillwater.
• The same first paragraph references a B I Bridge Alignment alternative, the City has not yet
taken a position on any alternative which may be a key issue precluding our "concurrence"
with this 106 MOU document.
• Page 5, Visual Quality Manual — Item 3, revise third sentence to include (lie City of Oak Park
Heights, "MnDOT shall invite the City of Stillwater, THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,
the Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission..."
• Page 11, regarding Log Cabin Restaurant, Item 2 Parking, second to last sentence in this
paragraph must be revised to also include Xcel Energy as a cooperating partner. Additionally,
this paragraph must specifically include a provision that MnDOT shall provide clear and
precise signage and access for the Restaurant throughout the construction process.
• Page 11, regarding the Shoddy Mill, this paragraph must be revised to state that the City of
Oak Park Heights has right of first refusal of these facilities prior to any final actions taken by
MnDOT and that the City of Oak Park Heights is not required to make a final decision on the
acquisition of these properties until such time as the project is fully funded, municipal consent
is granted and a final construction schedule is complete and approved by the City of Oak Park
Heights.
Page 29 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• Page 12, Item 3 deals with the Scenic Overlook, to date this has not been settled in our own •
MOU conversation with MnDOT, this 106 MOU should state an additional condition on the
final restoration of the Scenic Overlook requires the concurrence of the City of OPH as
outlined in the MOU w/ MnDOT, MnDOT shall also provide clear and concise signage and
access to the Scenic Overlook during and after the construction process.
Please lot me know if you have any uestions.
t Re
- 1c ' non
City d iinist • r
Cc: City Council Members
Mark Vierling
Dennis Postler
Page 30 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
r
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007 . Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 + Fax (651) 439 -0574
January 18, 2005
Mr. Rick Arnebeck
Minnesota Dept. of Transportation — Metro Division
Water's Edge Building
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: STH 36 Intersection Layouts.
Dear Rick,
The City is in the process of reviewing your most recent correspondence of January 6 2005. In
preparation for our potential response, important questions have arisen for which the City needs does need
some guidance.
1. The current layout of Concept F bears practically little resemblance to the layout as
crafted/presented as the result of the Partnership Study. Please explain, in writing, how and
why the current Concept F for the STH 36 layout has evolved from the initial presentation to
the City. It is understood that MnDOT did prepare Summary Report -- Aug 2004' on the TAG
Process, but a shorter summary would be beneficial.
2. Please concisely explain the need for the changes in these layouts. Specifically, please include
a discussion on the need for the significant changes at the NW corner of Osgood and STH 36,
the expansion of the southerly pullback frontage roads and the shifting of the southern
frontage road at Oakgreen/Greeley more southwardly.
Once we receive this informa ' the City will be in a better position to further discuss alternatives.
ank ,
rric Job of
City inistrator
Cc: City Council Members
Mark Vierling City Attorney
See City of Oak Park Height's Oct 14 2004 letter to Andrew Eller, MnDOT regarding the City's
position on the Summary Report. — Attached
Page 31 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
x�
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd N.• Box 2007.Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • (651) 439 -4439 • Fax 439 -0574
October 14 ", 2004
Mr. Andrew Eller
MnDOT
Water's Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Summary Report - STH 36 Partnership Study - Concept F Refinement Technical Advisory Group
Mr. Eller,
I am in receipt of your letter dated October P, 2004. My office is in receipt of such Summary Report
document as distributed at that 9/7/04 meeting. However, the City was not and has not been asked to agree
or disagree with the terms or statements made therein. If MnDOT wishes this City to make an official
statement or comment on that document please provide that request in writing.
That document has not been given any particular standing or weight by this City as such document was
banded out at a meeting and utilized for reference in a generic discussion that same day. If MnDOT does
anticipate that such document is somehow a formal conveyance and official summary of the process please
advise us of such fact and the City will provide its comments accordingly.
Please let me know' o have questions.
mcerely
.ric A. Jo s n
City A trator
Cc: Rick Arnebeck, OT
Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT
Beth Bartz, SRF
Mark Vierling, City Attorney
City Council Members
Page 32 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District — Design
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
October 5, 2004
Members of the T.H. 36 Technical Advisory Group
(OPH, Stillwater, WASCO, Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce)
Subject: Summary Report
TH36 Partnership Study
Concept "F° Refinement
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
This letter is in regards to the distribution of the TAG Summary Report you received at
the T.H. 36 Partnership Study update meeting on September 7, 2004. The document
details the process of refinement of the buttonhook interchange locations and frontage
road connections and overpasses. In addition to the Introduction and Summary
document sections, three appendices also included are Background, TAG Meeting
Summaries, and Business Information.
our records indicate that you have already received this document at the meeting
mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, please contact Alana Getty at
Mn /DOT Metro Design if you are in need of another copy
(alana. betty @dot.state.mn.us).
Sincerely,
cb
Andrew Eller
Grad. Engineer, EIT
Mn /DOT Metro Design
Cc: Todd Clarkowski, Mn /DOT Area Engineer
Rick Arnebeck, Mn /DOT East Area Manager
Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting
Page 33 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd N.• Box 2007.Oak Park heights, MN 55082 • (651) 4394439 • Fax 439 -0574
August 31, 2004
Mr. Rick Arnebeck
MNDOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: 1995 EIS Statement.
Dear Mr. Arnebeck,
In addition to the request by the City Council regarding the insertion of the Cut and Cover Concept into the
current version of the Draft/Final EIS, the Council also requests that language from the 1995 Final EIS
document also be clearly reinserted into the current Draft(Final version.
It is this language that was agreed upon in 1992 by the pities of Oak Park Heights and the Stillwater that
advocated for AT -GRADE intersections. An excerpt from the 1995 EIS is attached hereto for your
reference that contemplates that understanding.
This understanding may already be in place and /or may already be in the current Draft EIS, but I was not
able to locate such language. Again the City requests that this language be clearly and directly stated.
Please let me lmow if you have questi s.
gards,
ric Iohnson
City Admini ator
Cc: City Council Members
Ms. Beth Bartz, SRF
Mr. Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT
Page 34 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• This summary provides a brief overview of the Preferred Alternative and of issues
discussed in the Final EIS. More detailed information can be found in the remainder
of the Final EIS, and in the Draft EIS previously released in March 1990.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Final EIS addresses the proposed new river crossing over the St. Croix River,
between Oak Park Heights, Minnesota and the Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin. In
addition, the document discusses the reconstruction of portions of Trunk Highway
(TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 64 in
western St. Croix County, Wisconsin as approaches to the proposed river crossing.
Figure 1 -1 shows the location of the project within the Minnesota/Wisconsin area.
The Final EIS identifies the environmental impacts of a new bridge and approach
corridor along the preferred alignment (see Figure 1 -2) advanced for design
development within the South Corridor. In addition, the reasons for not advancing
other Build and No Build alternatives are also discussed.
The study corridor runs from the County Road 15/TH 36 intersection in Minnesota to
a point on STH 35164 approximately 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) east of the state line
(the St. Croix River) in Wisconsin. The Preferred Alternative involves upgrading the
existing expressway along TH 36 from Washington/Norrell Avenues to Osgood
Avenue in Minnesota and constructing a new four -lane divided freeway from
Osgood Avenue across the river to intersect with existing STH 64 in Wisconsin
approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) east of the St. Croix River along the new
highway alignment. The length of the proposed alignment is approximately
9.7 kilometers (6 miles). Within the Minnesota portion of the project, continuous
parallel frontage roads will be extended and upgraded from Washington /Norell
Avenues to Osgood Avenue along with a frontage road connection from Osgood
Avenue to TH 95 on the north side of TH 36. A new interchange will be constructed
at TH 36/TH 95-and the three existing signalized Intersections will be ungraded to
arx, nmmodate additional traffic growth. The new four -lane bridge will start at the
TH 36/TH 95 interchange and proceed'northeast across the river, utilizing a natural
ravine on the Wisconsin bluff. The bridge will have provisions for pedestrians and
bicyclists. A new four -lane divided highway will be constructed in Wisconsin which
will bypass Houlton, interchange with a new alignment of County Road E and STH
35, and proceed on to join into the existing alignment of STH 35/64.
The function of TH 36 and STH 64 within their respective state transportation
systems is to serve long distance trips between regions. In Minnesota, TH 36 is
classified as a major arterial. In Wisconsin, STH 64 is classified as a principal
arterial, and STH 35 is designated as a minor arterial.
1 -2
Page 35 of 57
OPH 2000
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd N.• Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • (651) 439 -4439 • Fax 439 -0574
August 18, 2004
Mr. Rick Arnebeck
MNDOT
15000 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Boat Ramp
Dear Rick,
As you know the City has clearly stated that it is not significantly interested in having such Boat Ramp
Facility located within our borders. However, the DNR remains constant in their opinion that this Facility
be included in the HWY 36 /Brideg Project. So in some effort to keep the process in a positive tone City
Staff suggests that the following items are the minimum general conditions that the City would seek for the
installation of the Boat Ramp within Oak Park Heights. All final approvals would need to be granted by the
City Council after being placed through an appropriate process and placed into an appropriate agreement.
• The property is zoned Industrial (I) and would need to be rezoned to an alternative use that allows such
facilities; or the Industrial code would need to be revised to allow such use via a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). CUP would need to be issued by the City Council.
• All City Wetland and tree protection ordinances must also be reviewed and complied with. All such •
permits and required staff analysis shall be paid for by DNR as per City Development Process.
• The City shall approve layout and design.
• DNR would bear any and all costs for construction.
• All structures shall require a CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Building Permit.
• The City would set all hours of operation. A gate shall be placed at the entrance /exit and may be
operated by the City.
• DNR is responsible for all regular maintenance and shall be kept in a I" class condition.
• DNR would annually pay $40,000 (this amount is a rough estimate) into repair /replacement fund paid
to the City - in perpetuity - during the life of the facility. This would ensure that the facility is
maintained, replaced and/or removed.
• DNR would annually pay $40,000 (this amount is a rough estimate) police patrol / carrying cost
stipend paid to the City - in perpetuity during the life of the facility.
• After ten years, should the City Council determine that the facility has become a public nuisance and is
detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City of Oak Park Heights, the facility shall be
closed. Upon the closing of the facility all structures, concrete, piers, docks, roadways, etc shall be
removed by the DNR at the direction of the City and the property shall be restored to a condition as
required by the City.
Page 36 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• DNR shall fund 1/2 of the cost of the Autumn Hills Park Shelter (in 2004 dollars = 50% of $450,000).
Again these concepts are Staff level comments and are only for points of discussion to potentially move
this process forward. The City Council has not given or implied any further interest in this Boat Ramp /
Facility beyond the written documentation recently vWed. to MNDOT.
est Re ,
Eric Johns
City A is for
Cc: City Council Members
Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT
Beth Bartz, SRF
•
Page 37 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
a 4 > •
: • r
r..
City of Oak Park. Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd N.• Box 2007 *Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • (651) 439 -4439 • Fax 439 -0574
August 2, 2004
Mr. Rick Arnebeck
MNDOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Concept F - Buttonhook Design
Dear Rick,
As you know, the City of Oak Park Heights did participate in the Partnership Study that
endeavored to seek alternatives and/or options for future STH 36 alignments. Several
concepts were discussed and outlined in general form. Upon the conclusion of such
Partnership Study, the City was asked to affirm the conclusion that Concept F was the
preferred choice of those options offered, but subject to further refinement and study. •
The City did give concept (tentative) approval to Concept F subject to refinements and
further study by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) . The TAG investigated impacts,
land takings, costs, and other conceivable ramifications. It was anticipated and
represented that at the conclusion of the TAG process the TAG would make a final
recommendation to the Partnership Communities that the Concept F was still the primary
choice along with supporting information as to why that Concept was viable.
The TAG group was not able to come to any substantiative conclusion or further
refinement and made no recommendation to the City. Presumably they recognized the
problems associated with Concept F as it had been evolving before them and their
inability to resolve those conflicts precluded their recommendation. Additionally, since
the origination of the old Concept F the City has experienced the development of several
projects that would be constructed in the old/new Concept F corridor, namely Ruby
Tuesday's, a 6,000 square -foot shopping center, the Oakgreen Village North Townhome
Development and the City has received an application for the East Oaks Property
development (two office buildings and 30 condominiums). Lastly, and not
insignificantly, the format of Concept F as originally discussed does no longer resemble
the format now being presented by MNDOT as Concept F.
Accordingly, it is the City's present position that the impacts of Concept F are
unacceptable and the City does not approve Concept F. The land and business losses are
excessive and the resulting construction and layout would be overly burdensome to City
Page 38 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
residents. Lastly, the City has to date not been given a commitment from MNDOT that
. the utility relocations, that are necessary, will be provided by the overall project funding
and not paid for by City tax or rate payers.
Until such time as the City of Oak Park Heights commits to a particular STH 36 design,
any discussions in the SDEIS document, or similar documents, need to properly indicate
that such STH 36 design is still in discussion and that no City commitment has been
provided.
The City will certainly consider alterntive options when these are presented along with
the appropriate data and mitigation commitments.
ds,
Eric Johns
City A trator
Cc: City Council Members
Mark Vierling, City Attorney
Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT
• - Beth Bartz, SRF
Page 39 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
City of Oak= 'ark Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd N.• Box 2007. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • (651) 439 -4439 • Fax 439 -0574
July 22, 2004
To: Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT
** *via facsimile - 651 - 582 -1308
Copy To: Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting
** *via facsimile - 763 -475 -2429
Rick Arnebeck, MNDOT
** *via facsimile - 651 -582 -1308
Jody Erikson, RESOLV
** *via email -joriksoii@rcsolv.org
From: Eric Johnson, City Administrator
Dear Mr. Clarkowski,
This letter includes two parts: •
Item 1) As requested, the City has the following commentary relative to the
SDEIS / Economic Impact Analysis - Cooperating Agency Review Draft.
We ask that these comments be considered and appropriately addressed in
the document prior to the final revision of the document intended for
publication.
Item 2) A list of needed "Mitigations" that the City will require to be included in
the Project.
Item 1) Comments on the SDEIS / Economic Impact Analysis - Cooperating Agency
Review Draft:
• For the entire SDEIS and its attachments, any and all language pertaining, to a final
design layout of Hwy 36 (buttonhooks) shall need to be stated as IsfZOPOD. The
City of Oak Park Heights has not committed to any draft layout, concept layout or
final layout. And, that the City is still investigating alternative options for layout.
• The entire Economic Impact Analysis as generally discussed in the SDEIS or under
separate analysis completed by Economic Development Research Group is wholly
inadequate and is rejected in total by the City of Oak Park Heights.
o point was the City of Oak Park Heights contacted to provide information
Page 40 0 1 a it ie fically aware that such study was being
OPH Con 6'W ` °- �'u�y i4i`W 1 160
un ei a ten.
The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed
and previous residential and commercial takings - a detailed analysis must be
provided that demonstrates the study methodology to determine final fiscal impact
losses.
There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Economic Impact Analysis as
received by the City, i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs. $41,000, In either
instance this study must be done with full concurrence with the City. We are
unable to determine how these figures were derived. See Clip 14 of the SDEIS.
There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch
impacts.
There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocation/replacement
expenses.
The City recommends that a new study be commissioned and undertaken by a
firm that is not related to any Department of Transportation and that is
satisfactory to all parties.
l • On page 1 -9 paragraph 4, please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain
municipal consent on the project ".
'�• On page 2 -7 please clarify that the speed on Hwy 36 - eastbound - is posted at 65 mph
from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave; 60 mph from Lake Elmo Ave to Hwy 5; 50 mph
• after the Hwy 5 overpass.
• Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS crash rates at the intersection of HWY 36 and
Lake Elmo Ave - prior to the installation of the traffic signals.
• Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS the crash statistics for each intersection
' between Lake Elmo Ave and Osgood Ave - prior to the removal of the Advance
Warning Flashers
r • Chapter 2 should have footnotes to the PAC study.
• On page 3 -6 revise paragraph to state that a signal "shall be installed" at the
intersection of Pickett Ave /TH 95 /King Plant entrance - versus "if justified ".
,� • Discussion items on page 4 -2 refer to the distances between the current frontage road
and STH 36, specifically defining them as "very short "; please revise such language
to remove such subjective language and only utilize factual information in
determining distances, such as minimum requirements and cite source of such
requirement.
The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor, namely in
Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes and
presents all twelve months, further broken down by daily and hourly usage, so the
reader of the document can anticipate low -use of the corridor.
Page 41 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
+ Page 4 -19 discusses that the crash rate at the three intersections along STH 36 are
"two to three times the state average ". Please cite the State average within the body of •
the paragraph and cite source by footnote.
• Comments on page 4 -19 discuss that the proximity to the frontage road causes
� "confusion to drivers ", please cite source and clarify this statement with factual data.
• Comments made on page 5 -2 relative to "could enhance community cohesion with
11 the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities" should be supported with factual
data, otherwise please remove the comment.
• The City will provide MNDOT with an updated zoning map, please insert such
t� current and factual land use map into the Document. (sent via US MAIL - 7- 22 -04)
• Please identify whether the echo effect was taken into account. If sound barriers are
found to be necessary how then does that effect the visual impacts, please identify
\'► that the project will bear this cost. Noise impacts are difficult to analyze until the
actual construction is complete. There needs to be language that contemplates and
outlines additional mitigation after the project is complete. Such additional discussion
should also include the possibility of noise mitigation inside home /businesses.
• Provide in the SDEIS a discussion of the Agreement with Xcel Energy relative to the
{a removal of their moorings. How and why are these being removed, please state
discussion history and cite documentation in appendices.
• Provide in the SDEIS a discussiondcomments from the Federal Department of •
t Homeland Security regarding potential site locations of a boat ramp and its potential
proximity to the Allen S. King plant - security risk.
• The City has adopted its own Wetland Ordinance that must be fully complied with. In
(t4 some instances the local Ordinance may be more restrictive than DNR or US Army
Corps. There must be language inserted that outlines this requirement. (sent via US
MAIL - 7- 22 -04)
• Please insert into the SDEIS, maps that outline the ponds that lie only in Oak Park
Heights along with a visual delineation of each ponds watershed source. Clearly
identify where is the water coming from?
• Chapter 4, the intersection of OakgreerdGreeley is referred as Greeley /Northbrook
\ Blvd. (Oakgreen turns into Northbrook in Baytown, which is beyond the project
area).
• Chapter 5, page 7 shows Fairview Hospital - should be Lakeview Hospital. On page
\°I 8, Cover Park /Moelter Site (Xcel Park) needs to be in included in 5.1.2.4?
• In Chapter 6, page 5 it shows TH5 (Manning). Manning is actually 15. Page 20 "City
of Stillwater" "...designates the north side of TH36 to Osgood..." Stillwater actually
only goes to Omaha, not Osgood. Then under " Oak Park Heights" "uses along the
south side of TH36..." should actually show that OPH also covers a portion of the
Page Uialf Re.
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
Chapter 6, page 24, "Minnesota ". Current City zoning for this area is O -Open Space.
• There is another reference to this on Page 32.
• In Chapter 6, page 28, the date of the meeting should be June 16, not Feb. 19.
Item 2) Mitigations
To date, the City has identified the following list of anticipated mitigations. This list
must be included in any and all discussion regarding required. Project Mitigation -
such as discussed in a "mitigation matrix ". Additionally, the Memorandum of
Understanding or future relevant documents must be amended to include, at a
minimum, the following items:
1. All Utility Relocations shall be included in the Project and /or paid for by MNDOT.
2. All Traffic Signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the
future by parties other than the City.
3. Frontage road reconstruction must occur and their maintenance must be provided by
parties other than the City.
4. Funding must be identified and committed to in advance that protects and mitigates
against negative impacts on City homes, businesses, etc that may stem from short-
term and long -term noise, smoke, odor, construction activities and /or vibration.
• 5. Deletion of the Boat Ramp.
6. All excess lands previously acquired and not necessary shall be returned to the tax
rolls and its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and /or
comprehensive plan.
7. Complete reconstruction of Scenic Overlook including its view.
The City does thank you for the opportunity to review the Cooperating Agency Review
Draft - SDEIS. Should yo9,4qe any fu her questions or need further clarification as to
the City's anticipated n ' igat' ns ple contact me as soon as possible.
incerely
4ric Johnson
City Admi is rator
Cc: City Council Members
Mark Vierling, City Attorney
Page 43 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
RESOLUTION.
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS' RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 6, 2005 LETTER
FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS; In 1958 the Minnesota Department of Transportation formally began looking for a
new St. Croix River bridge crossing at the time of construction of a 4 -lane Highway 36 extension
from Minneapolis to Stillwater, and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation sounded the St. Croix River bottom
in the winter of 1961 -1962 in the central corridor location for a proposed bridge, and
WHEREAS; this proposed 1958 new river bridge crossing did not require any highway
improvements to the new expanded Highway 36, and
WHEREAS; the average annual traffic count crossing the St. Croix River was less than 6,000
vehicles a day, and, due to the lack of funding and downtown Stillwater business opposition to
the loss of through traffic, the project was suspended in 1962, and
WHEREAS; in the early 1970's a new effort began to locate a new bridge across the St. Croix
River, with the proposed Highway 212 expansion to four lanes from downtown St. Paul to
Wisconsin, due to the lack of funding, interest in a new 4 -lane freeway to St. Paul the project
'vas suspended in 1972, and
WHEREAS; in the 1972 roadway proposal, local business owners saw the massive road way
changes to the local highways proposed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and
understand the considerable impact these changes may have on the local business community,
and
WHEREAS; in the early 1980's a new effort began to locate a new bridge across the St. Croix
River, the Minnesota Department of Transportation took the position that bridges in Wild and
Scenic Riverways were not reviewable by the National Park Service. The 1995 project was
conditionally_approved by the City of Oak Park Heights and was vetoed in 1996 by the Park
Service and Federal District Court and upheld the National Park Service Veto in April of 1998,
and
WHEREAS; in the summer of 1998 renewed efforts began to find a compromise for a new St.
Croix River crossing and in the fall of 2000 Braun C compromise was reached by most of the
parties, however, the mitigation plan for Wisconsin land use and Wisconsin DNR requirement to
remove the existing lift bridge brought on a new project impasse and in January 2001 Minnesota
Department of Transportation suspended the project, and
WHEREAS; the MNDOT cost estimate to build Highway 36 with the Braun C location and
buttonhook freeway design was $169.7 million, and
Page 44 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
WHEREAS; beginning in 2000 an intraregional corridor study began to study the Highway 36
roadway design from the Highway 95 to Interstate Highway 694 determining that the lane
capacity of the new bridge would have a direct impact on the existing Highway 36 roadway, and
that the increase of traffic crossing a new proposed bridge would require Highway 36 be a
freeway from Highway 95 to Interstate 694. The Minnesota Department of Transportation found
no support from Lake Elmo, Grant, Pine Springs or Mahtomedi to create a freeway design out of
Highway 36, and
WHEREAS; in 2002 the 12 -month Trunk Highway Partnership study was completed, which
supported converting Highway 36 into a freeway design with buttonhooks interchanges in the
Stillwater and Oak Park Heights area, however, many local businesses did not support the
study's outcome, and
WHEREAS; Congressional Representatives Kennedy and Kind requested $135 million in extra
federal funds for the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin's 80% federal funds share of the new
St. Croix River bridge, and
WHEREAS: in the fall of 2003 the Technical Advisory Group formed by MNDOT, to minimize
the impacts of the Highway 36 buttonhook design at their final meeting in March 2004, the TAG
did not pass any final recommendations for a Highway 36 design, the conflict between the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the parties could not be resolved, and
• WHEREAS; at a joint Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Washington County workshop held on
November 30, 2004 the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicated that the buttonhook
freeway highway design would not be part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
and that the 1995 plan will be their preferred highway design (among existing plans). The
communities requested the Minnesota Department of Transportation to respond with a plan for
additional highway design work and it was agreed that any MNDOT design recommendations
were to be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement must be complete by
March 1, 2004, and
WHEREAS; Highway 36, with the 1995 roadway design up to the new river crossing, would
according to MNDOT estimate, reduce the overall cost of the project from $425 million to $315
million, and
WHEREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation's response to the affected
communities request for Highway 36 design planning is provided in a letter dated January 6,
2005, and given the conditions of further study and the late response time gives no reasonable
time for each community to prepare a recommendation to be incorporated into the Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and
WHEREAS: the 1995 plan submitted to the City in January 2005 by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation substantially deviates from_the,1995 plan conditionally approved by the City of
Oak Park Heights in 1995, and
Page 45 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
•
VMREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicates that due to the lack of
funding and a need to reduce the funding requested from Congress, Highway 36 freeway
buttonhook design will be postponed and be added to the State of Minnesota Transportation
Improvement Plan for the year 2025, and
VMREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation currently projects that it will only
spend $20 million to improve Highway 36 under their latest version of the 1995 plan, and
WHEREAS; the cost of the project, local opposition from the freeway design, stopped the
Minnesota Department of Transportation from including the Highway 36 buttonhook freeway
design proposal into the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and
WHEREAS; the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights indicated in a letter to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation in January 2001, that it would not support a new river
bridge crossing without improvements to Highway 36.
NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that any proposed Highway 36 improvements
must minimize the social, environmental, economic, infrastructure, and community burdens, and
local traffic impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; the City of Oak Park Heights in its review of this project will
use, among other review processes, the 2000 municipal consent process to fully explore options, •
community impacts and economic efficiencies to find an acceptable design solution to Highway
36 that fulfills the best interests of its residents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVER; that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Minnesota
Department of Transportation support the TEA -21 Bill which includes $500,000 for design study
to determine a final layout for Highway 36; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Minnesota
Department of Transportation request the State of Minnesota and Congress to fully fund the local
utility relocations and other local economic losses and impacts of this project.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Oak eights this 8 h a ch
2005.
DO' eaudet ayor
A
c . Johnso ity Administrator
age 46 of 57
OPH Commen s on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
•
RESOLUTION 04 -1049
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AS IT
EFFECTS THE PROPOSAL OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(MnDOT) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ST CROIX RIVER CROSSING AND THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS,
TOGETHER KNOWN AS THE "PROJECT ".
Whereas, the City of Oak Park Heights has participated in the recent RESOLVE / Stakeholder Process
for the State Highway 36 Reconstruction / St. Croix River Crossing Project; and,
Whereas, the City regards the RESOLVE /Stakeholder Process as an informal, non - binding mediation
based process allowing the various factions of the community and others having input into a Trunk
Highway layout and Bridge location process to have input and explore opportunities for consensus;
and,
Whereas, the City of Oak Park Heights has - studied the Project impacts from various options that have
been presented, including the "NO- BUILD" alternative and Concept F layout, from an economic,
planning and engineering perspective; and,
• Whereas, the funding requirements to fully implement the Project may now exceed $400 million
dollars; and,
Whereas, the funding for the Project is to be sought from a forthcoming Federal Transportation Bill
(TEA -21) which has been represented to include both the Bridge funding and STH 36 reconstruction;
and,
Whereas, the City will not support any segmentation of the Project and has not endorsed and will not
endorse any STH 36 layout, concept or design separate from the bridge design; and,
Whereas, as recently as September 22, 2004 meeting with MnDOT has suggested that the project be
segmented into two separate projects for funding purposes where the Bridge portion of the project
would be funded and constructed fir$t and the STH 36 corridor through the Oak Park Heights J
Stillwater Business District may potentially be funded in the future; anal,
Whereas, the City has concurrently provided several communications to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation throughout the RESOLVE / Stakeholder Process outlining its concerns and mitigation
needs seeking:
1. A commitment from MnDOT that the entire project (i.e. the Bridge and TH 36 improvements) will
proceed as a single indivisible project and will follow the pre -2001 Municipal Consent law,
Page 47 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
2. A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the anticipated and necessary •
utility relocation costs that will inevitably confront the City resulting from any modification to
Trunk Highway 36,
3. A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the reconstruction of the
frontage roads and their continued maintenance,
4. A commitment from MuDOT that installation of the proposed Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by
the Department of Natural Resources will be deleted from the Project. as far as it affects a proposed
location in the City of Oak Park Heights or that a comprehensive compensatory agreement between
the City, DNR and MnDOT be completed,
S. A commitment from MnDOT that all traffic signals and their maintenance must be provided by the
Project or in the future by parties other than the City,
6. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on
City homes, businesses, and City owned lands and facilities etc that may stem from short-term and
long -term noise, smoke, odor, construction activities and/or vibration,
7. A commitment from MnDOT that all excess lands previously acquired, or future lands, and not
required for the Final Project, however that is resolved to be, shall be returned to private ownership
and the tax rolls with its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or
comprehensive plan,
8. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that includes a complete reconstruction of the Scenic •
Overlook preserving its view; and,
Whereas the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not provided any formal clarification or
commitment to the City to appropriately address and/or mitigate these or other relevant issues; and,
Whereas, the RESOLVE /Stakeholders process nonetheless requests the City indicate its views on a
bridge design and location; and
Whereas, the City has not and will not waive its position on the application of Minn. Stat. 161.171
through 161.177 (the Municipal Consent Process) to this process and this project; and
Whereas, the City reserves any and all final approvals and consents to a later date when MnDOT has
provided information and commitments the City requires to determine its final position on this project;
and,
Whereas, the City wishes to assist the RESOLVE /Stakeholders process in passing along the City's
interim comments on bridge design and location pending receipt by the City of information and
commitments requested from MnDOT;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights recognizes the need for
transportation improvements that is reflective of community values and that this Project must minimiz
and mitigate for the negative the environmental, social, economic, visual and physical impacts to the
City of Oak Park Heights; and,
Page 48 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City at this date and based on the information received to
date, is not in a position to be able to favor or identify a location for a new St. Croix River Crossing
and will not be able to do so until the City receives responses and appropriate commitments to its
concerns and mitigation needs itemized as 1 through 8 above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City remains committed to working with MnDOT and as
well as other parties to come to a viable, suitable and equitable solution for the Project, which includes
the Bridge and STH 36 elements, but that such solutions shall effectively and appropriately address all
City concerns and must appropriately mitigate negative impacts upon the City, its residents and
business community; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will finalize its position for a bridge alternative, as well
as consider a STH 36 layout, when the City is provided written commitments from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation that effectively and appropriately addresses the City's concerns and
mitigations; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City reserves its rights through the powers of Municipal Consent
or other means as allowed by law, to deny any final acceptance of the Project and that this resolution
shall not be construed to grant municipal consent under Minnesota Statutes 161.163 throughl61.1.67 or
former statute 161.171 through 161.177.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 1 st-h day of October 2004.
•
David Beaudet, Mayor
Atte
ric Johnso ity Administrator
•
Page 49 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
RESOLUTION 04 -09 -47
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTARY TO THE MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT) ON THE 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - ST. CROIX RIVER
CROSSING / STH 36 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Whereas, the City of Oak Park Heights has been provided a copy of 2004
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDEIS);
and,
Whereas, the City has had an opportunity to review such document, the City submits the
following commentary to MnDOT for:
• For the entire SDEIS and its attachments, any and all language pertaining "Concept
F" as design layout of STH 36 (buttonhooks) shall need to be stated as PROPOSED.
The City of Oak Park Heights has not committed to any draft layout, concept layout
or final layout. And, that the City is still investigating alternative options for layout.
• 'There must be language inserted into the SDEIS that states that the City of Oak Park
Heights has rejected "Concept F" in its entirety.
• There must be a clear and concise insertion of the "Cut and Cover" concept inserted so
into the SDEIS. This "Cut and Cover" concept should be referred to as a potential
alternative at all points in the document where Concept F is referred.
• The entire Economic Impact Analysis as generally discussed in the SDEIS and its
attachments, is wholly inadequate and is rejected in total by the City of Oak Park
Heights. General criteria for the City's position are as follows:
The City of Oak Park Heights was not contacted nor directly informed to provide
information for such analysis, nor was it made specifically aware that such study
was being undertaken.
The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed
and previous residential and commercial takings.
There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Draft Economic Impact
Analysis as received by the City, i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs. $41,000. The
City is unable to determine the methodology on how these figures were derived.
Regardless these amounts are vastly understated.
There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch
impacts.
•
Page 50 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
. There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocationfreplacement
expenses.
• On page ES -6, please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain municipal
consent on the project ".
• On page 2 -10 please clarify that the speed on STH 36 - eastbound - is posted at 65
mph from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave; 60 mph from Lake Elmo Ave to STH 5; 50
mph after the STH 5 overpass.
• Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS the crash statistics for each intersection
between STH 5 and Osgood Ave - prior to the removal of the Advance Warning
Flashers.
• Chapter 2 should have footnotes referencing the PAC study.
• On page 3 -6 of the Cooperative Agency Review Draft of the 2004 SDEIS the City
asked that MnDOT revise paragraph to state that a signal "shall be installed" at the
intersection of Pickett Ave /TH 95/King Plant entrance - versus "if justified ". The City
was not able to locate this same language in the 2004 Draft SDEIS. If such similar
language exists the same comment is applicable.
• • The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor, namely in
Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes and
presents all twelve months, further broken down by daily and hourly usage, so the
reader of the document can anticipate low -use of the corridor.
• On 4 -28 the SDEIS discusses the crash rate at the three intersections along STH 36
are "two to three times the state average ". Please cite the State average within the
body of the paragraph(s) and cite source by footnote.
• Comments made on page 5 -2 relative to "could enhance community cohesion with
the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities" should be supported with factual
data. Otherwise, please remove the comment.
• The City has provided MnDOT with an updated zoning map, please insert such
current and factual land use map into the Document.
• Regarding the noise analysis, please identify whether the echo effect was taken into
account. If sound barriers are found to be necessary how then does that effect the
visual impacts. Please identify that the project will bear this cost. Noise impacts are
difficult to analyze until the actual construction is complete. There must be language
inserted that contemplates and outlines additional mitigation after the project is
complete. Such additional discussion should also include the possibility of noise
mitigation inside home/businesses.
•
Page 51 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• Provide in the SDEIS a discussion of the Agreement with Xcel Energy relative to the •
removal of their moorings. How and why are these being removed. Please state
discussion history and cite documentation in appendices.
• Provide in the SDEIS a discussion/comments from the Federal Department of
Homeland Security regarding potential site locations of a boat ramp and its potential
proximity to the Allen S. King plant - security risk.
• The City has adopted its own Wetland Ordinance that must be fully complied with. In
some instances, the local Ordinance may be more restrictive than DNR or US Army
Corps. There must be language inserted that outlines this requirement. (sent via US
MAIL - 7- 22 -04)
• Please insert into the SDEIS maps that outline the ponds that lie only in Oak Park
Heights along with a visual delineation of each pond watershed source. Clearly
identify where the water coming from.
• Chapter 4, the intersection of Oakgreen/Greeley is referred as Greeley/Northbrook
Blvd. (Oakgreen turns into Northbrook in Baytown, which is beyond the project
area).
• On page 5 -10, Cover Park/Moelter Site (Xcel Park) needs to be in included in 5.1.2.4.
• Delete the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Park if this is to be the park •
contemplated in Oak Park Heights otherwise known as the "Boat Ramp Area and /or
Park ". Any discussion of such park in Oak Park Heights must first receive City
approval and appropriate mitigations.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights submits
these comments to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for
incorporation into the Final 2004 Supplement Environmental Impact Statement; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City recognizes the need for transportation
improvements that reflect the communities values and that this project must minimize the
environmental, social, economic, visual and physical impacts to the City of Oak Park
Heights; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's comments within this resolution are not
to be construed or interpreted as an element of Municipal Consent or approval of any
particular proposal for layout or concept; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City specifically reserves its right to amend,
supplement or delete from these comments; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City has identified the following list of
required mitigations and has previously forwarded such list to MnDOT requesting that
Page 52 of 57
•
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
• these issues be appropriately funded and/or addressed, but to date the City has not yet
received any commitments
1. All Utility Relocations shall be included in the Project and /or paid for by MDOT.
2. All Traffic Signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the
future by parties other than the City.
3. Frontage road reconstruction must occur and their maintenance must be provided by
parties other than the City.
4. Funding must be identified and committed to in advance that protects and mitigates
against negative impacts on City homes, businesses, etc that may stem from short-
term and long -term noise, smoke, odor, construction activities and/or vibration.
S. Deletion of the Boat Ramp Facility.
6. All excess lands previously acquired and not necessary shall be returned to the tax
rolls and its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or
comprehensive plan.
7. Complete reconstruction of Scenic Overlook ikavi
Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak P da of September
2004.
audet, Mayor
- tes�
Eric J ohn so City Administrator
•
Page 53 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
•
RESOLUTION NO. 03 -10 -54
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION REVIEWING TRUNK HIGHWAY 36
RIGHT -OF -WAY UTILITIES AND FRONTAGE ROAD
PROPOSED TURNBACK
WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has been continually reviewing
proposed transportation plans from the Minnesota Department of Transportation outlining options
relative to improvements within Trunk Highway 36; and,
WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution 03 -05 -30 on the 13`" day of May, 2003
identifying Concept F as advocated by the Department of Transportation with regard to
reconstruction of Highway 36; and,
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is aware that the City of
Oak Park Heights has significant utilities located within the existing Highway 36 right -of -way; and, •
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has in past years
advocated a turnback of frontage roads serving Trunk Highway 36 to the adjoining municipalities
as part of any potential construction project; and,
WHEREAS, there are significant issues impacting the residents and City of Oak
Park Heights relative to both utility relocation and frontage road tumback, which are essentially
intermingled with the trunk highway improvement development plans of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation; and,
WHEREAS, it would be essential to any resolution of the Trunk Highway 36
improvement plans of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to resolve and confirm
agreements with regard to paying for the expense of utility relocation within Trunk Highway 36 and
agreements relative to the expense and improvement of frontage roads and turnback of them to
municipal units; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights believes it is
important to communicate to the Minnesota Department of Transportation that these issues of
utility relocation and trunk highway frontage road turnback must be resolved as part of any plan to
reconstruct Trunk Highway 36; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has assigned individuals working in
committee and in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to review designs •
pageS*16ppnents to Trunk Highway 36; and,
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
WHEREAS, the relocation of utilities and the tumback of frontage roads will likely
place a catastrophic financial burden upon the City of Oak Park Heights if those costs are not borne
by the project and additionally provides the potential for significant loss to the City's commercial
business tax base; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights currently receives no funding through
the Minnesota State Aid Fund, is experiencing significant reductions and impending elimination of
local government aids and will probably experience significant reduction of local commercial tax
base as a result of this proposed proj cot if it is completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of
Oak Park Heights as follows:
1. That City Council Resolution 03- 05 -30, as passed by the City Council on the
13' day of May, 2003, a true and correct copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A ", is
herewith reconfirmed.
2. That the City of Oak Park Heights will not be in the position to grant any
final authorities or approvals to any plans for reconstruction or relocation of Trunk Highway 36
unless and until commitments relative to utility relocation and/or frontage road turnback and the
financial elements and essential components thereof have been fully resolved.
3. That the City of Oak Park Heights recommends that the Trunk Highway 36
technical advisory committee incorporate these concerns into the refinement discussions regarding
Concept F from the Trunk Highway 36 partnership study.
4. The Minnesota Department of Transportation develop, pursue and
implement alternative funding strategies in providing financial relief to the City of Oak Park
Heights to absorb these anticipated costs and losses which are inevitably part of the Trunk Highway
36 improvement project.
t h
Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights day of
October, 2003.
r J
/l /f
David Beaudet, Mayor
AT S
zic Johnson
City A ' str or
r
Page 55 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 56 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006
R N0. 03r05 -nN,
CITY OF OAKP.ARKEUGR 'S
A �cuv SON Cam' j YffNN SOTA
A gES OLUTI01Y UVMW 4G LOFICE�'x+S ANA P ONS AS
A REST Um yrl�.a iii A. T �,NSPORTATION S`�' xTIZOYMEM BX TB
MR SOTA DLPARDUNT OF TRANSPOgTA
City of Oak Pack Heights •has bean to zevi�w s
�r the of T=Vortmion, otrdinin$ several •
• on �t1]fl�' �� �'� ��'o'h3 De17
retard to potential irngrovane= to Tmak H'ighw'ay 3 6; and,
+ ; r , the same has not been submitted to the City for a f ml Jaya"- approval
pro, y, =t to rmm Stat §161.164; and,
WTfEFU'A� the Minnesota Department of T� mspo�ioa has asked•fox the Citf S
to the several options it has lard out in the Transport ion '
r � ey ,. and commentMy wit, regard -
study, affeotmg pot�al'mpztn'eznezzts to Ffiglxaa'aY 3 6; and,
the City his nit concluded its fug review of the Tz spa n
fu sources, impact upon: he comet
Study, �ai�ins ��=,about t =etablea g veznents is decided; and,
,.. ' � Pot��. fu�re mapping,, once fma1. selection of options and i�ro .
WMMY,AS, the. City Council nonetheless woes to pass • its indications along to
. the of i
Ig Department of TMspoxtatiozx it ifih eg
w rard to the concepts Provided
WINn. the Transportation Study.
0 $ IT RESOLVED #hat the U4 of 0A ?ark Heights has
N01'V,'�� on fst it has, ;in concept, approved
bcrewzth infarmed tho Nf mtsota Department of Trued
F as contained within the ��tion• ply'' but speafic reserves the right to appzove
Canc%rt ,
or object to, BnY final maps' ..
]3E IT FURTE[FR VESOLYZD that the City 'Catmcil for the City of Oak Pack
va to Mhm, Stat. §161.164, as it
Hems does not ga2nt final laya ut aPF•ro t as to This � l F that's being pxrndd� foz at This time.
i on the .concept or ganeral dell list of Ccmeept
xei this 13th day of May
Passed by the city Council for \
2003.
�DavidB eaudet, Mayor
Eric lob�ocw, City A&M motor
Page 57 of 57
OPH Commentrs on SFEIS - July 14th, 2006