Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRelocation Project River Crossing & Hwy. 36 Improvements T P 1 c scp : OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MN ' <C• 1 . ;,-; STILLWATER, MN M 1 HOULTON, WI - - IMUMATZA ECIMAIRP : : ■ 11 le ..) -- . w, ....`•• , ' .._ , -A± ' ..,_' ' • ' • 3 rowtemp 010 ER9 ET pm :- If • -,---,---,----- 'C r 1 : ' -- ' : - - - - . l e i 4:;..;.7,---;-: .,:...,,. To...3.3, , ..,....._ 114 , :.,, ., , 1 s • 1 • J 001h ST. N. L _.--------=____-■ ...._---"---------- ----- .1 :-..- : - - _____ -- --- -- --- ------ . s- - C 0 ' - ''• ti - -- -,- ---- z - - - -7 - - - - - - -- EITILLWA2 ER TOW14304P : --- r. - : 40 HOIA • Er3 nn. E t C. 3. A .14. 12 . 1 STIL 114 3 0 : — . -. / ... .._ 1 ' / AI • ^-^ .. .... . 7170111314P , • — -1 r i ----1- ;--r; 4 i_' --i-- -----e ..." 1 SAYTOwP1 TOWN3 ... 4P s (21 (m u - N. ‘ -*■,..,...„,._-: :- .4_;:l. - J ....._: •.. : a , PARK 1113014T3 1:13 •-•-• ■ --: i 7 : , immommum■••••■■•■■•••■•■ ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING • _ AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 IMPROVEMENTS 1 z-v, Prepared by: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. 1 F TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Summary 2 Impacts - Bridge 5 Land Use 5 Transportation /Utilities 6 Social 9 Community Service 12 Impacts - TH 36 Corridor 15 Land Use 15 Transportation /Economic 16 Social 19 Community Service 20 Environmental Impacts 21 Environmental Agencies and Groups 21 Wildlife Impacts 22 Air Quality 22 Noise Impacts 23 Wetland Impacts 23 Wild and Scenic River Impacts 23 Visual Impacts 24 Central Corridor Bridge Option 25 EIS Review 25 Evaluation of Central Corridor 27 Conclusion /Alternatives 29 L INTRODUCTION This study examines the potential impacts of the reconstruction of Trunk Highway 36 (TH 36) and construction of a bridge between Oak Park Heights and Houlton, Wisconsin. - The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) issued a draft EIS in March of 1990 that reviewed the build and no -build options. The build option reviewed north, central and south corridor alignments (see Figure 1). MnDOT has subsequently narrowed their focus to a build option within the south corridor and is pursuing further review and public comment before issuing a final EIS. The south corridor project would include a reconstruction of TH 36 through Oak Park Heights (to a limited access highway) with intersection improvements at Norell, Oakgreen, Osgood, and TH 95. Trunk Highway 36 would be gradually lowered from five to 21 feet at Osgood Avenue to accommodate the bridge. The intersection at TH 36 and TH 95 would be totally reconstructed and create the greatest impact of the project with removal of portions of the established residential neighborhood. The roadway would continue east across the St. Croix River and touch down on the Wisconsin side following the northern alignment of the south corridor outlined in the EIS. The City of Oak Park Heights is highly concerned about the potential impacts the reconstructed corridor and bridge could have on the community and its citizens. This report will examine the physical, social, economic and environmental impacts to Oak Park Heights of the proposed TH 36 improvements and south corridor bridge. Issues presented in this report are based on new information generated since issuance of the draft EIS and disputes findings of that EIS. This report will aid the City Council in its attempt to persuade MnDOT to re- examine other alternatives to the bridge, most notably the central corridor option, and in examining alternatives to the reconstruction of TH 36. 1 SUMMARY o There will be 78 dwelling units removed by a south corridor bridge affecting a population of 215 people. o A total of 250 dwelling units will be adversely affected by a south corridor bridge involving 690 people. o Seventy -eight dwelling units represents 5.6 percent of Oak Park Heights' total housing stock and 215 persons translates into 6.0 percent of the City's total population. o The neighborhood to be relocated is populated by a higher number of elderly, households with children, and lower income families than is average for Oak Park Heights and Washington County. o A majority of the homes to be removed are of a lower value than average for Oak Park Heights and the region, but provide much needed housing for elderly and low income people. In 1990, housing units in Oak Park Heights had an owner specified median market value of $86,700. The average market value of housing units to be removed by a south corridor is $56,000. o Residential property that will remain but will be impacted by the bridge could see a decrease in values between 5 to 20 percent, depending on proximity to the bridge corridor. o The limited access provided by the bridge and the TH 36 corridor may result in emergency vehicles not being able to access neighborhoods or businesses as quickly or reach a destination in as short of a time. o Reconstruction of the intersections of TH 36 and Osgood, Oakgreen, and Norell Avenues and the need for additional right -of -way will result in the loss of 15 businesses. o Improvements to the TH 36 corridor will result in the loss of 10 residential dwelling units with a direct impact to 28 persons. o Restricted access and visibility to existing commercial business as a result of TH 36 corridor changes could significantly impact the level of business activity. o Bridge and corridor construction would result in re- routed traffic and a change in shopping patterns. During constructoin, the dust and noise will have an effect on businesses and degree to which people will shop in the area. 2 o Businesses that will remain in the corridor would be impacted by a loss of between 5 and 15 percent of property value. Isaak Walton League, and Department f h o The Sierra Club, a t g of the Interior oppose the south corridor bridge and suggest a larger study of regional transportation options be considered. o The south corridor bridge could have permanent negative effects on wildlife, air quality, noise, wetlands, Wild and Scenic River and visual resources of the St. Croix River Valley. o The City of Oak Park Heights supports the central corridor as a preferred alternative for a bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin in that it provides the best alternative overall from the standpoint of social, economic and environmental concerns. o The draft EIS, as written by MnDOT, provided a definite slant toward selection of a south corridor bridge. o The City of Oak Park Heights requests MnDOT to delay its decision and agree to work with governmental jurisdictions, environmental groups, and the Stillwater /Oak Park Heights business community in addressing concerns and reviewing alternatives to the bridge corridor and TH 36 corridor improvements. 3 --- - STI LLWAT E Pt TOWNSHIP 0 to ,....) $ 6 6 4i.. t ct tr , .--.....:::.::::/::.............../...........;... Aotgr r SOMERSET E [95 : • .i.-----. _. ^:.A7t-•• TOWNSHIP _ ..._..........-.....4.1 cs/ EMI :. .......... ..:: jiiii:' i '' ".. • i ST. JOS EP H 6 J / t .- - I i - - -1 ''.....A.: .:. HIP 7 -5..----7-1- TOWNS >- 1 1 ...... ..... . ) i , I . CO. RD. 6 4 1 0 ■ ‘ I I ........• ....... -- _____--z-__- _____-_-,,___ ,:-.- ---- " - -___■-.....- -1-1- . _ ... ........ -_,_....... .-,.... • ST. N. / i - '..- - -----____-__.-• - 1 -- ■______ ii::• TI LLWAT E R TOWNSHIP, HOULT • CO. RD. E STILLWAT ER • 12 1 I • ;... / C: & : •-• --> 1 111,11,.. : :... ' / -'• • ' / ui / > GRANT - - r § < TOWNSHIP I z 1 . 1 w I r 01 I- 1 . ui > < •-• ..- • - • • ' • • ' ..,..„,-.--.....,.....,. - ., - -.:k - 7 1= ....._ ___ ...-...........- 1 .,,, u) .:„.- •ix .• . - - . 1 ---- 1 J -. R -- - r... cv v 1 , . I _-,... ..-....- . ....— ,........ ____..... .....--.-.... - . . _ _ _ --, _ _ __ _ __ _ .. - . ............ A ..•■•■••• ..A.... ' . . . 1.... ...........,..........,/,....., s BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP 1.... I MI OAK 1 i ......_........................... 1 E PARK HEIGHTS E ............, - -=. 171 NORTH CORRIDOR M CENTRAL CORRIDOR ... SOUTH CORRIDOR '■•■•■■ • SOUTH TUNNEL NORTH TUNNEL . . _ Corridor Alternatives ....,,- Stillwater-Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 4 FIGURE 1 IMPACTS - BRIDGE A. LAND USE Single Family Neighborhood Removal - Implementation of the south corridor bridge alignment will result in the virtual removal of a single family neighborhood located in the northeastern portion of Oak Park Heights (see Figures 2 and 3). The make up of the area is a unique composition of older residences, many of which date back to.the late 1800s. The area is typified by a grid system platting pattern with lots having widths of 40 to 50 feet and areas of 5,600 to 7,500 square feet. According to 1990 U.S. Census data, 78 dwelling units within this bridge improvement area will be subject to relocation. Based on an average household size of 2.76 (average household size from the Census block information for the impacted area) , a total of 215 persons will be relocated. A majority of the homes are of a lower value than average for Oak Park Heights and the region but provide much needed housing for elderly and low income people. In 1990, housing units in Oak Park Heights had an owner specified median market value of $86,700. The average market value of housing units to be removed by a south corridor is $56,000. Relocation of this neighborhood could result in a high degree of hardship and difficulty for people in finding housing of the same value in Oak Park Heights or the immediate surrounding area. Long Term Land Use Effects of Properties Remaining After Bridge. Construction of a south corridor bridge will undoubtedly have a long term effect upon land uses which shall remain after its construction. Aspects associated with the roadway improvement such as noise, increased visibility, access limitations, etc., may challenge the appropriateness of adjacent low density residential development. After construction of the bridge, the most affected area would be the remaining neighborhood to the south and the Sunnyside Condominium project to the north, and the bluff area above the proposed bridge. The neighborhood to the south, defined as the area between the bridge right -of -way and the NSP power line easement, consists of 39 dwelling units, with an estimated total of 108 persons. The Sunnyside Condominium project is located adjacent to the St. Croix River and consists of 157 units with an estimated 433 people. The bluff area contains 54 impacted units with an estimated 149 people. 5 Both of these residential areas will be highly impacted by the noise and the visual impacts of the bridge and would experience a decrease in property values as a result. To a much lesser extent, the large residential area above the bridge corridor on the bluff will be slightly impacted by noise and would also see a slight decrease in property values. Effect to Neighborhood Park Cover Park which lies south of the bridge improvement (between 58th and 59th Streets and west of Peller Avenue) will be affected by the proposed bridge improvement. The park currently offers tennis courts, hockey rinks, etc. and serves, in part, the recreational needs of the northeast neighborhood which is to be subject to removal. With a major portion of the residents who use the park being relocated from the area, some question of need for the park exists, particularly with Valley View Park being approximately two blocks to the south. In this regard, redevelopment of the park may warrant examination. B. TR2NSPORTATION /UTILITIES Disruption to Transportation System Obviously, the proposed bridge will disrupt the City's established grid -type street system. Thus, many established routes within the community may be discontinued. In response to this, the updated frontage road system attempts to accommodate movement through the City. The most significant transportation impact to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed bridge is the loss of Beach Road between the bluff and the south neighborhood. This roadway provides an important connection between two areas of Oak Park Heights separated by TH 36 and serves as a route for access to the business areas in Stillwater. Trunk Highway 36 serves as a major barrier to access between neighborhoods and business in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Removing this connection and replacing it with the reconstructed intersection at TH 95 and TH 36 will result in a less convenient and safe link between these two areas. 6 a :; _}.::.}}}:: xnx{>;, v.{ Y ;. }:t { ; ?}.4 :hr.:h };;�;.;:th }.{ p r:::: a,. a} t ; }: } ; • ; ;:.:: i�: <...a;;:...:wcr,.�:h} }:.} } � b 1 ` '% t:``.' t~::?%'::%:% :%?Y•:: { •;;r,,�r: ;: ?o <:;::i'>`. r%''::::: tt'.;: 5:;:?' t: rS::::'•::£;::'•:#%` r:,% y ,.; {. +,,: <: }F..^..:;h•{{ { { �n..r {v:.•i :; :h p " \• r{ }'!Nn`,:.`rrifi }:'.:•.Q,•'::•.$ ..r ::::b:. {ry W'{: u:.: r {}: x - d�. �{: +i:..{.::: }:•jj L ocat i on :';'.K•r2{{': . { {F::Wfn: :. \y'�'•�� vrYfi:: :'•.: }:v •:::r $ { :C:ii: };..yp ; :i: �t f �' M1} {} h S { } ..;i }:i:i:Q {'::: :t }iii: } {:;:}:: }:;v.: : -v. �tirJ v.:i :::i:,+{•r{{:l'{``{u :i '•' }:::{Y:y : { }: &::: :4:, >.; :_:;::k •:,rr •.v:B • : :f,..v:.t }:{ : ''{. ? isn�i:: }';:i'i' vi:V:� } :v:ti::i4: . .: .::::.::. :.:..:::. i`� p .._ • \ - /_ - Wiscons -- i - Minnesota \ - N ' 7 1 I 23 el \\ N I i ■ 23 1 ■ • • Stillwater \ • • • • • .,,‘...x, . .00 0 / N ED m 21 .� Oak Park H • • • I 1 Stillwater- Houtton River Crossing Draft E IS 7 FIGURE 2 r + + , . / SOUTH CORRIDOR BRIDGE 1 /1' % „,/. a { { r ` + 1 O „I • I ` j' / � t • ■ ,.. , • i0 n to (.O o •. _ a z; .,.....„..,..,./ L .,,,,,,_ .... \`O 8 -� GOVERN `r .7, � O MENT CENTER I C il .' I f TNo ���^^^co f v°° J 'TAGE tttJJJ EAN0 OMPLEn_G) -H°— a l'' _: t 1 .( 1° : CONC PTU�tES�I�N ) i I ` ac t ✓✓ ;� o ri-- `�° ARY ' t • I 1 ° • p 0 ,,,-. WITHOUT NOT 1 / jl ;1y . : -- •-•-,, - . - . : 7 — • i:77) -..: ,•-•--. —, ) )9;7; • \ • Tom. � ' ° //, \'- o o ; s�' \ �-\ _ � " t^ 1 i - 1 ' r , ,' \ .- l it t m t x .o Q -- ' -C --------- - -�� _�T = ,�. �. - �n \ - TH 36 /OSGOOD. AVENUE f ` \ i + + °r • I - � �_ - - INTERSECTION ' �\\ ' r a -I 1 1 \ 1 -- 1 0 1 1 t �. j ! 2 1 L°0 1 1 0 9 ..___:___,,, t f i ; \ i ' . J ., e` \ \ r1/ 1� •� � `�� o 0 0 C7 i ...,.... , N 8 FIGURE 3 • Utility Disruption /Relocation To some extent, the City will need to disconnect and relocate utilities serving the residential area that will be removed by the bridge. The City Engineer of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates will examine this issue and any costs to be incurred for the disconnection and relocation. - C. SOCIAL The draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation identified potential social impacts of the proposed bridge. The impacts were based on 1980 U.S. Census information for Oak Park Heights and surrounding communities. This section of the report utilizes the 1990 Census information which is now available and compares it to the dated Census information used within the draft EIS. It should be noted that specific information regarding the characteristics of the population and housing within the impacted area is not available from the 1990 Census. Therefore, aside from the number of housing units, households and population within the impact area, characteristics are only generally P Y g Y discussed with regards to Oak Park Heights and its surrounding region. Affected Households The draft EIS identified a total of 55 dwelling units within Oak Park Heights which would be eliminated. As stated previously, the Census identified the actual number of units which are directly impacted is 78. This higher figure is attributed to a number of duplexes and multiple family units located in the area which may have been overlooked or constructed since the 1980 Census. The draft EIS also used a 1988 estimated figure for persons per household of 2.58 yielding a total of 142 affected persons. The 1990 Census block information revealed an affected population of approximately 215 persons. These figures indicate a substantially greater impact than previously identified by MnDOT in the draft EIS. Seventy -eight housing units represents 5.6 percent of Oak Park Heights' total housing stock. In addition, the estimated 215 persons translates g P into 6.0 percent of the City's total population. These impacts will have a tremendous effect on the City's overall population characteristics and tax base. 9 Household Size The number of people per household in Oak Park Heights was 2.35 in 1990. Block census information for the impacted area has identified an average household size of 2.76 persons. This larger household size is indicative of a neighborhood with more children, as well as possibly a greater number of non - family households. Relocating this type of household, especially with the presence of children, creates more of a hardship for the people involved. Children may need to enroll in new schools, thus placing strain on people with a lesser ability to adjust to new surroundings. Age Characteristics The table below illustrates the population of Oak Park Heights by age category, in contrast with the entire county. As the table illustrates, Oak Park Heights' population includes a significantly greater proportion of elderly, and a smaller percentage of school age persons when compared to the balance of Washington County. Although detailed census information is not available to verify, a number of factors suggest that the proportion of elderly and school age people may be even greater within the impacted area. o The number of people per household in the impacted areas averages 2.76 people as compared to the overall City average of 2.35 people per household. Larger household sizes typically indicate the presence of elderly and /or school age residents within family households. o The older nature of the impacted residential areas suggests the presence of long term residents, many of which may be elderly. In order to accurately assess the overall impact on housing for the various age groups, a much more detailed study will be needed. However, there is evidence to suggest that housing for the elderly will be significantly impacted by the improvement. 1990 POPULATION ACCORDING TO AGE GROUP Age Group Oak Park Heights Washington County School Age 22.61 30.4s (0 -17) Labor Force 65.01 63.1% (18-64) Retired 12.4% 6.5% (65 +) 10 Housing Occunancv In 1990, the City of Oak Park Heights maintained an occupancy rate of 94.6 percent. Of all the housing units, 35.3 percent were renter occupied, while 59.3 percent were owner occupied. These figures contrast significantly with Washington County averages of only 15.4 percent of renter occupied housing and 80.0 percent of owner occupied housing. In addition, the impact area has been identified as containing a significant number of duplexes and multiple family units. Therefore, the impact on the rental housing stock is anticipated to be greater than the impact on owner occupied housing. Income and Employment 1990 Census information regarding income, education and employment is not yet available. Therefore, the 1980 Census information utilized in the draft EIS is the most recent data available in which to analyze the impact of the proposed improvements on various economic levels. As the draft EIS indicates, low income people are present in large enough numbers that they represent some serious concerns as to their relocation. Based on 1980 Census information, if 78 dwelling units require relocation in Oak Park Heights, it is possible that close to 18 of the households are classified as low income (earning less than $10,000 in 1980). It should be noted, however, that this figure is based on the entire Census tract average. Considering the age and general condition of the affected neighborhood, it is likely that the number of low income people which are affected could be much greater. These concerns are furthered by the lack of replacement housing in Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, and Bayport. Most of the housing in these communities is of higher value than the properties within the impacted area, therefore there are questions as to whether many of the affected persons will be able to relocate in the area without considerable assistance. For example, 1990 owner specified median market values for housing units in Stillwater was $90,700 and $80,900 in Bayport compared to the average market value of $56,000 in the area to be removed by the south corridor. 11 D. COMMUNITY SERVICE The bridge would have a profound effect on the City of Oak Park Heights related to the tax base, schools, and ability to provide services. Tax Base The taking of private property for construction of a project that will eliminate 78 dwelling units will have an immediate effect on reducing the tax base for Oak Park Heights. Additionally, those remaining homes to the south, the Sunnyside Condominiums and .the homes on the bluff will have extensive short term construction and long term noise, visual, and accessibility impacts. From experience with other major construction projects in the Metropolitan Area and the effects to the remaining neighborhoods from those projects, it is estimated that the south neighborhood and the Sunnyside Condominiums could see a 15 to 20 percent decrease in property values. The bluff area could see a 5 to 10 percent decrease. This decrease, as well as the initial loss of the 78 dwelling units, would have a measurable impact on Oak Park Heights' tax base. A detailed review of the tax base impact will be provided by the City's financial advisor, Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company. School Impact The bridge will be entirely located within School District 834. The bridge would not have a physical effect on any of the schools within the district. The existing senior high school and Oak Park Heights Elementary are in within one -half mile of the bridge and are not directly affected (see Figure 4). The impact of the bridge includes primarily Bayport Elementary which will result in a lower enrollment. A disruption of school age children, forcing them to move, and in many cases change elementary schools, will have a profound effect on those students. The junior and high school will also experience some slight changes in enrollment because of relocation of people for construction of the bridge. The limited access highway and bridge would provide an increased barrier between the existing residential areas of Oak Park Heights and increase the difficulty for students crossing on foot or bicycle. The exit ramps or overpasses must be designed to accommodate pedestrian traffic and be included as part of the plans. The School District will also experience a loss in property tax revenue as a result of the removal and decrease in value of homes in that area. 12 A STILLWATER SENIOR HIGH 1 WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF • B OAK PARK ELEMENTARY 2 OAK PARK HEIGHTS POLICE C STILLWATER JUNIOR HIGH 3 BAYPORT POUCE AND FIRE D ULY LAKE ELEMENTARY 4 LAKEVIEW HOSPITAL E STONEBRIDGE ELEMENTARY 5 STILLWATER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT F BAYPORT ELEMENTARY 6 ALAN KING POWER PLANT G WASHINGTON CAMPUS 7 OTY OF STILLWATER POUCE AND FIRE H HOULTON ELEMENTARY 8 ST. JOSEPH FIRE STATION in cv h ci O < / O p Vi ;l 9 � 1 - CO RD. 54 (: Z: :::::::::::r -..../././. 80th ST. N. .... — 1- `: . ` _. -'r 35 N O 95 '-;'; ........ = �` Q C. T.H. E C.S. A. H. 12 STILLWATER '..^'-`.\ ^ HOULTON 0 C 13 \ 0 O ift Q O ;:=2:::„:;\ .z. c7 (9 �.."....�. • f O G O River ._ 4 0 .......�..,..^....- I 1 5 �:.. . ..........^ ^..-...tom ti X36" . I ;' t r95 f....._.....•= :.mot..._._. OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0 Q ■ I Selected Community Facilities Stillwater- Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS 13 FIGURE 4 Emergency Vehicles The overall effect of the bridge improvement to police, fire, and medical services will be positive primarily for Stillwater in that reduced congestion and no traffic delays will be the result. Oak Park Heights would be negatively affected in that the bridge and the intersection of TH 36 and TH 95 could -result in reduced emergency access, thus hindering the ability to make emergency calls. With the limited access, it is expected that Oak Park Heights and Washington County police vehicles, as well as other emergency vehicles, may not be able to access areas within the neighborhood as quickly or reach a destination in as short of a time. 14 IMPACTS - TH 36 CORRIDOR A. LAND USE Lowering the TH 36 roadway and restricting access to TH 36 will have an impact on commercial and some existing residential properties. Business and residential structures will need to be removed to provide right -of -way for the intersections at Osgood, Oakgreen, and Norell Avenues (see Figures 3, 5, and 6). Additionally, the reduced visibility and restricted access will have an impact on the remaining business. Business Removal. Due to the reconstructions of the intersections of TH 36 and Osgood, Oakgreen and Norell Avenues, and need for additional right -of -way, 15 businesses will need to be removed within Oak Park Heights. Between TH 95 and Osgood Avenue, three businesses would be eliminated, between Osgood and Oakgreen five businesses, between Oakgreen and Norell six businesses and Norell and TH 5 one business. The EIS had reported that fewer businesses would be removed, but a closer examination of current plans indicates that the right -of -way necessary for the intersection may not take the building housing the business, but enough of the parking lot is taken to make the business non- conforming with the City requirements for parking. Without the necessary parking, it will be necessary for the business to relocate. Residential Removal As part of the improvements to the corridor, 10 residential dwelling units will need to be removed. Between the area impacted by the bridge and Osgood Avenue, two dwelling units will need to be removed at the intersection of. Beach Road and Lookout Trail. Between Osgood and Oakgreen, no residential units would be removed. Between Oakgreen and Norell, two single dwelling units would be removed and one six unit townhouse would be removed. A total impact to the population, based upon the 1990 average household size of 2.76 is expected to be 28 persons. For the most part, the lowering of the roadway and improvements to the frontage road system would have a positive effect on the limited amount of residential property adjacent to TH 36. Lowering the roadway as much as 21 feet at Osgood Avenue would act as a sound barrier and reduce the visibility for the remaining residential properties. Negative impacts would occur to those remaining residences within close proximity to the TH 36 and Oakgreen intersection in that the frontage road system will be significantly closer to their residences. The two remaining 15 townhouse units, each with eight units, will be impacted to the greatest extent, resulting in a loss of property value. B. TRANSPORTATION /ECONOMIC Loss of direct access will be one of the -most significant transportation impacts to the TH 36 corridor. Within Oak Park Heights, direct access will be allowed off of TH 5, Oakgreen and TH 95. Norell and Osgood would be provided with overpasses and connection to the frontage road system but no immediate access to TH 36. Oak Park Heights will be affected by short and long term economic impacts because of construction of the bridge and improvements to the corridor. Adverse impacts to commercial businesses from highway construction can occur when the traffic is diverted away from existing businesses, access is curtailed and the attractiveness is lost due to dust and noise. Long term effects can result as a result of access, visibility, property values., and overall consumer patronage of the area. Visibility /Direct Access One of the most significant impacts of the proposed changes to TH 36 in constructing a limited access roadway will be the effect on commercial businesses. The proposed construction would lower the grade of the reconstructed TH 36 as much as 21 feet at Osgood Avenue. The lowered roadway would reduce the visibility of much of the commercial activity along Highway 36, which now has relatively unrestrictive sight lines from the current highway. Larger businesses and the St. Croix Mall may be able to still attract attention through advertising, but smaller businesses would be impacted to a greater extent. Loss of access could potentially even be a greater impact than visibility. Intersections at Osgood and Norell will not have direct access to TH 36. Only at Oakgreen will full on and off ramps be constructed. The concentration of commercial business is at Osgood, which is likely to see the greatest impact from loss of access. Customers will find the restricted access reducing their convenience and leading to a change in their habits because of the limited access highway. Loss of customers translate into fewer tenants in retail properties which will ultimately affect the vitality of the commercial area and the tax base generated from it. 16 .. . L 1- i- ,■-‹ -I- COMMIT 4.C. 1 ... l‘r \ + V % , vc,:z „... v . i ,-4'• 1 -r-- I . , r 'J. .# .:D *:,' . . -, 2 '31 -...- -I-••• COL . . . 1 -1 ‘..; ;,-, HI C..t....-,--•.--•..-.t..-9......E-4-1.......p....-R-1 c i7 ;1 7 , --, , . . 1 ..:•,..... ______I 4! .... 11) C I ) Cid • i _ , o + + •-• •• ' + ' I.F - ' 0 c8r cb o i .. „...-t-- -- '• . k- .0 oneu. ■ : gill 10 IP o • V ifs........ •.•••, 1 0 0 .... , , Clic I . i P o o 0 % • •_20. _ j r - - - - - - - - - - ff - — \ . :I __Si Oct 1 • 1 8 c.. • . it . .:•:: . Di r ... il ___,,,, •_ \ •- ••••, . . 1 viti ...— __,,,,, ...,,.,--,,. , • • , , , , • .f ,c 0 _ 1 i__ i , I. 1 PIII:i in C:10 i • —;--- \* - . - 4 • ,... , 1 — - ..„.........____________.. _ --....-... 'r -------...---- ........ / ....-■ . . . - -...- ' —■----.-.—,... -,..... . •-• — ----... --.----_...... -=!----= ..................-.....s....-.—. -...--.. .11 , i• - . r .11 'L j . , .L: 1' -, ■-:- \ 1p p • ED E3 — ' in iti Isio 1 7 1 0 1 I c i l l As A ti R E willow' OATE INTERSECTION 1 : ) 1 ..... Bil * . • rx ci . J• 0-,7.'i ' -- .25-5 4 n .,, • a El 0- __42610_ 4 - 1 -e c:1 ; - I C al fe31 I 6 t 4 . 3 ---* 2 * • 1 - - - - I -L- I 1 lii lilli ' Co .. . • o o ( F31 , ' 0 • 0 0 i _ , ,. : . - MALL _ • sp. + + i *. +- --- . , , J 1 I I I 4- 4--- 4- , . • • • _ 17 FIGURE 5 , . • N 6 C j / oi • m . m CO. RD. 04 m EC e4 eoro sr. ►i N ; Halal t MI „ is � CO.RD. E C.S.A.H. 12 _ / Downiewn �� %h ^" m Stla • weder / '% ■ a e ..... / tal g v ea o � o d d Z v C .sz aa: Q River 4 3 § ae ."-. A Siiiwd = Oak Perk © Harts d. """. : ' Major Business Concentrations in Study Area .. Stillwater- Houtton River Crossing Draft EIS 13 FIGURE 6 Limited Development /Redevelopment Changes to the corridor and access to the primary commercial center would limit the potential for new development and redevelopment. This Oak Park Heights business area has been a fast growing and increasingly vital commercial area with substantial investments in new construction and redevelopment in just the last few years. The impact of the changes to the corridor will limit the ability to expand the tax base and number of jobs in the commercial area. Construction Impacts Long terms impacts of the corridor may have a profound effect but the short term construction could even have more devastating consequences. Expected construction period could be as long as 42 months, resulting in re- routed traffic, which considerably changes the routes to certain merchants. The construction may permanently change the degree to which people will patronize a business. Those customers that change shopping patterns during the four year period may never alter their patterns again once the construction period is over. The difficulty in reaching the merchant will also detract from the one time customer passing through looking for a good or service in Oak Park Heights. Additionally the dust and noise will have an effect on businesses and degree to which people will shop in the area during construction. C. SOCIAL The social impacts of the TH 36 corridor improvements are not nearly as profound as the economic impacts. Other than the loss of approximately ten dwelling units for right -of -way, the lowered roadway would be a positive impact to the remaining properties. Affected Households The ten households affected by the TH 36 corridor improvements are spread out along the corridor and the loss will not be a singular loss to any neighborhood or group of people. The greatest impact is on the loss of the six unit condominium at TH 36 and Oakgreen Avenue. Additionally, the remaining residents of the two eight -plex condominium units may see an adverse impact in that the proposed frontage road is designed to be in a close proximity to the existing structures. 19 • Benefits to Residential Property One of the few benefits to Oak Park Heights of the reconstructed TH 36 would be to the remaining residential properties that benefit from lowering the roadway. The lowered roadway would provide built in sound barriers and decrease the visibility of the roadway to residents along the corridor.- This positive impact would be favorable to those existing single family and multiple family residences between Oakgreen and Pines Avenue. D. COMMUNITY SERVICE The tax base of Oak Park Heights will be impacted by the anticipated loss of tax base because of loss of business and depreciation in values of those businesses that remain. Additionally, the limited access roadway will result in less accessibility for emergency vehicles to business and residents within the corridor. Tax Base The loss of 15 businesses from TH 36 will have a significant and immediate effect to the Oak Park Heights tax base. The business that remains with limited access and visibility will also be impacted and over time, will experience a decrease in property value. Based on other major transportation projects in the Metropolitan Area constructed adjacent to a commercial area, it can be expected that most of the impacted commercial area in Oak Park Heights would lose between 10 to 15 percent of its value. The St. Croix Mall, with the nature of its business and the ability to advertise their location, may only see a decrease of between 5 and 10 percent. A more detailed review of the tax base implications of the TH 36 corridor improvements will be provided in the financial consultant's report. Emergency Vehicles The overall effect of the corridor improvements to police, fire, and medical services would be reduced access to certain businesses and slower response times, thus hindering the ability to make emergency calls. The limited access intersections will affect the emergency vehicle routes and could potentially result in less effective service. 20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES AND GROUPS Izaak Walton League The Agassiz Chapter of the Izaak Walton League is opposed to any current plans proposed by MnDOT for a new bridge south of Stillwater across the St. Croix River. The League believes that a larger study of regional transportation options be accomplished to determine if a need exists for a bridge in this area. Protecting this national scenic river way is of utmost importance to the League. A copy of the League's position on the bridge is found as Appendix A. The Sierra Club The North Star Sierra Club (Minnesota Chapter) and the National Sierra Club are opposed to any new bridge plans also. Copies of the Sierra Club's position on the bridge issue is found as Appendix B. The club maintains that a Regional Transportation Systems Management Plan (TSM) emphasizing the I -94 bridge and the diversion of traffic in both states to that crossing has not been adequately addressed. The Sierra Club proposes that an independent agency conduct a Regional Transportation Systems Management Study before the final EIS is released. In addition to the regional study, the Sierra Club holds that with a good highway system accessing I -94, and by using TSM techniques including car pools and mass transit, the traffic problem in downtown Stillwater could be solved and the life of the existing bridge extended. The Sierra Club supports that there be no proliferation of bridges. If a new bridge must be built, it should be built in the same corridor as the existing bridge (central corridor) with the existing bridge removed. The Sierra Club is concerned with the impacts on endangered species in the area with a new bridge. A new bridge poses an environmental threat to the river and valley. Endangered species, such as the Peregrine Falcon, the Bald Eagle, and the Higgins Pearly Eye Mussel will be affected. The Sierra Club also feels that Highway 36 does not need to become a limited access highway. Traffic problems could be mitigated using TSM methods. The new bridge would also greatly increase urban sprawl into Wisconsin by providing easy access across the river into Northern St. Croix County which has always been "protected" from urban development by the river. 21 Department of the Interior The Department of the Interior has commented on the draft EIS and also opposes any new construction. A copy of the letter is found as Appendix C. The letter specifically lists numerous corrections to the EIS, primarily related to -the environmental concerns. The Department endorses the no build option, however, if a bridge is necessary, then the Department suggests building in the same vicinity which depicts the central corridor in the EIS. The Department feels that the EIS is insufficient in discussing other alternatives and in discussing environmental impacts. As a result, the Department advocates a coordinated.TSM study and offers their assistance in pursuing that endeavor. B. WILDLIFE IMPACTS Three species recognized by the Federal Government which may be affected by a new bridge include the Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel, Peregrine Falcon, and the Bald Eagle. Twenty -nine other plant and animal species listed on the Minnesota or Wisconsin threatened or endangered lists are also affected by the new bridge. The Higgins Mussel has been found in and around the study area. The mussels found were not alive, however, their presence indicates that it is highly probable that the species is still present in the study area. Although the study area lies within the Peregrine Falcon's traditional range, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists have determined that none of the corridors would adversely affect any current Peregrine nesting sites. Additional research is necessary to determine if a bridge would disrupt the activities of the falcon. The Bald Eagle has a known nesting site in the vicinity of the study area. Again, further research may be necessary to determine any effects of the corridor or bridge on the species. C. AIR QUALITY Air quality will be impacted by a new bridge during and after construction. The greatest impact to air quality caused by automobiles will result when there are delays in traffic movement caused by lane changes and construction delays. The construction will effect air quality by producing dust, and additional emissions from construction equipment. The pollutant from automobile emissions of most concern is carbon monoxide (CO). The EIS includes a table showing existing CO levels in the area and predicted future levels. All current and future CO concentrations will fall within the maximum allowed by Federal law. 22 D. NOISE IMPACTS The most noticeable impact caused by noise will effect the residential areas in the vicinity of the new bridge. Both the MnPCA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have noise standards and criteria for specific land uses. The EIS determined that impacts upon commercial or industrial areas will be unlikely. The study area was divided up into five corridors (1 of which includes Oak Park Heights) to consider the effects upon residential areas. The corridor affecting Oak Park Heights is: commons section along Trunk Highway 36 - County Road 15 to Trunk Highway 95 commons section. Decibel readings are expected to increase build or no build. Under the FHWA allowed decibel criteria, 9 residential sites exceed decibel limits by 2 db. Under MnPCA decibel criteria (which is more restrictive than FHWA's) 57 residential sites exceeded the standard by 7 db. Of the residential area in the vicinity of the project not being removed, the Sunnyside Condominiums which lie north of the proposed bridge will be impacted by noise. Though not site specifically identified in the EIS, due to their proximity, the new bridge may produce adverse noise impacts on the condominiums. The EIS has indicated that mitigation efforts would be used to reduce the noise levels including plantings, berms and barriers but with the elevation of the condominiums in comparison to the roadway, it is questionable mitigation efforts will work. E. WETLANDS IMPACTS Wetlands affected by the new bridge amount to approximately 5.6 acres. Two projected wetlands within Oak Park Heights would be effected by construction. These two wetlands appear to be along the river near the NSP property. Mitigation will be required to follow the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, which requires two acres of wetland replaced for every one acre removed. The EIS does not state where the mitigation will take place or any details regarding these projects. More detailed information is necessary to analyze the impacts to Oak Park Heights. F. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER IMPACTS The interpretation of the Department of the Interior on allowing new bridge structures within a Natural Scenic Riverway is not in agreement with the EIS determination that a recreational designation of the St. Croix River allows for such structures. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 allows for the existence of minor structures that may be existing on the river at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers System but the act further states "provided that this shall not be construed to authorize, intended, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers System ". 23 There will be, however, some adverse impacts to the river with both build and no build. No build impacts include continued congestion in downtown Stillwater and continues boat and auto congestion waiting for the lift bridge. Build impacts include short term disruption of the river bed while the bridge is under construction which include aquatic /terrestrial wildlife impacts. G. VISUAL IMPACTS A south corridor bridge would be visible from a large number of residences in the area, on both sides of the river. The visual impacts to the Minnesota side would be minimal in that it would be affecting an area which is heavily developed. However, bluff cuts from the Wisconsin side would create a substantial impact to views with a south corridor crossing. Another potential visual effect of the crossing would be the effect to undeveloped agricultural land in Wisconsin. These areas would lose their rural character as new development locates along the new route. One potential means for reducing the visual impact of the bridge will be through the design process. All government agencies, citizens and public interest groups must be involved in helping with the design of the bridge. 24 CENTRAL CORRIDOR BRIDGE OPTION The City of Oak Park Heights, through its City Council, has consistently advocated the central corridor as a preferred alternative for a bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin (see Figure 7). The Council has advocated this corridor even though there would be significant impacts to Oak Park Heights. It is felt that the central corridor provides the best alternative overall from the standpoint of social, economic, and environmental concerns. MnDOT has supported the south corridor consistently throughout the selection process. The draft EIS.was written by MnDOT with a definite slant toward selection of a south corridor. The central corridor and facts to support its selection were never fully analyzed as part of the draft EIS. A. EIS REVIEW Overall, the draft EIS was biased in its review of the bridge corridors. Throughout each section, emphasis was placed on the negative aspects of the central and north corridors, with consistently a positive review of aspects of the south corridor. In many cases, not enough factual information was provided to reach the conclusions stated in the EIS. Examples of two areas where there was a definite bias include: 1. Impact of the south corridor bridge on the existing neighborhood in Oak Park Heights as well as long range impacts to the remaining neighborhood was not fully examined. More in depth information related to the social and economic effects of the south corridor to the neighborhood and the City must be more fully addressed. 2. The EIS overstated the environmental /historical impacts of the central corridor in comparison to the impacts of the south corridor. Environmental groups have now opposed the south corridor primarily because it is an entirely new bridge corridor resulting in more impacts than if a new bridge was constructed in the existing or central corridor. 3. Another environmental area that may not have been adequately addressed is the impact of the south corridor on wildlife. Although a detailed study of the mussel population was conducted, the EIS does not fully address the fact that the greatest potential impact to the mussel population would be with the selection of a south corridor. Additionally, the EIS did not fully address the concerns of environmentalists for such endangered species as the Peregrine Falcon and the Bald Eagle. Although a south corridor would not disturb an existing nesting areas for these two species, the new corridor may have an effect on the overall area needed to support these species. 25 • 234`}' j : 2r.,•. f i + n: k2• y Xf^?: c'^ c ?L.h ? Q:.sa.'3:m+ ..S; y :'^ >f.;."; T ir. .r : J y . N : : 3.N ..C'' L.u` ''•"� - '' % ' r a L± J �, . n v£f2 „ . . /p d w n y }.AL { C en tia1 Corridor 1x' .o. nt . .. Locatioil 3 J L J, e h t.:s f o s i < % %%'$:, . a �, y T S.:a: fin £ +'fi" 9 .'• fT +iY, Bridge 0�3 2i rR , � , ,f •- %• 0 t ` ^, t h�df . i L h � u;0 G t � sm.4- o o B as ,{,, •�. :i. .ry�.:� �� '�:. y >'•' �:�% / / 1 2; ,v:L�•n2••i;.¢.%fi:< ?w`."'.'. ::i iti. .w:iu;•;fi'v:0 "' t..: . w.:. 4.... .... / J.« u:.�cy3'"...."'i•'•:'?�:µ( �: J 1 • — Houlte)n _ _ _ ' / i 0 \ 0 M V 1 / COU • • 1 Wisconsin Minnesota i / -._ . • \i ...._ _ m • \' ''''''''N .. Stillwater - . ,-.. \ — • . •.. - . ‘k CD - ' - .4i ‘' 0 . . - -- - Cil \\ - . - -. - -" . . • ® ` ∎• - 3 • 40)1 . ❑ ,. • . Stillwater- Houtton River Crossing Draft EIS. _ . _ 26 FIGURE 7 4. Design alternatives for the central corridor were not fully addressed in enough detail to adequately dismiss this corridor as a viable option. A corridor crossing analysis was conducted in February 1988 before the EIS was completed. This analysis examined alternatives of design within each of three corridors but did not concentrate on -any design detail or focus on issues or impacts. The central corridor cannot be rejected as a viable alternative until a more detailed design and issues review is conducted. Discussion of the inadequacy of the EIS is further explored below and throughout this report. MnDOT should address .the shortcomings of the EIS with further study including more review and emphasis on the central corridor option. B. EVALUATION OF CENTRAL CORRIDOR Reduced Impact to Oak Park Heights The central corridor bridge is judged by Oak Park Heights to have less of an impact than the south corridor in that fewer dwelling units would need to be removed (30 -40 versus 78). A central bridge would still have significant impacts on the south neighborhood and the Sunnyside Condominiums, but overall, fewer people, especially lower income and elderly, would be displaced and the tax base impact to the City would be less. Effect to Stillwater Throughout the EIS and in MnDOT reports defending the selection of the south corridor, the central corridor option was judged to have negative effects to Stillwater. Two areas of park land and the commercial historic district were to have the most impact to Stillwater with selection of a central corridor. Kolliner Park, located on the Wisconsin shore, is owned by the City of Stillwater. Additionally, the City has identified plans to develop the shoreline south of the downtown into a park. The Kolliner Park impact has been overstated in the EIS in that the park is rarely used and is already impacted by the presence of the existing bridge. The EIS states that even with a new bridge in the central corridor, the park would still retain much of its wild appearance. The other area of park land impacted by the central corridor is the shoreline south of the downtown. The area is already highly developed and the addition of a bridge corridor would do little to negatively impact the area. The City of Minneapolis has developed successful parks around existing bridge corridors. The most notable is the Riverplace /St. Anthony Main areas where developed trails coexist with the natural and built up environment. 27 The EIS and MnDOT reports repeatedly indicate that the central corridor will have a negative impact on the downtown Stillwater commercial historic district. The design of the bridge is such that it is placed well beyond any structures within the historic district. The EIS states that the central corridor would result in no direct historical or archaeological impacts requiring mitigation ". The location of a central corridor bridge will afford panoramic views of downtown Stillwater, especially for vehicles approaching from the Wisconsin side. These views should entice visitors to stop in Stillwater and take advantage of the historic commercial district. A central corridor bridge would also be most favorable to the Stillwater business community in that it provides maximum visibility for this historic business district. Environmental Impacts The EIS and MnDOT reports downplay the environmental impact of the south corridor while emphasizing the negative aspects of the central corridor. The river managing agencies including the National Park Service and the Minnesota /Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission have identified both the central corridor and the north alignment of the south corridor as the best available options. The south corridor will have a greater impact to the Wisconsin side in that a new four lane corridor would need to be cut into the bluff. The central corridor bridge could be constructed to utilize the existing corridor of the lift bridge that is already in place and would not adversely impact the Wisconsin bluffs. The Sierra Club, although on record supporting the no build approach, has conceded that if a new bridge is to built, the best location would be the central corridor, primarily for the reason that the central corridor bridge would be constructed within an existing bridge corridor. The EIS and MnDOT have maintained that the central corridor option would adversely affect the bluff on the Minnesota side. The Minnesota side is already intensely developed with an existing two -lane roadway and the views of the bluff are already impacted by the existing development along the shoreline and above the bluff. The central corridor option may congest the area between the bluff and the shore more than what is already developed, but will not create a new impact. 28 CONCLUSION /ALTERNATIVES ' ' The City of Oak Park Heights will request MnDOT to delay its decision and agree to work with adjacent governmental jurisdictions, environmental groups and the Stillwater /Oak Park Heights business community in addressing the issues and concerns that are surfacing from the current MnDOT plans for a south corridor bridge crossing and reconstruction of Trunk Highway 36 to a limited access roadway. It is the position of the City that alternatives to the bridge crossing and TH 36 improvements were not fully examined by MnDOT or the Stillwater/ Houlton River Crossing Task Force. Before a decision is reached by MnDOT on a bridge corridor and design for TH 36, a process for discussion of alternatives must be established. The City of Oak Park Heights is willing to assist MnDOT in any way possible in organizing and participating in the process for this needed dialogue. Bridge The City of Oak Parks is requesting that a more detailed review of the central corridor option be reviewed before MnDOT continues any additional design or review of the south corridor option. As indicated in this report, the central corridor may be a more acceptable option for the City of Oak Park Heights and certain environmental groups. Trunk Highway 36 Corridor As a way of decreasing the level of impact to Oak Park Heights, alternatives to the design of the TH 36 corridor should be examined further by MnDOT. MnDOT has reviewed alternative interchange layouts for two variations to their current design. 1. Interchange at Osgood Avenue with overpasses at Oakgreen and Norell Avenues. 2. Interchange at Osgood Avenue. Half interchange (westerly ramps) at Oakgreen Avenue and overpass at Norell Avenue. Additionally, business interests in Oak Park Heights have examined alternatives and are interested in a design that would not lower the roadway but would provide access on grade from the primary intersections. Barton- Aschman, Inc., in cooperation with Watson Centers, Inc., owners of the St. Croix Mall, have reviewed alternatives to provide an access through their primary entrance, Osgood Avenue. The business interests in Oak Park Heights are willing to work with and assist MnDOT in reviewing these alternatives. It is suggested that the alternatives as well as new options, such as those presented by Barton- Aschman, be reviewed as soon as possible before a final design is selected. 29 Phasing An option discussed by the City that would allow for the TH 36 improvements by MnDOT as planned, while providing time to the affected businesses and City of Oak Park Heights, is a phased construction approach. By phasing the construction over an extended period of time, possibly ten years, improvements would be made gradually and allow for business along Highway 36 to prepare for the impacts or relocate. The City would also be involved in positioning itself for the impact to its tax base and in assisting businesses in relocating their operations to other commercial areas within the City. As the Area Traffic Study for State Trunk Highway 36, recently completed by Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, indicates the need to totally reconstruct TH 36 is not immediate and that a phased reconstruction of TH 36 could be accomplished without creating immediate traffic delays or hazards. The City Engineer will further address the traffic study and option of a phased construction of TH 36. 30 APPENDIX A ISAAX WALTON LEAGUE RESOLUTION • Minnesota Division Jz all Walton 7,Ciengue of \r2rrrzI } Agassiz Chapter • • rr — — A RESOLUTION OPPOSING TEE DOT PLAN FOR ANEW BRIDGE CROSSING THE ST. CROIX RIVER AT STILLWATER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Agassiz Chapter of the Izaak Walton League opposes any current plan by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to build a new bridge south of Stillwater, Minnesota in Oak Park Heights. Our organization believes that protecting National Scenic Riverways precludes such a drastic, expensive, and potentially ecologically damaging measure being taken at this time. A larger study of regional transportation options must be done. The encouragement of ex -urban sprawl that this project would accomplish could have devastating effects on the ecosystems from the City of St. Paul to the St. Croix Valley and Washington County. . RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE AGASSIZ CHAPTER - February 18, 1992 RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE ISSUES COMMITTEE - MN Division - February 22, 1992 RESOLUTION FORWARDED TO THE STATE CONVENTION FOR ACTION - April 26, 1992 RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY Charlotte Brooker, Vice President 2172 Woodlynn Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 612 - 777 -4945 1: Defenders of Soil, Air, Water, Woods, and Wildlife APPENDIX B SIERRA CLUB RESOLUTION AND STATEMENT THE POSITION OF THE ST.CROIX VALLEY SIERRA CLUB (on the proposed building of a superhighway bridge at Stillwater) 1.The North Star Sierra Club (MN Chapter), John Muir Sierra Club (WI Chapter) and the national Sierra Club -fully support our opposition to a new bridge, and have offered lobbyists and lawyers to that end. 2.The Sierra Club holds that a Regional Transportation Systems Management Plan (TSM) emphasizing I94 (71 miles south) and the diversion of traffic in both states to that crossing has not been adequately addressed. (Refer to Lower St.Croix Management Commission letter, 12/17/90.) 3.The Sierra Club proposes that an independent agency, funded by the National Park Service, conduct such a Regional Transportation Systems Management study before the final E.I.S. is released. 4.The Sierra Club holds that with an adequate highway system bypassing Hudson and Bayport, traffic would have good access to I94 and its 6 lane bridge. With the use of other TSM techniques (i.e. excluding 18 wheelers, emphasizing car pools, use of mass transit, one way streets, etc.) Stillwater could solve its traffic problems and extend the life of the old bridge until such time as it could be rehabilitated or reconstructed. (Refer to U.S.Dept. of Interior letter, 7/10/90.) 5.The Sierra Club supports The National Park Service and the two DNR's in requesting that there be no proliferation of structures. If a new bridge is built, the old bridge must be removed. We also request no proliferation of corridors; with any new bridge being built in the same bluff corridor as the old. This is supported by MN law which MNDoT has chosen to ignore. 6.A new bridge proposes an environmental threat to the river and valley. It will effect federally threatened and endangered peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the very rare Higgins eye pearly mussel, along with 29 other plant and animal species listed on the MN or WI threatened and endangered lists. Transplantation of rare species has not been shown to be fully effective. The period of bridge construction is critical for these species, but the noise and carbon monoxide pollution of constant automobile traffic is also at issue. 7.The Sierra Club holds that the stretch of highway 36 leading to the river is not an urban area requiring controlled access, and does not need to be so defined by MNDoT. TSM techniques could be used in that area to control traffic and still continue to have safe access to Oak Park Heights businesses. According to MNDoT traffic counts,vehicles per day did not increase from 1986 -1988. With no new bridge, traffic would remain manageable. 8.The National Sierra Club's Transportation Policy emphasizes decreased use of the private to aumobe, cont of urban sprawl, less building of new roads and br rol more repair of existing roads, and increased mass transit. 9.A new bridge would greatly increase urban sprawl into northern St.Croix County, WI. The river has always been the limiting factor to. that sprawl. If no new bridge is built then the projected population growth of the "St.Croix County Commutershed" (as MNDoT calls it) would not grow at the rates MNDoT has projected. 10.At a time of limited funds at both the state and federal levels, an unnecessary and environmentally damaging $76million bridge is unconscionable. 11.The Sierra Club has joined with four other environmental groups, three homeowners associations, and concerned citizens and businessmen in the St.Croix Valley to form a. coalition representing over 1000 people united against the building of a new bridge across the Wild and Scenic St. Croix River. I2.For these reasons the Sierra Club strongly opposes the building of a new bridge at Stillwater over the Wild and Scenic St.Croix River. February 20, 1992 STATEMENT TO THE MN DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE PROPOSED BRIDGE AT STILLWATER The St.Croix Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club, representing its own membership of over 650 members, as well as representing the North Star Sierra Club (MN state chapter), the John Muir Sierra Club (WI state chapter), and the national Sierra Club and their entire membership, opposes the building of a new superhighway bridge over the St.Croix River at Stillwater, MN, and also opposes the widening and expansion of MN highway 36 in Oak Park Heights, MN. At earlier public meetings we addressed the relevant environmental issues. We feel that the DEIS was inadequate. We agree with the National Park Service that, " 'Recreational designation' is not the 'least restrictive' in terms of permitting additional roads, bridges, and various shoreline developments," (July 10,1990 Dept. of the Interior letter to MN DoT)). Section 15(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 states, " This shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the national wild and scenic rivers system." The July 10, 1990 Dept. of the Interior further states, " The Federal Government is prohibited from assisting by loan, grant or license any water resources project which would have direct and adverse effects on the values which caused the river to be designated." 1. A new bridge is not needed. Regional planning should emphasize the I -94 bridge, just 7.5 miles south, and create better access to it. 2. 32 endangered or threatened plants and animals are put at risk because of the construction of the bridge and the enduring noise, carbon monoxide and other pollutants. The National Park Service states, " Water quality is important to the listed filter feeding mollusks which are present. Long term additions of road de -icers and potential hazardous chemical spills which can alter water quality can affect these species," (DoI letter, March 25, 1988). They also state, "Not only should presently occupied habitat be protected, but the natural processes and environmental quality should be conserved to allow fluctuations in the range of these species." It won't take long for the eagles and the falcons to move elsewhere, and the endangered plants on the WI bluff to die from increased auto pollutants. . 3. Urban sprawl into St.Croix County, WI has up until now been limited by the presence of the river. A new bridge will greatly increase urban sprawl. Conversely, if the new bridge is not built, • then the predictions of MN DoT traffic counts will prove inaccurate. 4. A new bridge will increase dependence on the private automobile rather than encouraging more sustainable transportation modes. S. MN environmental law prohibits the proliferation of highway corridors across the wild and scenic river system. We oppose the southern corridor choice. If a new bridge is truly necessary then the Sierra Club supports a central corridor crossing, utilizing the same cut in the bluff as is now used by the present bridge. We also oppose the proliferation of structures. If there is a new bridge, the old bridge should be removed. 6. The Sierra Club endorses the use of transportation systems management techniques applied to the existing bridge, such as; prohibiting large trucks, use of one way streets, better timed bridge lifts, a carpool lot in WI, mass transit from the car pool lot to Andersen Windows etc., parking for Stillwater tourists away from downtown with free trolleys for transport, better access to I -94, circle routes around Stillwater, etc. 7. The Sierra Club opposes the changing of MN 36 to an urban design highway, again resulting in more private automobile use, urban sprawl, and hardship for Oak Park Heights merchants. 8. The $76,000,000 could be better spent elsewhere. Submitted by: Cindy Gustayson , Conservation chair, St.Croix Valley Sierra Club, 1007 Pine Tree Trail Stillwater, MN 430 -1541 • • APPENDIX C UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REVIEW • '` United States Department of the Interior `` P .,,. �-� OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY wASXINO 0N, D.C. 20240 JUL 10 SSD L7619(774) ER- 90/354 • • Mr. Charles E. Ioilien Mr. Frank M. Mayer Division Administrator Division Administrator Federal Hishvay Administration Federal Niihway Administrative 7th and Robert Streets, Suite 490 4502 Vernon Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Madison, Wisconsin 53705 -4905 Dear )(r, Toslian /Mayers • This responds to your request for the Department of the Interior's camrents on the Draft lnvire tantal Impact Statement /Section 4(f) evaluation for Minnesota State Trunk Highway 36 and Wisconsin Stets Trunk Highway 64 (from County Road 15, Washington County, Minnesota, to a point 2 1/2 miles east of the St. Croix River, St. Croix County, Wisconsin). 1 • SECTION 4(1) STATEMENT COMM:0'g • General Comments • All of the alternatives addressed in the draft document v111 have an effect o2! and will uaa Section 4(f) resources, notably the Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota /Wisconsin. We concur. because of the linear extent of the Lower Saint Croix, that it is virtually impossible to develop an alternative river crossing that would not in some degree result in a Section 4(f) use of this area. In such a case, the alternative that beat minimizes harm to the protected resource crust be selected. providing that alternative reasonsbly meets project purposes. Consequently, we recommend selection of the No -Build Alternative, which we define as the institution of intensive !raffle system t&AMEement (ISM) measures, the maintenance "of the wasting historically iisnificant lift bridge for its safe life (approximately 5 -15 years), then rehabilitation (or reconstruction) of the old bridle. The major immediate transportation problem that the proposed project seeks to solve is land traffic congestion at the old bridge in the city of Stillwater. This congestion appears to be peak our related (caused by weekday commuters) with strong Weekend and summer elements (caused by recreational traffic), and is compounded by the need to .open the•lift span to allow paesasa of river traffic (mainly weekend and Summer recreational boating), • • _ 07/13'S3 _ `;a ■=` - 1•11.1p0 1::. nom_ nn- • 2 Although the draft document addresses several TSM :,ensures that have been • considered r ed and / or implemented over the last 30 years, we rersin unconvinced p that a coordinated, concerted, and well-funded TSM study could not develop measures which, if vigorously impieaanted, would reasonably solve the congestion problem. Admittedly, such study and implementation would require t a transportation agencies, river boating the lull coaperatifln of State and loc 1 p ss i and navigation interests, local governments. private businesses, and the general public (including commuters and recreationists), While perhaps difficult to orchestrate, this kind of cooperation is challenging and in full accord with the February 1990 National Transportation Policy and the April 1990 Environmental Policy Statement of the Federal Highway Administrator. The FPS would be pleased to assist you in this endeavor to the extent it relates to management of the Lover Saint Croix, The final Section 4(f) evaluation for the No -Build Alternative (as defined above) should clarify impacts to the Lover Saint Croix, Lowell Park (also a Section 6(f) resource), and any other protected lands that may be identified, based on the above described TSM study. Included in thin evaluation should be a discussion of the range of options available for rehabilitation (or reconstruction) of the historic Stillwater- Hculton Lift Bridge once its safe life has been exceeded. This discussion may be considered a first -tier evaluation for the old bridge. At this time, we would recommend that the existing crass -river highway network in the Minntapelis -$t. Paul metropolitan tree, i.e., major river :regain:: at U.S. 8. 1 -94. U.S. 10 and U.S. 63 and minor croasiras at Osceola and Stillwater /Houlton, be retained and that future land -use decisions be made accordingly. Any change in this situation should be based on coordinated regional planning that includes multi- agency and citizen input as a first step to identify desirable land uses in the area between U.S. -a and U.S. -63. Transportation planning should, of course, be integrated in such a planning effort (in accord with the new National Transportation Policy and the THVA's new Environmental Policy Statement) but should not lead or drive the process. In this regard, the concerne defined in the Rational Park Service's (NPS) letter of November 27, 1989, to the Federal Highway Administration (FRW&) (copy enclosed) have not been adequately addressed to date. We remain unconvinced that evaluation in separate environmental statements of the upgrading of STH -64, from Houlton to Nev Richmond, and the present river crossing propoaalht not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements, especially when considering total traffic flow from one side of the St. Croix River to the other. We recommend that these studies (and any similar studies in the area)• be made a part of the coordinated regional planning discussed above, and that the results of this planning be addressed in a single document. if the need for a new crossing is identified as a result of the above planning, sae would recommend, as a matter of general policy, that such a crossing be placed in or near an exiating transportation corridor. In the . present case, this approximates the Central Corridor Alternative as depicted • • • 3 • . in the draft document. Even in tha Central Corridor, considerable location and design effort would be needed to maks a bridge compatible with Lower Saint' Croix values and to satisfy the second proviso of Section 4(f); nevertheless, the MPS would be willing to work closely with you to achieve such a design and determine a specific location. $otcif is Convents .. .. . Potential Section 4(f) Comments: Ex/stir:: Bridaa Rarove 1 if a decision to construct a new crossing is made, this Department would then recommend that the old bridge be removed, in accordance with our policy of non - proliferation of structures crossing the Lower Saint Croix to preserve the qualities for which it was set aside for protection by Congress. In our view, it would not be prudent to retain two bridges over this reach of the rivarway. The NP3 has commented on this matter previously as follows (?BPS latter of January 31, 1989, to the Minnesota Department of Transportation): replacement of the old brides with a new structure should • be described as a separate alternative in the EIS /Section 4(f) evaluations. This should be accomplished in coordination with the SMPO's of the two states involved, and recording of the historic bridge as part of measures to minimise harm should be defined in the DEI3 /3eetion 4(f) evaluations . . . ." The 1(PS would be pleased to work with you to develop any additional measures to minimize harm that may be necessary to satisfy the second proviso of section 4(f). Draft Section 4(t) Evaluation: Lover Saint Croix Nations), Scenic Rive vey On pate 1, remove "Upper" from "Upper St. Croix National Scenic Riverway." On page 3, correct the information by noting that there are two other sections of the Saint Croix National Scenic Aivarway which are designated as recreational river reaches: 1) from the headwaters 'of the reservoir impounded by the dam near Taylors'•Salls, Minnesota, downstream to the dam structure, approximately 12 1/2 miles; and 2) from the railroad bridge crossing the Namekagon River near Treat:, Wisconsin, downstream to the dam impounding the Trego homage in Washburn County, Wisconsin, approximately 6 1/3 miles. The discussion of classifications is excessive aincs the classifications have Already been established. The statement that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act seeks to protect three categories of streams is not accurate. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act seeks to protect rivers possessing outstandingly remarkable" resources in their free- flowins condition. The classifications of. Wild, scenic, and recreational relate to the conditions along the river at the i time of designation. The classifications serve as guides to the managing agencies in the administration of the river. • • 4 The number of rivers in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has incrtased to 120, with a combined mileage of 9280. • • • The information on other National Parr System areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin needs to be updated. The list in this draft document does not include the Misaiseippi National !fiver and Recreation Arta, the Ice Ate National Scenic Trail, and the North Country National Scenic Trail. both of the trails traverse parts of the Saint Croix National Scenic Rivervay or a related State park facility. It should also be toted that Interstate Park in Wisconsin is a part of the ice Age Rational Scientific Reserve and that most of the sites of the !et Age National Scientific Reserve are in southern Wisconsin, not northern Wisconsin. It is stated on page 4 that " . . because of the limitations imposed by the original legislation, federal and state fee simple and scenic easement acquisitions are confined to an area cf 920 acres per mile, or as far as the eye can see, whichever is a:nalier." This is not an accurate statement. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act limits the area within the boundaries of a unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to an average of 320 acres per river mile. The Act contains no reference to a limitation of "aa fax as the eye :.en see." ' Draft Section 4(f) tvalustian: Mile Long Island It is stated on page 6 that "Advanced computer graphic technology might be employed to help interested individuals visualise what various alternatives would look like from different angles." The IMPS has requested this feature throughout the early coordination /technical assistance process for all alternatives. This method should be used in further environmental documentation to fully evaluate impacts of the proposed crossings. Draft Section 4(f) ;valuation: Kolliner park On page 3, a reference is made to another 4(f) and 6(f) property, Lowell Park. Nat only should this property be included and evaluated in Section 4(f) . documsntatian, but any required temporary easements could require consideration of appropriate 6(f) regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL FACT STATEMENT CObMLRT$ A10tg with our specific comments below, the Department believes that the draft environmental statement (DEIS) is inadequate int 1. The description and evaluation of the impacts of the various' alternatives; • 2. The consideration of all available options= 3. The rationale for dismissal of particular options, as identified in the preliminary recommendations. • • • 5 The informed decision (3ui1d /No- guild, and if build, then corridor) expected during the DEIS process is not easily derived from the -level and organization of information contained in the DEIS, The inclusion of a matrix of impacts from the various alternatives would greatly facilitate a cohesive analysis.- For both the Build and Ito -Build alternatives. secondary impacts resulting from projected greater traffic flaw and population arovth should be.addressed and mitigation recommendations made to alleviate future crowding, noise sad. circulation problems, etc., that will potentially impact the Lower Saint Croix along the riverway corridor, Appropriate visual representation(s) of the various options for each corridor, including the So -Build alternative, should be evaluated by all cooperating agencies prior to the final environmental impact statement (EIS), in order to allow full assessment of visual impacts of the alternatives on a national wild and scenic river. These visual representations should be made as part of the final environmental statement'. Wild a nd Scenic jtiver Im It is stated in the draft document that: " . . . none of the BUILD alternative' would jeopardize the St. Croix River's status as a National Scenic Riverway. The section of the river included in the study area is classified as 'recreational', the lent restrictive of the three categories established in the original 1868 Wild and Scenic River Legislation . . . Recreaticnal designations permits roads, bridges, and various shoreline. developments." T?i.s statement is misleading. "Recreational" designation is not the "least restrictive" in terms of permitting additional roads, bridges, and various shoreline developments, as may be implied hers. While such development may be present at the time of inclusion, the recreational deal =nation does not automatically alloy additional similar structures, in fact, it is stated in Sec. 15(b) of the Wild and scenic Rivera At of 1968 that: The exiatence, however, of low dams,. diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and acinic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion: Provided, That this shall not be construed to authorize. Intend, or efcoUratt future construction of such structures within components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. (second emphasis added) It is also stated in the drift document that " . . . the only use 'strictly prohibited' by the legislation is impoundment." This, statement is inaccurate. . The federal Government is prohibited from assisting by loan, grant, or license any water resources project which would have direct and adverse effects on the values which caused the river to be designated. The Department of the Interior has interpreted permits for dredge or fill as water resources projects. • • i 6 This section lacks mention of the outstandingly remarkable resource values deaeribad in the study of the Lover Saint Croix River which led to designation. These values should be noted in the final statement. As noted above, the entirety of the rivervay above the Washington- chisago County line is not designated as scenic. The two impoundments at St, Croix Sall* and Trego are designated as recreational,• in the separate document "Wild and Scenic Rivera impacts," included with the draft document under review, the description of management responsibilities on pate 2 is confused and inaccurate, Management of the rivers designated by Congress is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior (vho is responsible for the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management) or, in case of a river flowing through national forests, the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of the Interior may assign management of a river to any of the three Interior bureaus here noted. The Secretary of Agriculture assists management to the U.S, ?crest Service, states, local governments, and Indian tribes may act as managing agencies for rivers flowing across non - Federal lands. Designated rivers may flow across lands managed by more than one agency or level of Eavernment, Regardless of the manager. the Federal Asenciea are responsible for ensuring that the restrictions contained in Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are implemented. Muni Traffic Demand • On pate 10, future traffic levels are based on keeping or removing the present bridge, supporting our recommendation to include the disposition of the present bridge in the DEIS process. Although the life expectancy of the present bridge is estimated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to be 5 to 15 years, the year 2014 is consistently used in the draft document, Either the 5- to 15 -year estimate or the year 2014 is incorrect and should be amended in the final statement. Alttroatives The effect of lowering the. 60 -foot clearance minimum on the boat traffic should be included. Permits and Approval( The approval of the Department of the Interior in a direct and adverse impact determination under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivera Act will also - be required for any proposed action which will have such an impact. i • 7 Historic la Archeological I pacts Thy section does not adequately document the results of professional field. surveys designed to Systematically identify and evaluate all archeological - resourCes that lie within the area encompassed by the several corridors and design alternatives under consideration. Specifically, the statement does not demonstrate that any archeological surveys ware conducted in follovtsp to the recommendations of the Minnesota Historical Society and the Minnesota Stets Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix A in the special Study of historic and archeological impacts), It appears that an archeolosical survey may have been conducted on Wiecansin lands within the study arsa (see June 21, 1989, letter in Appendix 3 of the special study of historic and archeological impacts, as well as brief references on pages 111 -113 of the draft statement to surveys completed in 1989 ss wall as in- progress survey). The finial environnental document should outline the extant and result of all archeo1csical surveys conducted in conjunction with the propcsed project. if the final statement does not contain this information, it will fail to reveal the impact that this project will have to significant archeological resources, ocial Impacts • River users should be included and evaluated as affected social groups. Economic impacta of the various alternatives should be evaluated for the recreation -based economy. • • as h and Wildlife Resources • Three major corridor alignments and the no -build option ars identified in the draft document as the alternatives now under consideration, From a fish and wildlife perspective, the no -build alternative is clearly beat, since no additional wildlife habitat would be affected, Of the three build alternatives, the U.S, fish and Wildlife Service (J'W8) advises that it prefers the central corridor across the river because impacts on wetlands and endangered species would be less. A brad ie elter•siativs would be preferred over any tunnel alternative because impacts to bluff, riverine, and riparian habitats and secondary impacts from disposal of excavated material would be substantially less. • The northern corridor has much greater potential for Impact on vttiand, forest, riparian and riverins habitat. The are* north of Stillwater has a hi er percentage rcettta e i p s of undeveloped land, is more scenic, and has a lower human than the population central and southern corridors. mineral Resources Mineral resources are not mentioned in the draft document, The U.S. Geological Survey topographical map (Stillwater) show two gravel pits and one quarry near two of the proposed alternative routes near Stillwater and C s_ - W0.002 339 — . 8 - Moulton, Also, at leant two natural as pipelines peas near the roject area The information in the draft t document, however, is not sufficiently detailed to pinpoint the exact location of the pipelines In relation to the proposed project. Therefore, we sussest that the final statement include a description of mineral resources and production facilities, including the pipelines, in the area and discussion of potential impacts, either adverse or beneficial,, on mineral production'and development. If no impact would occur, then a statement to that effect should be included, Thus, users of the document would be provided with the informatics that mineral resources had been - considered during project planning. ENDANOEAED SPECIES ACT COMMENTS In a comprehensive survey of the St. Croix River in the vicinity of Stillwater by Malaeological Consultants of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, no living specimens of the endangered Misting' eye pearly mussel (Lamps ;lie hittinsi) were found. However, several fresh -dead specimens were collected. It is probable that a population of L htttinei txiats in the stretch of river being studied for the highway improvement, It is therefore essential that all future planning be conducted with the viltsre Of this endangered species in mind. Recommendations for precautions to avoid harm to L. hit;inst in the various . corridors made In a letter dated April 5, 1990 from the Minnesota eso.a Deportment of Transportation to the St. Paul Field Office, FWS, should be adhered to during future lanti of 9 nt the project. Results from mussel relocation at the Prescott bridge should be examined and evaluated prior to moving any mussels. If necessary, nev techniques should be developed. Similarl. any t P y, ny mans lasts methods transplanting of listed plant species should include literature searches and , all activities should be documented and monitored, ?ISM AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT COMMENTS The tentative position of the ?WS would be to concur with the issuance of any required Federal permits far a mew proposed crossing only n n!t n y if the existing alignment ment of Highway 36 and the central corridor 3i utilised for project pu ro osed purposes. The W v p p � FWS advises that agleam appropriate mitigative measures for protection of wetlands and riparian habitat are incorporated into project design and fully described in the final environmental statement, it will object to permit issuance. The St. . Paul Field Office is represented on the team that asaeasea project impacts and recommends mitigation features that will affect these impacts. . The St. Paul Field Office is prepared to assist in development of a Mitigation Plan to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts during future project planning phases. • • i • 9 =NU COMMENTS " The Department of the 3llteliur Aleut.* Lo Section 4(f) approval for the project st this time for any alternative other than the No -Build Alternative (as defined above), We have serious concerns about the vieua3 impacts of aay.of .the build alternatives to the viewshed of the Lower Saint Croix, and lack of consideration of the disposition of the present bridge. If FHWA determines that no prudent or feasible alternative to a build alternative is available, the NPS would be pleased to work with you toward a mutually acceptable resolution of these concerts. Should such resolution prove to be unattainable, we may consider thid project a candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality in accord with 40 CTR 1504. This Department has a direct and continuing interest in the proposed project and iii successfully resolving local traffic concerns so as to but protect the nationally significant resource which is the Saint Croix National Scenic Rivervay. WO of cur bureaus, the NPS and the FWS, are cooperating Agencies in the preparation of project environmental documentation, and we lock forward to your continuing coordination with theca to resolve the issues described • above. For NPS concerns, includins all matters relating to minisisin6 or eliminating adverse impacts on the rivtrway, please continue to work with the Regional Director, Midwest Region, National Park Service, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 (402 - 221- 3431/FTS 564- 3431). Concerning fish and • wildlife resources. the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, please continue to consult with the Field Supervaer, UPS, Fish and Wildlife.Servica (E3), Park Square Court 50, 400 Sibley Street, 8t. Paul; Minnesota 55101 (612 -290- 3131 /TTS 777- 3131). ?or technical assistance pertaining to mining and mineral resources, pleas* contact the Chief, Intermountain Field Operations Center, Bureau of Mines, P.O. B 250 . ox 66. >luiiding 20, Denver Federal Cantor, Deader, Colorado 80225 (303 - 236. 0421 /FTS 776 - 0421). II ' Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, than P, Deascn rector •ffics of Environmental Affairs Enclosure Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer B onestroo Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Howard A. Sanford, P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Brian K. Gage, P.E. Robert W. Rosene, P.E.* Keith A. Gordon., P.E. James R. Maland, P.E. F. Todd Foster, P.E. R osene Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Jerry D. Pertzsch, P.E. Keith R. Yapp, P.E. . Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Scott J. Arganek, P.E. Douglas J. Benoit, P.E. Anderlik & Richard E. Turner, P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. Cecilio Olivier, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Seip, P.E. Kent J. Wagner, P.E. Associates G. Schunicht, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Gary W. Morien, P.E. Paul G. Heuer, P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.* Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Paul J. Gannon, A.I.A. John P. Gorder, P.E. Engin eers & * S en i or C onsu lt an t Ted K. Field, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. pan D. Boyum, P.E. g Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. A. Rick Schmidt, P.E. Jeffrey J. Ehleringer, P.E. James R. Rosenmerkel, P.E. Dale A. Grove, P.E. Joseph R. Rhein, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. Philip J. Caswell, P.E. Lee M. Mann, P.E. Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. Mark D. Wallis, P.E. Charles A. Erickson October 20, 1995 Frederic J. Stenborg, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. Leo M. Pawelsky Ismael Martinez, P.E. L. Phillip Gravel, P.E. Harlan M. Olson Michael P. Rau, P.E. Karen L. Wiemeri, P.E. Agnes M. Ring Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Gary D. Kristofitz, P.E. James F. Engelhardt Mr. Donald Johnson Enclosure 10 Final Design Engineer Minnesota Dept. of Transportation s I. 3485 Hadley Ave. N. h v Oakdale, MN 55128. 00' 4 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation Oak Park Heights, MN ect 2 3 1995 Our File No. 55 Dear Mr. Johnson: Enclosed please find six (6) drawings showing the conceptual layout of the relocation or revised layout of utilities to maintain service to the City of Oak Park Heights with the reconstruction of TH- 36, interchange and river crossing. The work required is generally described as follows: Sheet No. 1: The north side sanitary sewer system will require the relaying of the sewer on Peabody and discharging northerly to the Lookout Trail gravity sewer as shown in red. Also shown is a gravity connection from the existing pumping station to a gravity line which serves the Sunnyside area which connects to the Metropolitan Interceptor. Rather than modifying the existing lift station to accommodate the additional flow, the gravity connection to Sunnyside is recommended. All piping required would be 8 -inch diameter laid at grades of not less than 0.40 percent. We had discussed alternative routes, but a more detailed investigation shows the proposed route as being the most economical and least disruptive. Sheet No. 2: The large diameter trunk sanitary sewer system will have to be relocated generally from Beach Road to the relatively new Metropolitan Interceptor which we understand will probably remain in place. The drawing shows a proposed route and the system must have a capacity of 18 cfs which could be accommodated by a 24 -inch diameter pipe at a grade of not less than 0.6 percent. If the sanitary sewer crossing TH- 36 east of Club Tara is in conflict with the future highway grade, a parallel 8 -inch diameter line could be installed adjacent to the existing at a deeper depth. It should be noted that on all drawings provided, the facilities colored in yellow can be removed and/or abandoned after the new facilities are in place. Sheet No. 3: This drawing shows the proposed interconnection of the water main on the north end of Lookout Trail with the Sunnyside system. The water main would be 6 -inch diameter ductile iron pipe with a pressure reducing station required. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612 - 636 -4600 Mr. Donald Johnson October 20, 1995 Mn/DOT Re: Hwy 36 Utility Relocation Page -2- Sheet No. 4: To provide for a looped water main system it is required that a 6 -inch diameter ductile iron water main be extended from Sunnyside to Stagecoach Trail. This drawing also shows an 8 -inch diameter ductile iron connection from Club Tara, possibly along the alignment of the South Frontage Road, 59th Street and Stagecoach Trail to the Sunnyside connection. A pressure reducing station will also be required in this area. Y p g q Because of potential problems with crossing the NSP landfill, alternate routes for the fl- inch connection should be investigated. Sheet No. 5: This drawing shows the overall layout of the water system in the vicinity along with two remote routes which show looping alternatives which could then allow the water main to be terminated at Club Tara; this would avoid encroachment on the landfill or other highway crossings which have been previously discussed. Sheet No. 6 , : This drawing shows the storm sewer in the vicinity of the TH -36 construction area. It will be necessary to install a storm sewer system along the South Frontage Road across the landfill area. The drawing shows this system connecting to a system in 59th Street and Stagecoach Trail with discharge to the same general location as the current discharge point. As noted in previous discussions, the South Frontage Road system could be interconnected with a Highway 36 system if that seems more desirable. However, separation of City and Highway flows seems to be the most reasonable approach where practical. We realize that these brief descriptions and attached drawings contain a lot of information which you may want to review in greater detail. If you feel that another meeting would be useful, please advise. Very truly yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. (1 ajjel Josep C. Anderlik JCA:pr Enc. cc: City of Oak Park Heights 8�{P v' •• t:! M • • y t' . t- -_ '• :. } •..... ` :; : •• 1 ) ,. 'r. 'Xt :'t • 2 >> f -:; . tD • t (1.) r ;G - k i 'i i i' • r • i '45 i v I S • V g• : . • • t . • i i i :ff iti........ :.� i5: , .. . -2S t 4 y, • i:',1:;•.1 } i •• , •' i... .. .i : ..y 1 1 v E k , 1 y, ■ (�' d .... • : }r :..,•, s e ..# • a l e ,, s g • vC• -- — Ip FoR�E• M � , ..... • N 4l' • ,i. '9". vCP >i . � VCP .t.. • • 17;4, ,,,, i • • } • , • • ref - i. } i ... ., ....... ......... .. .... . ■ i 9 ✓' • • #. V Cp .1 S � C� • 9 It, . t .•• ••• ,.... r a� . • :? } • • • 1 • • • • . • V.4:. I t' 1. i . .1 1111 < • , I IH iiri'D 19; 1‘: 1 1 I i " 1,..A I... . . ' ) • \ • 1:' . : 1. i • • • • i. .. . . 1 • 1 \ i . . . i .... . . . 1 • 1 1 . AMA. )41" -itCL:-.,. ...1............1- • PA N , $ 1 I I ..,.. ' • . . . • • . • • (77 i . . . , • i • , i• • .• . -"" . . . C. 1 . . • . • 1 (:).•'; 1 1 . . • .... . .-- ,I iS - .. . . • • • i ' . • I 1 • . C...14 1 . • . I , I : . . . :_. 11 4..u' .......a. • e.. . . . . . •, l'? . il c. • . • - , •ima.mommaxilm4. ' i t ' 4 • . . ; i . i , . • . \ • ' i ' i . 1 t I 4.1 • .. • • . 1 i A t V 0 . 1 ti -• • i 4, . 1 1 : • tt 3 . U . ..- ' N 1 4'.', t 1 1 • IAt • % . , . 1 l' - 1 1 1 I' I • ........ (14 ' I ' 1.. \ 1 1 I t. o ti ' • _II 11 i N P R I 2 $ 4 - . a • • • . ...,. 0 4" 1 I 1 \ ...... • • a ld .. 1* -- .. c> . . ; . . t> \ 1 ‘ -- I _ill I 1_ I L . • .. • .. 7 . . • . . . , Ali; ..*:. 4 , EX. ,,,, 1 ... N , u , 0 _ a G; 10; a $ i • . ' t . li\ \ 1 1 i 1 ,. . , . • . \ \%,. \\ \ , --. ... --- : ---------- L :7 1 .,::..7..77' . ...... - .7..7. 1 :1_ 7 ;-: " - : ,. - . . -.,,, '`. . I N \ t t,. \\ \ 1 / . 1 1 liTu • , - , i` s \ •, • 1 I c& ..., 0., ,,,i ,i„,, ,„;... i ." • . * ' \ \ \:\ \ \.\. ..\.‘ . . 3 . \ \ . i \ \ \ 1 In .. . .. .. I, ., %, 0 \ . s . .,.. I . • ' • \ ... ,,, ,..,-‘ L ___............. . . I \\ % \.. \ .... 1. : 1 1 .‘ 1 V \ ' : • t4 . .4 ••••••••,-.. . 2 '4 • t.) .. c, . s „,: • \ ........ ..'''\ : (..) -0 u`! • Ti i \ ',.,,.. • i3 - ?.. i (..• ...„." 176 a "•-•...„......_....,,..• „,...1 „, i . i f\ \ \ \ ., . ; j,. ...' „.•;, 14._ T\ .. ,...1.._ ... ..., i \ `•• \ . • ...., i `, :\ \ • .. • ../..4- , ,. • ., \\ ... s‘..., • • ..... .,....›..• .... . T... ...1.--r, . r , , \•,.. , -, -. • • ._,,,, . P• • . `• .. ,,C ,... ----- 1 ... . • I 1 [ : \ * . \ „,"'"....." • :,-.. ''' ''..-..., ' ' ... • . .,, . . , . \ t" • ./ • I: • \ Y• ' - ' ' •-: --'..-- Cif I t ■..."....... ..... 1.............i r : - 1...1 . 1 - 1' 'T 1- . , - . ..›- ..-- . ,--:•;.-- - , . . I,- /,', ' /.<. \.. \ . .1 . ; ,_ ; . ; ... a , ..., i . 6 ii- 5 4; : 1 i.Z. -'-' 5 4 * -. 1 ,•-<;••. .";': , r I ; -• ; .:: ; ... 1 r , 1 ....s • : * 1 ,,,,...••• ..•:::••• \ \ '•., . _ i 1 -.1. .. : r- 4 ...,. . y.....„.., ..„...."2 - . • 4 , 1 ; 1 i ._, • • l \..I ; • , 4ts4 ....r. .......-- -2' • I • t - .8) i ---- -..,.....<:' \ '•••, .... • ' . 1 : t i - •4 •>. I- . .„.....:;,.. - ,.. , ' I C flt (ri I 4 - • t o J4 . 1 . . 0 •.* 14 .4 a a ..... PE 800Y ■ 1„, /' •7 .1 .•.- ''•<..., \ .,.t. 4c......... . • -, \ s■:' N --5,..- . -- -, : . ..... ... .... , . .• [2 - : ..\. ‘ s ' . • • .... *-.. '''... v• , . 1 r• i i • '• Los • i .. .: ; 3. Zir0 i 1 / i 1 \ ... ' ..,_ •,.. .. •••• ....... 1 Is 1:.; (4 ; .Z.1 • :: i i j • g Os • 41 • ji. tA : g,t 1 ..' :: ..0 "' v f : 4s •4 01 Ki.C. 1 1.:;.T.: i" ''• \ • , N. 1 \ , • 4 1 • ''' . f yv . ` 3 "■ '... )Y 1 ! : ' : : : .. 1 • 1 1: ! .., t. e l . ..i il ! . • • 1 . ,. ...f.)4....L.....i ..........1............3.- "" . . • . (>4 , • 1 I .. J ...1.:„. • 1 ----4. -I --. .. - co 1 1 T if:P .. 1 .- .. i 4 • .( 1 Li 1--1.. . .... ..., .: . , : • , , -- ... ,.... - ie .I (9 'A •• ''' 4. ' • .. 1 0 . ,, r . ) :). . kl . 1 144 be Oi , 1 1 •• 1 t it • 't •). . ,,‘ ...L , ' 's . . ••■ Alt ..4-• I 4, l i t I . g :....<.!...,....... r 4 r..: (... 4 .4 1 w .... ,*: e. • 4 I 4 tr. , . , ... I . 1 ...IP, 4,4 14. I -' i 1 • ..,....... s ' ....... x Pit.. E • ' ' AVE . , ! 4 N . i el i • L i . = 1 i r ../:4, i. • a . 4 - 1 1.. 1_ ... ........._.L.J..../...z....- . - If -.' . • I . • • • 1 • --„..... - , • •--e---0-- , • . • .... ... ... 4it sii ,,.. 1 ..... / ,...., .,1 , 1 . i ; T .. a 1 4.1 qt P. 14 : :.... ji ;:, : 6 1 se • i 4 x - w" 1 • I I : ' : 3 3 I • I i . r ., 7 i i ji 1 :4 Qc.1 • I i I . < ' 2 * * '-:-. Ailat i; I C ,; - c , 4 .. al; 0 tY4 < .0 ••• ■Nit"*$ 0 -41* -4 c p i v z, . ?;..: ii.13, c ; I . 1 I, - i :I . .' : J.......1..._..., ......... ...._.t. ...td.......t.. x , - . „, z . . .• ...,, .it 4/1 . .1... 1 ..4.. ..,.. g 2 • :. -. .L._ :.....i. I..... .I... .1 ........r. , . 1 1. 1 . ....... 4 sx1 I i , 1 ji • 3 : 1 . 1 - , I „ 1 .. ,..... I 6 % 0 i,, 0 , 410 ...■ 1 16 ' " M 1 Jr, - 1 ' : ,^ I 4 1 04 3 '.' - 2 "' , ... .. .....I 1 J . .....,.....4 ...' I . i 1 . ; ,•Y (.. N. s . • : ....1 -V- - - "- -- - -"- _. '' . ....... 1 1 1 ...........,.. . ....„,.. • "" !-- ..... '""1* ' -- ■ --0 • , .... I T • ,- ., 1 1 % .• c \ i \ 1 \ \ \ \ I A - -- 9 r - -- f..:„ r; -6- I. _ ' J t.... ............ ....... Lipl....... 1 4 , 1 0 l \ t \ % I [ . • i t . • • 3- 1 . , % r• it, I ....# (A uc 1 ••• 1...1 .... . ‘ 1 \\. 1 • .. \ ,..., I 0, \ co , Qs. 1 "- r k„ 1 1.... 1 a% e" ‘..1, \ ‘ 1 I 4 t I A, ,. , ,„,, I 4: ' s _A.- ..... .._ , ,• : j ... ; 6e --• -••••-r•-.1--. 1\4 ; 1 . \ \ Ao\ \ i v . 1 _ - 1/4" : ' ------ ------. , i ,4 4. '. 9 •„, •-- '•;-:: 1 ' - - .,,-- :•.:. r ..., ..... ,••- ' 1„i- L I -I' ....-- 1 , I --- ...••• ...-- i 1.--- ., .....• . , , „.„.- „... - ,• ,, , .......• -.....-:' ...:.it.- ,---...;•, .- --- • .---- ,---' ..•„*fr- .---- 11 ,--- • .„---- ,.0.- ,..._-_- ...' I.e. ...• ......e•'-''... ...-- -.. . . ......- -1., ,r_. , - % ce, a . c „,•- - . ....-- „..- , ,...- ,...4.. * ,...- ..-1- ... ii g o _..........._. 1, . .... .... ..) ii ' ','-`). ('... kl .,, -716 j - 11 4, 1 i ..............:.7.......„. 1 4-3 f; .........„-- -- ,......---ki'l % 1 0., 1 I • I , . 6.) 1 r.: • . t r.: t 8 c h ot • CA \ ( 1 % \ 0 \ 0 CPC' ,............... # • 3 '3.4 .5c. CI 0 ...' ." • ,, ,..• '.. ....., ... .• ..• ' "• .. .. ' • ,.."e" f .-- ,-4.:•. •-‘..„... „...s... „. , ,..1 -- ,,P ....'" • • 4 ..d 1 ‘ '•..,) ‘ 7.; .... \ •:..) • I. .... „.•• ..••• ,,,,,.;.- * ."' 4) i -..7: 1-- - ;:\ r.: 1 \ „. .-.,•':',-„,".... --' , . . .--, -••••••••r i : .------- -''- ./. , . . 8 1 ro \ KA - 4 1 I 1 •• ./. • ' /.. 1;;;/ 1 .• . l. to) .1 rh :?: ... , ..- ...• ..- . 0 --, 1 3.':."'...1..- -.----7 :±:.::: tie .,... ,..-- ....1 ,,.. , . , -.-: ...- ...,.. ...... ,4-....- .„. -4 - .• ,;-7 i„ 9 . .., -•- - ...- ... '' „. •" • ., „.... - - ,.- .„. , , .„--, ---- .) -- - „ .(:, . -- ...- ,rt . , /•*. •••••• -.1471. TO ..4 ••'' . ,-• , 4 4/ Cli; I e: .." ,.. . .-• co ../ ,,-(/ / /" Nr.4... ....• , i ' ),r ' -P ..., „ ., / ..:". „,... 8,.. . ... - ..,...- • • a. .. . ..1 .0, ,.., .- • ...r ., ... .,,' . ... . .. .. • ,. (. C .,.. ...' .. ./ r" / .-', **/* . ... ... .., ' - .,. - • .1.• ., ... i'' ).., ... •• . ... , , ' 6 ..-- . ''' 114 ts .\-) • I ' ' / ...w • .., .,- ." . 4 I IV / /.. • F /* 19 N.) , e . ,r .... , , .,. ... . ." 0 ■.• ./ ,./. 0 ../. 47 ./. • • ...... -,..,. ......." ....- . - .. .- ,- 0 . .. ., • -- ," ., . I -- : /.. "4 lt 1 ...--- • ,- s• -.,.: ., • ., „ - ,,,:" k *: , - • ks..; ..• • 1 .. . • .. . ' ''' ,, 1 ,..-/ \ ' " 1 .•-• - :... :7: • • ./.. •. .... . . ..., \ .i, 4,,*• . .,-./. . 1- . ." 0 i / ... ' \*. ./..." , ,10 • '" ./. .,. . .. ..• '''''.- .....•-••• ' ".....‘ \ • ••••'. „ . ,/ 1,. "' 1 (Z4 .... „ ••-• ... . " .,....." 0 .. ' S4 ,e " / t ./. '....,.% -•• " ' / 7,,I$14 '' • I I: '" . ,..<' / \ ' . -‘, --- . .....--*- ,--- ...... --...„*„. • . .....- . ..• .. • c... i ." .. ..• A ' 4.." , , - . , ....- -. ,... ,... ...- ...,:.- .,„ • , ,.. ..• ---- ---- „ - .... .5 „": 4 , 4 .." \ . ,; ). ." .. i , ,. . 0 0 .„ ...• -". . • - ""...... - .. ..• ..46 .--$ .- ,• .,.,„ - , ., •,:a ..„ . ., ...,, , ... „ ...„- ,,,,,, - 4 ••• • ,• ,,.. 1.-- • •-• ..„-.„.4 ... .f• , - ,- ....- „.,- ,- • \ ,..., , , 0 . ,• 0 . -. ,•,.- - ,- ,. , ,. . 1-.. , . ,- .--- ,... .,, \ , ., \ . . , . ,• . • • ., \ - ., ,/ , . • .,- •. ; \ . ,. ,, , • . •- • , .,, i , \ , , 1 , N ..... ,:. ; ". ..,,, ---• 44 c) . . , - • ..- ..• - • j . ,,--- 0 ...• ...- • ..• ..... t •• ,.. W3 4t ' .• ---, . . - - A 111P , --,, — . , / .., - . . 0 . .• / 0 4, ' , 0 , ! > „ • • .. „ / ' r .• . r • , ; • • r . , • , . . sk # • . • • . , . . . . . . - - ' . . . • .• ' . . / . . . ., . . .• .... . . . „ . • . . , ..' . . • - - ' ..• ' . . .' .. ----. • . ...• . . ....• . • /. • ..- " .... .. ' .. . .." . ..... „ . . . • // .. .. .. - -• ••• ' 1/ „. 0 . .-. 7 . • • / i / • liklPe i 1 � lir i 1 1 i I • i 1 1 / 1 i / i . ., • i .......„. .- - , • ........ - ..-4' .. , ... .... . • . . - • •• ' ^O . . ' ... . /. • ../...••• / ''. ( 4!: I,: .. / • -.. o..' .. . .s. - :.?.`• • / .• , .• // ..• / • - . /./ - • . ' 1 I ; , ..• -' * I... Co I . 1 Vs . . I ..`.. • N iv f I / . ,I; / 1 / r . ,••: i / i i ../ .. . . . / .../. • ..„.1/ • ... .#'' / „..0 4 9 • , ./ ...'” ./ ./ . ,,,y. / :, • r / / , :S . 4e ../ / a / ..?. ,... .: ; .....• :•.4 ...• .• i / #; . Ce / .. ..., . . i •• ] ta.t. .,................. ... .:..i - , ..) • e LI ..- ‘ 1 / ./.,,,' ,....*-• ../ .... ... . (.: ...- • xl. - I ..‘ ' . o .3. ::: es 0‘"%/' • ,(P' /./ # .1 0 ...- ..- ...•ta ./... y ../' "--. ...- ‘...) , I" .- ,. ,Pb„... ? „/- , . ••• .„ ..- /-. 3 ,..--. 1 ...., ts .., . . c.:•• 1 00 .." .(/ --/ ---- . , , .0 .-.......0 . .. / 1 1 - 13: 1.: 2 .... ''' -'''.. ::.-• ,.,* . • ' . .... •• , .- ' . .'. 1 - V ' • A • ..... \ : $ IN t.,... e, 0 , ' # A ,.., ..::,- -...4e,... t ,..... . 1 l • 1 . .r ' .• .... ' 1 . .-•-• • ..•-• ..• - r " .... 5 : : : , '''''''''''' .." 1 c, k / / s r' . .- . / 1 1 1 , r • .• .. -• oi -4 . ...." ..".". ,44 ...,.r::::7:-.."-- ..." ...1cf::. -••'./•- - 1`''' • 0 4 p.• t ...-..." ...'" / CI ... ...:, ...0 .1.••• ..• -- •-'" ..•••-• .... ' .. . 1. ,.... % • ,..., ........ .., ,...• a I k /. ••••• . / / I i 4 r .... ........- . ,...- • ,..--T . • ,....\ r f ; 1 ...' ...-. i i ,-- ....,.. ..........--- ..._.... --- ..--- i N .,. , \ , , .. ..... .• ' ' / i . UL' ..••••'' „,:. ' ‘ \ \ . ' . . ...• ,. ` . ' ..., , ...'''. ... 1 4: ., •• • , •••• . ..-'"' .••• • • V^ ...••••••• \ \ ••• ...•'' ,s 1 'X. . II 1 ts i P. „.::.. .. 1.---- • ..- \....--, .. 1 ,.....---- ....,- ....... 4) ' \ . •).r. •• .-'' ...... ••• . , ., , ...-• ......,„1.... ) „ % . ..f c ‘ s ).•'' ' ''''' -* ..1.' r ....' ,..- ' • .- 1 .,,-- .....-- A I -.,-; A f.• - -. < , .- , , .,... • -- ! „ . . :i .. . : ..• ,.....„..• .• -.- / :I/4 ., V\ ..\•-.) .-.,„-- ,,, „.3: - • - •'' . - - I 1 ---1 3 : ....." . t..)- ...„ . . ,o(r/ ■ t c .,, ......,......."- - ......,,...,,. .011_1 E.....-• r ..- , ,0.." ,.. .■,,...%. -- / -- ..-. -- I 1 i 1- 1 • .., '' . ,kr'' ...--- - i ... ,..t v? .4 v ), . ‘,4) - e " ''.1 41 . 4. 01 1 •-■ ■ ii , ,... 1 ; i...N.5 -- - -° • „„--- : -- - ---1-- ....,...it,- ..- $ • . .. . . ; .,... 5 ...r : ,,..,1 ,,, 4. 1 4: y: ■ 1 ... ..... ' .0.4."(•> p.% • , .,..,'" .4.„/,'''' . ..,..1* 1 44i . i 10 tr, I ' < A 6 v t-->" ...,-,-k- , ------- . „ , „ • . .. ., ,...y .„. ' Ve I - . -.. z • ---• :: \ ,..........,(„, e s,. i 1 c r..... „-- ..„,..4 ,............• , • 1 :•''' ' ',''. 1" C ... „„..../.. ,..,-- „ ,/. 1 ,,,,,; 40` • ...e ..) 4- Y ''''' • ! ae • 1 1 5 . .. • ... , , , , ' I , :• , t . ,..*. ? /X V: 9. •• - - „., .- - -- l' VG. N 4 6. lc. V) it• ..- VI % ■ .■.,,, ' ........... ...14 1 ' 1•1::.' _,•••• •*".... ...,..... .............. ..:remv.ev.vNaw.s.59;;;,,,....„..,...i:. vi 1 th * • ,, 3 I i i / /-•'.7.------'' 3." .......... 4........r.... . 1 ,—/ i • i. 313 t • • — ... • - ---- _.,...-- ..„..- • • ............„......- ...... .. c ,.' ,,..xs..t • - • -..-..---.. ... ....... .......... .• -.......,_..... - -'''' -.. ..... 1 '... . - , i :. , 1 1 1 . . ... .. ... . ... ' 11. TA 4:rir . tot .. r11 rt 4...4• r , • tt1.4- ..:..t......I. 4. .1.:111.. 4 ). '''''' - ....-----...:*''.. ' I • .....** ''''••• • .. . 1 i I j....- . . .... t U I I. s ... - . 1 I . tt. I. 41 . i .......... ..., . ' ...........:..............-- ..• ............. ....,......... 'K - • •••• ....•••.-....... ...r, .2 4•:', .*.-'.'.... g r"...1.1...1....1—r. 0 . 77 . 0 ...... 4 4: ,- --..--4 , „ ... .4: . • - ' 1 i .i. ,,I.S.P. • - - ite-.1:i .• :.. 's.•:._ . ...... -, . '3' •e : : tv t ..-: - . , ....•, I '''..111P--.'''.% i MI ---.., • I I i -- : +, • '....44?-r-:-.1,.....z. ..\ • ''• '•• '• '• ••••.. --,.... '•■•.. . .. .". -.-.. i . 1 • : ' .... "P ..... - , • '...."••^ . ..-..., 1 1 1 . , . , 1 .-.1 Iv+ +9 1 <41:r 2 ••.„ \.. ‘. N e) FT . — "` Ne* •••••... N:• ... (,) ••A ® ../ .." e 1,, „ ,„ _ :, • 4, .....,..% ,t . ■ . --L ..... 1-- • 1 ''''...---::-..::::- .. ..1.-1-. --- T ..., )• : , .., . . . • dr . %el* i,,,,,Iv... : L 1 1 i''''N . 1 • ...... - -.... - --..., -....... . 0 —4 i ...> • 1 1 : .1, lel:* :: • Z i 1. ' .... ........ // . --...—'\ \ • - :"<*4 .1 : i '"-T i .1: - • I ' 4..1..1.. ...;'i , - -- -... .... 1 ' • ,., . •:•• '; • • . . . . . . '.•,..,/ •••.-.• .-....: I • : ..-•;"-- • • • " • t '.. . , c) is. • . i _ , , ..1 , i • - :4 -..' • • '; .1.. ;. 1 --- ,..,.....- . - .,...,... - -.., I -. 1• . 1 . .... ... 1 1 " I 1 1 : i 1 ' . : , 1 e -.1 ro re .7... . \ i ,.,1 . i \ . 1 ki-- - i . . t...., *=.1.1 1 , . 1 20 , c, ••,-,:•. 1 1 , . ‘. i tii . 1 1 / 6 8- pip ) ,t:.: NS . ::(1. . SS i.. i \ r4 • ... rl 1 \ I I I I I I 1 / . k 1, . I . 1 • A... , ; • . •••• 1 • I l , .....• :..., , : \ r •■•.,, '■ ' : i I l 1 ' i t - \.. . . • i 1" i . . ----- -- i_i___Emamtt, . i_ •_.. „ „.- • I . I . i 1-.. ---...... . . ......„..... r..,,,,,, . NOVIAIMWs SA 1 ' . i 4. - 1.1 ....... ( ..: 1 17 • . a i i .. .• I • # :** 1 . I i ‘ .- . I l 3 : : 1 ti I 1 1 • 34 44 0 : W ti ). , 1 1 :F 1 i t 1 I 1 • 41 t I , ..... . 1. \ 1 \ i R IS 2. 1 II I '*\ \ _ I...., ( .4 C.; . • 1 k I 1 I ' \ • - 3. . % 1 1. ' . • .3.3 I 3 t 1. 1 . I . . f.:. 3 I , I at3 \ 1 \ I \ , .;:%l'ir: 1 XI 0 Iii $1. 4 :..1 ;.:,' ; ,'.: ::, - , \ 0. t. , . ,‘ .,,,‘ ,, i I ; t% '0 \ , , 1 : •., ■ 1 ,, \ \ % \ ....... . • 1 1 ‘ I 1\11"11" . \ \ ,,, l 1 1 1 61 -41: 1 LA P.:, 41.4 1 ••• 1:5 ..,. i I \ \ \ \, \ s, \\\ ' L. e..i:l.. 4 .\.. 1 T \ ... ,,,, \ \ • . . 1 I \\ .. 4 '1 1 '1 . : , • • • \ Vc N . , • 1 • / 1 \\ \ . ' .. • * . .;•;• • 1 iN • 10 ; ,,,. s , ..:.1 ... , ...... ".., . . 1 ...,..I.... i 1 .)--„--- . \-... ......,.....k.....- „ ..- ... ... .._,. . ... . .... , . ..... ....... „ \\ ... \ . . 1 -- N. ... ..,-;.) ... 46 i ; .. . \ \ \ ‘.. .N... >1,.• fgt ,....,,,, '.....: ..... ; . . I : \ \,,,,, ,. ; ; • . • - / e N ' '' I T . ‘N \ z -!, ) ..3... , 1 ...% , ..... L ; n . \ \\ • \ ,/,,./. .../. ----...,;,-;...:. ..,..... . , ...- , . '`, \N y'',• ...1. - . -........-... / p \ y„.- ..-- •...... ..... ... ....... ....,.... ,.......... 1 , 1 • T t .. r" 4-1 2• IS' . .1 */ .....;.::?. \ • / , I .. . I , ., 7 . . I :si .. '. ''' • 1. : .__{ ::: Li 1 5,t , .4 .""P ......... ! 1 ‘ . • , 2 ri" L..1 i 1 " : ,..... ,, .<.., ',.... ...,..... .......... , ..... (:*'4,..1 r i /• r:: i 1 1 ---% i. . . -;■.e.;* 1 , / 1 :76 - = ., .../ in 7 \ r.- . .. 0 , •.• 0. ...-....e..... . iv ..• , i .............., c ...., ,./ .. 1 -- „.. ,., .,...• ..„ 7 , , / 4 . i- to . \ '• . .... - --I c . - N . ..--vs• k,.. ...... A.S;'f.: . j t I .-...4 . i / ...„..1„., i... ..i...7 r i •A l i g 1. co 4' C IP • j'il^ .6: ..,.. ' 1 - 1 . r ' f : .. 1 •*-" . 1 1 r - 1. - ',' . ';:.:- I '''...r. I 1 'T-"---i(11 ... .. 1 1 -... - .--.... -... . , ,. , 1 ti•P :_ . i I , .../ • to I.,. b II. /7. . 9 ' • g '-': i ' .• -'. , ., \ '.. ‘••,.. 0 40 1 .,.. 4 „ , ,.. (7) i.i. .., i:' -7 N .6 tO 3 1: j'., ,,, :,N i V. 4 ! ''') 1 . • .: i ,;.) ! tz, . 4... . .. I .46..,. . N. ... . I .4 ,../ t oft 1 0 ' 1 2 ...... 1 1 I : - . ..1 I ' t •4 I / 0/ I ! i 1 \ s ' .i.*: i : . • i .4 - . .^.-^t.• ■ , - ■ 4 . if .. ..., .. :,.. • ' - '''' -- ' ,. .i .... --- /E, 1 1) , 1 T ,'' ' ./ ) 441 - -.-....,- ri .T. 4 1 I cirIXT 1 i , ..I., • f • * 4:: . • ' * ty. I ' .. "A ' I 3 •-i i' I I • • . 1 . .... .., ■••, 4.1 b 0.. N ..: ES • : 1.....i. :0 1 4. ...., 31 141 44 a. os is . 43 -4 ( A ..., ....t 17 ::... •4 ' " . '. - , .. • ' i ) t •.: (•• .4 1$ . d.. -.5 -1 ,-t : : ' :- ' t '' - •-') / ."( ' 4 ) \ 6 ■ 44 L 1 i 1 M 4 1 . P3 t ,-.1- t : : f..,..1....-. ..1......,....1....i _ 'r ‘.......ti . ...,.;.........-, I:: ........ 1.. ...1- : st 4...4.....7.--..4--1... .. o • I • ....J._ , • t . i . . • 6 .' Ct P .................. ._ _ ' ... __ , ... 1 4 a l e- . • .. . 1$1 i 1 • I 1 1 ..,..._ .. . . 1 ' i .... - - . r ' - i --- •••••••"..- . h I in " : : - 4 • . ' • 1 , .V.I.. e ut 14 e l .. -. - 1 -- - -. --: I :0 ..:;, .,. ,, :r4 .. k J. 4 1., . 12 S , ••!' . ' :4 ''C 1 - g, OA 0 Nt 0, 1 6 4 4.: 1 ;,.. r.... : ..4 ■ :. : .:i : ..1: :), -.% 0 0, $x N • • r.., $s ' • : • ..,., _... .,i . . . • •• Z 1 ei : ..* .., *41..., ...I 2 '17 . . i-3,4 r 4. i • 9 i 1 , t`l , 4 1,.4..... ..•. • . ,.. ...„1 , . : . . :cc.: I -- • -- - - , . .-. , . .1 . 0.1 I . . 31 2...1 1 1- i i , i • ..e.. :. . : ,... : ,. • 4 •,, .3. i .. r.t1to N ) .1 .2.: 1 • • P. t•-• «• g ,.. !,. (• ) . I . (., ..., ..... ...... c, . ,...... 4 ,„ ,.... ... . I y.. : ...• •• :*: IV •• t • .4 •■ •• : ! ; , i .■:.. ; 1 . : PUNti‘01 , • S:V f.... i P4 ' ...i_ L. I. ._ 1 i 1.1 ___.L._,. .:. ..--..-..- -; - A-- -- -I I 4 I I L,......i s .„ .; • ' % . . 1 -... ..."."- I r I I • E. OP t , s. .....-- . ... T.. . c :- I 1 • . A 1 1 ; 1 _., c., * ; ; ; 1 ..'= , \,, \ \ ' ---' - ..-1- . .. • .. - .. 1 . .. ..... _ . a , t .... .... I. _ ..... ... ..,.,-; .,.... :. „.•.,.• \ ■....w I \ . ; ;.., ... I •• ., I ,,, ' l 1, 1 44 1 ,....,. ..r i ‘t, rit ,....... 4...1'0 , ......... 1 ' • ••••••• 1 1 I i N. „ ...... 0 1 • /... '' % y 1 i , 1 ).•••••-•'...' . ,...•••1 . i , .. .-. % k % \ ' k)k : 1 / ‘ \ ‘ • ....•'''. • , ---- • ....••••"*" •.,, :0 1..• ./.••' 1 , ..1•'• ,•• * .••• ''' ••t". si, SV° vi • ; V te .. \ % \ \ \ ;,.......1 I ." o k 0...""...• r 1 , ., J--, .. ....•• .,,... ...... • • 1... 41..q ,.... i .• . .„, . „ , 1 .1. ...„,...._. ) ■ 1 ANE:- i , N .• '„ :: '., ; .. *" . • *c I \ ; „.I..= " - is co % ...-- . - - .........-^1, . '. tv ...., .- - • - • • ' • ' • ---- ` ‘`:::- \ . .-•-' - 3 V.C> 11 ' .1 \ c.) 1 „ ..1 i ..1'' • ' .... ' ..." . „ ..pi' 1 + 6" CIP v . ;lorto . , ,,e ° - "I • -•, t • ,..... (..) • . ....„ • .•••■•• ... ..• • ' t ' • t " )cil • N ' g ''' ''. .• ,-...." .„; . . -. I c r ?,,, 1 ; 3" • ......:••••••••"-- \ , ....-' 1 ' .. .. -- * ',' .'• I i' t.: t 'II .-.-----. - .... ,.......-. , .. s ....N 1 i al , (' 40 ' ' • ' . . . .,....";4 ;# , e 9 ..'.. t. .. - 1 ; ." ; ,. i ..., Lk; \ .,., ; i .........s4. - . ,.• ...*:„:40,•• .41,•:. ... -• ''-''''' . C ‘P ........ .... 1 1 43 ' , IV ' ° 1 C.) 11:0 , ve-'• ■ ,./ I, ........- ,. ,., , ,.....- -•":„-• ................„ ,...„ ...„ .... ---... , ... . ..,,.„;„,-- ,.....-.„..........-• , . „., , • •t ...,. J . .• ........., .........„ . .,.., .„, . .., _ - :. , \ ..!, : ., v- • / „)" ./4 11 : , , .. . • ...A.,. •-•,,....4,,``'''''• • --3, r 7 ,. " .../ .."' / t ! i __,.. - ...1 - . • . , ,.... i i , -. .. , • . , "., . ,., r* 1 •!•••. ..); • • ) ; ,.1; . •,A L ./.. .,0 /0 • ,„1 ..4 .' • z, . , ..,......•••-.....................-.",•• , ....,$,,,•, ...-::.- . „•-• „. - ,... x ilv - ,,-" .0 ./ ‘. ,••••• ..,,,, ?.. ! '4. I • 4 : A .-- - - .:',.... ' : ? - e:) , J ...‘ - .--' i' .'. / ••' • • • I .y. . . : ,..j...--- ... .....--- ... :,... .. .,....-a .......:..-;; : 77---- . 4. 4, 0. . - ' .. --• . - - ./ ...: 1 x ../. ., :::44 , .•.......;;„...,„, [......... 1 ., ,.:.,. • ,. ,.. ...• , , ,.. . .. ...., • ... , ,•.i.. 1 ., ,..: .. ., . .. . • . ..• ,, „. . " .:: ,..... , 3 :-.4.. ... ... . .,... ,..--: . ..- % ' ". t lit■- (6 ti: .....: . ' .... ,- t' . t' ..t ' ,.... ./ ;.. ....•'' Caik f 14 t_ AV E .1 ; ti .•: ,. .. . - . .•••..-- ... . „.• . . . - - . .,.. .. . ...- - .. .. .... ," • . • ..• . - ,.....• , . , .• , ..... t . . .....„ ........ ...1. ,... • .... •• . .-. ... .... .. - .;:•,. .. .. :k, , • • ,,. . : , • • .,..- , . cs, i .. .. ...: • , • i . . .., C...1 t CO ,,.''. ••.) 1 . • . • ..• , / , .... . • 1 s) ,' • I ....t" . ■:•; ...• ' 1 I•L l' / ' ..• .. ' ' .. ‘• N I . • • : , ..1 .... I : ' . . ...• .• .• ••• :.- •N x . . / 4• • .. ' . • ' ....,,,' • ...' .• 1./ ,' . •'•; . .' . . :... .. . . ...• .• , A ./. .:: •• '',.' ' .. ,, .• \ .), r- :).% . .......• .. ' .; .; .. r; ..,..,.. •• ,., ..- .. .. , • ••• ;..) . ,. . •. ' +.... , C..... 4.. .....,.. . ...... • ... .. •/. • ' .'‹. .■ .... . • 4 ... • ''''' .,,,... •-• .....- ' . . '' .... / N ,./ v '"i■ k; , . .-- . . .- ■ . ,. ...,...- . ... s s. . ....-.... :.... . ' . -- ...,- ' . • ''' . . . . ...- . . ..-: .j .. k . . .. . . ' • .t • ''.. l'• % - ' ': • It - .- . .. e . ... : • • I —......Ltrl • --- tiosauum 'lard 'ss s4u3.14).1v 1 L*44005143 • l K. N45.01•Pr sa3eixassy 1:\_t ---- — -------- „; „ g 1 i II W NtliaPLA, I .-, i ,/,/ 1' If' • 1 aupasou r fe / / •""• 1 00Jzsucta / ,, i / it> li I i 1,, / //x ,-..'; ' ,„::::•-• . . .. 11 • „.,,.• • ,,. 2661 `,t,eivnNvr , CI3S1A i 1/ • S I. - NI / 1/ 2 • „ 1-- i /./.',,,, /----• IF, ' \ / e . . ,./ ` / 00 • 'I ' 13-1V)S Et 1 .< . 1 1, / /, ft /'-' . , , . . . . , ; . • 4- ••••••1-'71----d-71 ilt , . i if / ' 1 s , . . •••”, .• ..... . .. . • . . .' .., . , t 1 y ,, ., . . . ,....„, ,.. . . . . , .. " • ., .. ... . • 00c, 0 • . , ...... _., • IA : . : ,,„, ,, . ., . . . , ... ..,. ...•.. .. • , , ..-.:::::-:;-_-,-.-•----------:.,: ,...,• , ., . . . h- , ,... 17,...„ , ; .. . 1141,, aa • , . . , ; . • . „ • , • • , c i • , • • • •• , . • d. / 1 . • 1' 1 '4 0 • • al . . • • \\,,,„. „,, /1 1 ,, ,..,.. "• . .,;7 ),, 41, 4 ) . ' • . , , . . \ ,. • • ` • ....„.. / '•• ..,,..., ' 11 " 1••• : . 1 , . „ ...• , , . • e . , ,.•••• .,......• ,." , ,,k , '1'1 0 • ea 1 1 8 1 It / 1 i . .. .... 4 ( : ; .• ... ' X,. d • • 4 4 \ , . • . Vill 831MV I Ii •••,,, . "•• . . , . . . . . . . . • , .•• ,• ,- , .st • • : ...11 •,,,,,, , :.) 1 1 p 'i .• .• . ..... • i 1 111_ -• = . .. - i li .. i . .• .• . . , , -, . , .• .., • , . - 1 1 , , , , r" 1 . • , , , ,,., .• , : . , 1 , • n T.; . • .. I r i . . 1.` .. . i t • , , \ 1 . : •.. 1 ‘. .,,, . - . ■ \ • , ...... ; f• 1 /,) \, , I • • • • . . . , . • , i ... . . - i . • . .. )1, I - .... • . i /I . . / . • . . . . . ._ .. •7 _ , i / 1 ,• ..- i ......, „...............„_.,.. / s „ .. / I I ; ., ,.......„ . . „„„ . .............—...........-- ..........,............ — -,........../ ...f.”.......1 :t•r ,• i .. • - : . , L • •( \• .. 1 • . . \ t• : • ,, • ' . ' . 1 • 1 ; • • ', • 1 , 1,, , , PFP'• is . .t , - ;•. ; i • ., , 4 • ' -J 1 . ,„ •t 'i .-- . -••,. \ -•/••••• it---".••••"----w-..4.- .\\._.." A r, , • / . •: -•..:-' .. .. I (c. 9 , , : • • ! ... . ; 1 , . . .s • ....- -2 •• ;,- '.• •I 1• s - • , l' • t f' ,,44`..\ . • aaal '''' I ' 1 1 .... 1 . r 1 .-. 1 .'1 ,9 .... 1 .... ) . .:1 ' 1 ....., ..... --'.. .,......,!. ; „i!,,..! . . . . . . . .., . , . . . . ., : ....., \ ,,;.; is , ,, ; ...,.....• i • 1 i , : •.. ..... . - \ I s, ., \ '• , : i :: f 9 •• • i i .. i \v,„1.,.,,...,...i.........y...k7.„_..t...L.i....i......./..2. / 1 • ..- .. ... '.. •:.."\, . . .,.,....,„,„ i • -,......14--;•- f , g ,.." \-..-..\ et i v e ... . • iti — - --.:•• - ,- livi 1 '.! --414-=-1----- f. * ,.... , 'IV : ' - '1 : ,, I It!' .. , s‘s. ,..._ , ,•••••, -,-t f" ' ' , :.r. xl • 1 . i • i ! ,, . , 1-: .- A.. , ffi5.6 ",..,,f-1,,,_.._,,,s.,_,.._.f—..e.,,,../1 \''''\ , ':.' -,, 1 ' , ' ! , ! . I -4 . -1.- 1 v .: . A ‘,,,,•,,,,.. f. - 1 p 1 [ .: , .#, ..0 1. ,.. I , ] 0 ,,,.. / ,-., r.! •,..,., , : •• -- \ • - • ••,) ,1.- -.• -- ---1- •i •._ I r ., :;''e" :' 0 ' 7 . . "' ''' """. ( i - 1 F 'IQ , . s . .1 "'" 4 IA ';'' k \....,02,,.. A . ; , 4 ,'„.t •• t• ',-, it e :, •••• . • , . • ,,,,.. ‘‘‘‘• t:::: \ \ ' i --- 1 I i A , :1,, , 51 -, , :,..J i'i s ;• i ,. • . i 1 t i - ' s . • • 4 4. - ' ' : • 1 [ 7 1 ' \ ,.....!. \ '' - -- 1, L I ' - 1 - „---, • • / al1C ..- L 1..1' Ili 1 I ,1 t. ' . ' / I ' ? ' j11! • a' VW ......, ...... ' ........ •• \ ' ' '1, 1, • riltn ,'T•iTiT \ tI --'• -- ,9 " ' ''.. •ai5;: -. . „..... i I ° ; .... .4 , - 1z •- 1 i.. \ \ '. ri . ,.. 1 t . !...., ........ ............_.......... _____ ..... . • . •• \ .•;••••• •• - - - - • -\ - if, ..1 )••6 i• ••• •••• , K.... \ ; \ ., . \ 'I ..\-1 ' i • ,:•• %>•.• .: ...1 ',.„ ..i . g ---', 4 .----------------- :.,, , , •••••.•• \,,s:::,,j).) ., ,....., • , • -7 P *Mt . . ' \ , 4 , .V6:>V: - . m:t Z . t.• ;• '" `, aCO• ". ' , i ' \-.., • .1 i V 1 el 1 - . .1 : ,.... ,. ,, - --; ,.. . r ,„ ,,.........z . i Iv v 33 .1.4_,,...S-11 - ' N \ 4X" ' \ . . • \ \ -.. - \ \ : ,, I., • - I, 1 1, ' . G. ' ; " ,, a '•, .." 1 . w% N \ s , s \ , a , \ ' , t , , t a . 1 , , . , . , k \ ... - ... • \ I \ ''''" \ • • . • ',' .,,.: - f' ; :•- '') i . • *.. ' ; ; r •.'':-.- i' •••••‘:1 r v • i N \ \ . I 1 ■ , ', ,, '., N■ '' . a Z 2 ,. j II 1 1 ..--- 0 .., ••• \ , •,,... ....... tt., 1 , ..... -.T., ______4.._ ,„.••• 9 0 \ \ \ ' ' „ iio..s ..,._ . \\ \ •4 \ , \ .I 0,, , 1 --1 7 fv".7 1 2.5 11 rarglIVT r - r .,, -1 . , . . ,,,,,,, . , 4 \ , . . SI . .. .., , , ._,...--\ { 1::::::: 1,..'• --- - ..::•1 . .. - 1; . --- i,i, -- "1 : r'r ' ' , ,,,,r , ....,,,,,: : , 7 .., ;•9'.<rI : . , „ , \ ■•., \ \ 1 , '• \ . .• a , .3 i . . .... , .'\ \ '' \ / •• ?d . \ ••. '- k 1 •-• ,;, t,...?. •-• ..... „---' r ... 44:.4 . 1 !, ,,-, / . . . . 1' „'' \\ S < 0 • 4 • S ‘ is , \ '•,-;..s.A r .„„ .t,‘.‘. :--!..it..--/ i....... iL. 2,..1 • • , ,.... „, „„ ,... , ,,s,, -,...„,..,,,,,, , .„ 4 '. 1 ...._t ... ' ' \ % \ • ..-•\ 1 , s , \ • 111 • 1 1 . . ..-"'• 1 , , ,‘” L. ..... .. ,_,..... - 47 - „... 1 ..,•, , %. \ ••z\, t, , , ,.. \ ,- , z. -„; 7.-..,.... ... - 1. , :t. 7 p•tig f& ----,-- . ....-- s s. 14 , .f...\\ k 1 \ "" _ \ ‘', 1 . \ • .!, 4 1 1 ' • ..... ' ' '' i ‘, \.!...i 1.••••••FI. ••••• 2-- -4- t -. I f A V ... ... . 1 .,- -t----f....: . ' ''. ''" ' ' ' '';,,“ s\ \ S \\, , ,-()\\ \ s ' \\'' li • 1 off ' \ V .... ^ ' , i. -:. .... 7,-0 . I:. ---•,' ---------- .. • . ,s-" \.y., \-s,-,1 ,.....:,-... .. : . -,....12-.- t,- i . .. .... - ...,......,,,_ R....,...... :.••• "c„.7.1.7.7. .......!`:111:::i.t \ ss,,,, • , a I - Cg E o ltli \ ' -- ill - " - "9:f "" i;ia' . - - - \ \ 1 \---- \ \ • s, N \ 415 :. 1 . 'c,:,, ..... ..!....... ;... R!.... ..!...Ak. - ...9' 1 .;... -.E '" \-- v. , q. ‘, \ ,■ \ \ , . , , lf '.4:,..` S \ \ S, ' \ i I " - , -- p \•i f:::•.-IAH4.r1-9 I ,--!----- \----, ‘ • , ' , . ', - - i i A 44. g ' . . , d. ' , \ \ \ ' X • ''----71. .s•"4/-*""' ,,,.......... " • - - . ...:.1-;---- 1 • f, '\ ..... .. .. ... '-- ••• ' •••• •••• •••••:- °,... \ •••''Z,. ',, •-,-- - ••'; 1 :::.: 1 • I 1 ( i••---••••ii ;.. -F. .,-./".' ...,. ...... - ,..... \ •z•,,,, •.. : `,\., , \ \ >••••f 9.1-•••••1• • • • • -li•-c• ..... -- ‘ \ kr 1 .441-- N '. ' • ' 1 t - 1 t 1 ' --: " - - ' = \ \ i 1 I 1 ' 11,-.3 --- -- ''''' .. ------ „ . ... ......._ \ \ \ s ‘.,, \.......... .... ‘ ' L• .. . .. . ....,..,, • . t -----:- I • el 3 • ''' '''''i- ••-•,,.- --• fr.f.f„`:•'!, .....1% i 1 17.:V,..., ,•,‘,,/,' /, -- 1:' I • ... . . IS i 41 ■ i i . CS 4161 e 'etioiit , r cep m ,: 0 • ' - --Tee .---i ; , 4- .- "- • \ ' ‘ ' •••••••'.. ' ' 1 ' 1 _1 ‘,..„,,\ ,,,,,,.., \ ,..$ . s , t .......„ .... ... .., , / / /;„. /..„,,,,\\ , / „..._ r,-,", .$."..- i . i $ I , il .,.. ; .,,, ... ... 1.11 ...,$. I -4:$> ,, \ V r ag li r 1194 If 7 7 . 1• \ A \ / •. el (.... t 7.1 , ..;,. *- Ito' • A ', \ , ' t' - 4 - " ' i \` .... ;•--• t• '•-1 \ , 1, ,,, \ ''',. %. V \ --" ; • 3 4 t • •'•;:-. ••• ! • ti ill , 1 // ' i j \ ‘ C . ":i1 .t il -, E I : 1 i -------- 1 Ti. TT r •:o,'..\ , -1 • 1-•••-1 , c 1,.; Y .; I f"1.* / / .• \ '; '', ' Vk ‘. .i ';', e l : I' / , \ ‘ \ '' VA fl "::.7 L. ..„,........1 1 ',,,,,• 1 ,,. 1; . c • O'T• - " 0 4 " - ' itli • I • . \ , 7 t Y. 14 4 41 ' I 1 f.. 4 ji I $ i ,r1 i H ' I 1 t ‘ •2 7: 1 4 1 3. 144 'ai i ' .... 749 '1 Fier 6 '.''' C2 i _,, __, ,I 1.... as, f," t zit zit i scr: t : • , , \ '''•• , ‘, \ t \ g a / ''' .1 LI - 1 ' i :::iI...... 11 • ' ', , 17.,--..- .., ... : ; r! r 1 . f.z. r t o tatoTakziar :alea .. I* 4 i , . . . V / r" 1 l , . ..... ,1,.....,:...... i ! fli i , f f, f • I I T4 ,, 'me) ;v.-UM/1:i VZIAS 41 .',..V- ''' T :1 i i I. - 1. .ii II. fs 4 -f • .. \ s ... ..-..r! ,....-...:.7. , • .. v,"„:.:,:.::,., : .... s_. ,......_,..• .........a... . / . I di, ..9 '" . \'.% \ '‘,\ / i i ; --- --- " -9 ...../ ----) ......i.....i r'si:1'14k1 • 1: [ !I ' 44'119'; I ,. . • \ .. \ ,,. i ; , • ; ; -* ...........•.,, . ,,,, .,,,,, ,„,, l ial • !1?:.S.%11111.02t1:1 1 / , , , ,... 1 . ir i ' I , • 1•\ I 1 ■ . , \1;•• . __ "s . .. .., c.2..., ‘`, ,. s t . .I. '''''' I -4.-;--1-- - • 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^al 4 . • • 0 • 4 4 1 : 1 , , 1.'''' —1 i s. • . , .•1 . , . ,. ,, .... 1 I ,,, ap , ■•••., -. ,',- j , 1 , i I • ', 1 ., ' 1 , ', li i • ! i 1 . [ I : ; ...... ...... . , . \ '•.„. . , . . ,1 1...------- m '..;';;;;^;1- i 1 --',.; i -- - "--".." --..+,; _.. „1 .. , .„. --..._ ...... • .. ..•• ; , , \ ''', \ ......., •„, • ,......1%. \ ,,,, • . . , , a..“315 , ,' ' VI , 1.. '-2:1: ..... 4-'1' I i rta .- 11 1 .. - ; E 1:£ , i1V , . , •.' 1*), ro- ,. ,......... • \\ \_ ....„. \ ,,...„,„ , \ .. \ \ :, \ ,,,,(4 il , , .....e 14, qf Stlin it ... , . 1 • . '' ' . .' 7, ':;,-% \ % 's, I \ : -) li 1 IX I \ % \ j r4a.,,-. rra t. /..1 i .. t ■ i --I i , J. • i t ", , 1 \- s' 1" \ \ \ , ,....., N :.: ;;.:, •• ., ......,,-.._±-,•: T . ,. . . ,$ „ . [$ , : : 7 , ,1.71r.i.;., ,.7, 1 i --:,,„, • 's, 's„,„. (-,.., \ ‘ \ 1 ''.., 1. ' / i; , ; - ell7 9 ail _9 , „ • \ ) \ \ ',. ''--. \ " 1 1 \ ': 1, 1716/a Fri ilii'Ai ',. i \ .1\. ,):...1- -,--.•'• - \ \ \ \ i ',, ' 1 : . 4.3 , V VII / /— /- : 1 t 1 * 1 f ••, if „ r ; ; 1 I... •••••••••• ' - 4.3...,...--• -, ‘ \. ! ; k \ \ l „ . .,,,.,,,,, age r .. a _.. ,Izer,,k, $,-. , k '.: L.-- .--- --.... ---: ,.. s •f 1 \ \ ; 1 \ . _.. i iiii r 't e .. 1 11 II 1 • : OI o 1 • ' t bf - 1-- x 't i't • ',.. \ . , .... 1 ... „,., i..t1, e it p' 11,1, v i., al Ha Is I 414 1 I I 414 4 d, II1, 14 , '' ,, 11 th (ei ' ''' \ I . 1 \ \ ? --. .. -2. ..... li...i..ti...,.. a d il) i -- 1-- -- 1 - 1 i 1 ' . .-..r.,...-.1.--J. - 1 \ 1 \t , !, 1 " • -.-...,..., -.,..1 .......... 3WAV.3S .‘,.. ' '' \ " 1 \ '‘•' 1 1 1 ' --1. ' t-'-- - - - ..... 4" 4 1 j i I Ii31404 ' : 1 I ' H4t1+ Ly..ipli .tt - • - ' r_ : . •:.....7 ; ,- riir -1 \ - \ ; \ 1. 1 1 ‘ ..._....,_...,„.1, ,.. ,......._ `,-." .................. sliz I:slat s Irehlttitil, 01 42 i/r i r .., p .,., I ., 7 N. i t, , • " . -I t i ,1 1!, 1 .. ...": .. ...1.7.. , : 1 ,. . . .1. __ \ \ \ - ,1::i.::::' , ..-.1 .... . .1.-+ -1 .i..-. !---- -- l - t ! 1 e l ! ' - • 1 7i..,'. ....,,.. .:;._ 1 .: 3,1.telS ,31V \ 1 --- a *1.. t‘Ixt r i,1 I tA ,t1oz1 i • Ix li ,i, 014 Ii+1 .,, , I ' ''' 1 a, ....„ (....i ..1 I..t ;......... ;....; 1 : ... 4 to : ,.......,....„....„,.-,...1 L . L.: .2_.... .._:,..:zzi \ V :"\:\ \ \.. \• \ '0 \s ..........._____.:,,..:.-.::::.-.. r .:.,...i.. 4 .4.1/2.3_,..1.......... — ,..1._ _ --C tt \, \ . :. , ,. • , . . . \ v,,,, , :. 1 I a* ..9 13124 IS r i4 V.,1) ld'39-istra 1 i : i 1 . __. . . 1 ....# i ....e,..... 1 11 zi so 4 " ‘7.) 4 . si .... " ......t 1 i , n v . . b. t... • V ti • . 1 ..... .... * . 1.. . 4 1 . , . . Ki '' (A ....iii..:3:4.–... ''... I / • . 0 0 N t . o N.. 0 ••• ........www • 1 i : 1 :, . Sti. --- 1 ... ....I + ......... .„ 1 0 • 4 i 1 ti * 4; : 4 0 . § i 1 t ; . .. 1 t 1 1 1 . ..: .... ..# ,,. 4.. us s - 1 .......t...... 4. . .... • .. 1 1 0 P R ES •-9 ..... ...... ". 2 ' • P. 1 k ' 1 . 2 ST 'EFT . ' . 4., \ \ - . .. „....... ri.--.‘ ••• ... ••• ..... ... .............. . • , . ..-.. 1 1 .. I 1 , 4 , I i \ 4.) r t; I .4 }i • J i iii I 4 ' a : .-.'. i;': - - '' - :.• :v" is I b r 4,4 It 1 :•'; 4 i i 1, • . ,........_.....». ..... . \ 1\ 1\ ; • H I I s ' * v. 4: 2 711 hCfp i ! . III \ \ts w \ ... ...1...1....., ..1 _ ....-- ........ ...i.. ... ....1.... ... * ..... ... 0 •-• • • 1 t % k % \ r-- ;\ t, \ %. I Irli \ 1 \ 1 ,„ , , , \ P...., 44 1 e A 1•4 •-• !SC -•8 'X :X X. ut e4 • ••' : i 6 .4 i i 41 i 'V \..... ■P ''' 1 \ ; %,k. \ \ \ . i i ,• ". .. -....I...".......f...... L.if...kik:....1.4.kti L1" ' 2$ ..1 . . \ ,•., \ \ \ *—.... • 0 ..- , \ \ \ >,... .„....." I 1 1 I i ._...,,_ T ------ 1 1.1. - ' L t ., . .., . 'f • , - 1 .. .-- , ...- 9. ... .,, a .4 al Ij ....'..- ..... I ' o'l 541 .,. ... .. . ..... ,.. ...' ... < ti • 0 • • .... . ..- -., ,-. 1•:A 0 --i ." .., .. ••• , i" s ■....• • ao , ' • ., . • e• .::. ., . .... .. . ...' . \ ..- .. I i . ... ....) • f / ... .::".• ../ \ 0 • 1 . .L •-.4. . *. .. Il r I t ..,-. „.... ,. ..— / . . • t ....,... 4- ",--. •,.,1 . .. .1..- ... - . , . . . • . -- .-- ...o-' ••" ' ... .,. . ..• ... --' .... , . . ... • --- ; , 7 4 . .. . ... 1 I i i i I • ... ,, • i f ' .. 11 / ' 1 .. : .. .... ... : ... !. ' IS 1 111111111.11111111111.1111r f _ Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Keith A. Gordon, P.E. James R. Maland. PE Rene C. Plumart, A.I.A. Bonestroo Marvin L. Sorvala, RE. Jerry A. P.E. Agnes A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark R. Rol s, P.E rson, Jerry rry D. Pertzs h, P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. Mark A Hanson, P.E. Thomas E. Angus, P.E. Cecilio Olivier, P.E. . Rosene Glenn R. Cook, P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, PE. Gary W. Morien, P.E. wri Thomas Noyes, Anderlik & Robert h G. S ucht , PE. Howard A. Sanford, P.E. P.E Philip p J. Caswell, P.E. Caswell, R. Yapp, P.E. p, P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. Ismael Martinez, PE. Michael P. Rau, P.E. A ssociates Ted K. Field, P.E. Mark D, Wallis, P.E. Charles A Erickson Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. Leo M. Pawelsky Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Gary F. Rylander, RE. Harlan M. Olson Engineers & Architects Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. Michael C. Lynch. P.E. L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON UTILITY RELOCATION PROJECT RIVER CROSSING & TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA MARCH 1992 File No. 55 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the study reported on herein is to identify the design and costs which would be incurred within the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota for the modification and /or relocation of existing City utilities which will be necessitated by the proposed St. Croix River Crossing and the related improvements to TH 36. Much of the City's water and sewer systems located along the Trunk Highway 36 corridor are located within the existing rights -of -way and specifically in many instances in the ditch section between the highway roadways and the adjacent frontage roads. If the TH -36 corridor is designated as a freeway, most of these facilities which were allowed by permit will have to be relocated. Because the proposal is to depress this highway some of the existing utility crossings will also be in conflict with the new roadway grade which will also require reconstruction. This report will identify those facilities which will probably have to be relocated and /or reconstructed and will provide a cost estimate for this work. 55.rpt 1 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612 -636 -4600 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS The utility construction activity define herein is based on the current Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) concept plan for the northern alignment of the St. Croix River bridge in the South Corridor and the improvement of TH -36 to freeway standards with interchanges at Highway 95, Oakgreen Avenue and Highway 5. This plan also provides for bridges only at Osgood Avenue and Norell Avenue. The proposed utility construction and related costs are further broken down assuming that the river bridge and the TH 36/TH 95 interchange may be constructed as the first phase of the plan with the improvement of the TH 36 corridor to follow at a later date. For the purposes of this report it is assumed that the utility relocation work could be limited to the area east of Panama Avenue if only the river bridge and TH 95 intersection were constructed. A portion of the trunk sanitary sewer between Beach Road and just east of Stagecoach Trail will be within the limits of the freeway right -of -way and in accordance with existing rules will have to be relocated so that access to entrance manhole is outside of the freeway fence. Because this line is currently located within existing City streets or easements, this relocation costs should be a part of the highway improvement program. The highway construction will probably also require the lowering of the sanitary sewer crossing between Paris Avenue and Panama Avenue. The TH 95 interchange construction will remove and eliminate the entire sanitary sewer system within the intersection footprint which eliminates the receiving system for the waste water being generated in the northwest quadrant of the TH 36/TH 95 intersection. It is proposed that service be restored to this 55.rpt 2 area by the installation of a sewage pumping station and force main with discharge to the existing gravity sewer on Paris Avenue north of TH 36. The sanitary sewer construction activity associated with the TH 36 portion of the project is basically to relocate all of those facilities within the existing highway right -of -way from Panama Avenue to just west of Oakgreen Avenue. It is assumed that the sewer crossing at Greely will also have to be lowered as a part of the utility project. In a manner similar to the sanitary sewer, the water mains which exist within the existing highway right -of -way will have to be reconstructed outside the limits of the freeway fence. Again, all of the existing water main paralleling the existing highway would be replaced with a line south of and outside of the TH 36/TH 95 interchange foot print. The interchange construction will eliminate water service to the Sunnyside condominium complex but it is assumed that this will be replaced as a part of the highway construction. Because one of the low pressure crossings will be eliminated, it is recommended that an additional source of supply be provided by jacking a 6 inch diameter water main under Highway 95 just north of the Sunnyside complex. Again, it is proposed that the water mains within the right -of -way paralleling TH 36 be relocated outside of the freeway limits with new lowered crossings being installed which would rovide two sources of supply for both the high pressure and low pressure service P PP Y g P areas. For the most part, all City storm sewers are located outside of the freeway limits within the frontage roads. All crossings are original Mn/DOT installations which we assume will be replaced if required as a part of the highway construction. Only minimal 55.rpt 3 reconstruction of storm sewer is envisioned near the Osgood bridge construction area and a minor realignment near Stagecoach Trail. The cost associated with the Stagecoach Trail realignment should be a part of the highway construct because it currently exists on City street rights -of -way. COST ESTIMATES: Detailed cost estimates have been prepared for the reconstruction of utilities that will be required if the proposed TH 36 Improvements and St. Croix River Crossing proceeds based on the current proposal. These estimates are contained in the Appendix of this report. All costs are based on unit prices anticipated for the 1992 construction season and include a twenty -five (25) percent allowance for engineering, administrative costs and financing. It should be noted that a fifteen (15) percent allowance has been added for restoration, traffic control, coordination and erosion control measures. This amount assumes that the utility work can be coordinated with the highway and frontage road construction whereby almost all resurfacing and restoration activities will be undertaken with the highway detail at this time on construction scheduling, Because there is no g, p rovisions for traffic during construction, detours, by- passes, access closures and similar design information, this portion of the cost estimate could vary substantially. A summary of the estimated costs for utility construction is shown below: HEM ESTIMATED COST Sanitary Sewer River Crossing Area $337,100.00 TH 36 Improvements 397,800.00 55.rpt 4 ITEM ESTIMATED COST Water Main River Crossing Area 184,600.00 Sunnyside Complex 44,600.00 TH 36 Improvements 268,300.00 Storm Sewer River Crossing Area 7,000.00 TH 36 Improvements 57,000.00 TOTAL UTILITY COST $1,296,400.00 According to current interpretation of existing rules, the City of Oak Park Heights will apparently be responsible for the cost of rebuilding or relocating City utilities which are in conflict with the proposed highway construction and are located within existing highway right -of -way by permit. Based on those rules, the cost participation by jurisdiction as well as construction segment is shown in the following tabulation: UTILITY COST PARTICIPATION Local Costs Item River Crossing TH -36 Improvements Combined Total Sanitary Sewer $250,600.00 $397,800.00 $648,400.00 Water Main 184,600.00 268,300.00 452,900.00 Storm Sewer - 0 - 57000.00 57,000.00 TOTALS $435,200.00 $723,100.00 $1,158,300.00 Highway Costs Item River Crossing TH -36 Improvements Combined Total Sanitary Sewer $86,500.00 - 0 - $ 86,500.00 Water Main 44,600.00 - 0 - 44,600.00 Storm Sewer 7 000.00 - 0 - 7.000.00 TOTALS $138,100.00 - 0 - $ 138,100.00 55.rpt 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As noted in this report a significant amount of public utilities owned by the City of Oak Park Heights will have to be relocated as a result of the proposed St. Croix River crossing and the upgrading of TH -36 to freeway standards. The improvements proposed are for the upgrading of the state and interstate transportation systems and is of little or no specific benefit to the City of Oak Park Heights. While it is recognized that the utility construction activities will be required if the current highway plan is implemented, it would seem appropriate that the local jurisdiction be given some relief or assistance in financing these improvements. If financial assistance is not made available, these expenditures would be unusual and excessive to be borne by this very small public utility. It is recommended that the information contained herein be reviewed by the City fiscal consultant to determine impacts anticipated. It is further recommended that an attempt be made to minimize the local burden by requesting additional participation through other appropriate State and Federal authorities. It should also be noted that phasing of the highway project over a longer period of time will be beneficial to allow additional time for IC I the utility to accumulate its portion of the funding. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Cide 0. C%,.14.d Joseph C. Anderlik Date: March 6. 1992 Reg. No. 6971 55.rpt 6 APPENDIX A RIVER CROSSING & III 36 IMPROVEMENT UTILITY RELOCATION COST ESTIMATES SANITARY SEWER (RIVER CROSSING) 950 Lin. ft. 24" R.C.P., Class 5, 16' -20' deep in pl @ $42.00/Lin.ft. $42,750.00 1,075 Lin. ft. 8" V.C.P., ex. str., 12' -16' deep in pl @ $22.00/Lin.ft. 23,650.00 100 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., Class 52, 10' -12' deep in p1 @ $18.00/Lin.ft. 1,800.00 200 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., Class 52 in steel carrier @ $150.00/Lin.ft. 30,000.00 1,420 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., force main in place @ $12.00/Lin.ft. 17,040.00 9 Each Std. 4' diam MH, 8' deep w /cstg in pl @ $1,000.00 9,000.00 55 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ $100.00/Lin.ft. 5,500.00 1 Each Cut -in to exist trunk sewer for MH @ $5,000.00 /ea. 5,000.00 5 Each Cut -in to exist lateral sewer for MH @$1,000.00 /ea. 5,000.00 50 Lin. ft. Drop pipe for drop MH in place @ $150.00/Lin.ft. 7,500.00 5 Each Cut -in to existing manhole @ $200.00 /ea. 1,000.00 1 Each Sewage pumping sta. incl electrical @ $80,000.00/ea. 80,000.00 LUMP SUM Land acquisition for L.S. site @ $10,000.00/LS 10,000.00 4,000 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in pl @ $2.00/Lin.ft. 3,000.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic, erosion control, etc. (15 %) 23,460.00 Estimated Construction Cost $269,700.00 25% engr., Fiscal & Admin. 67,400.00 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER (RIVER CROSSING) $337,100.00 55.rpt 7 TRUNK RELOCATION 950 Lin. ft. 24" R.C.P. Class 5, 16' -20' deep in p1 @ $42.00/Lin.ft $ 42,750.00 4 Each Sta 4' diam MH, 8' deep w /cstg in pl @ $1,000.00 /ea. 4,000.00 35 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ $100.00/Lin.ft. 3,500.00 3 Each Cut -in to exist lateral sewer for MH @ $1,000.00/ea. 3,000.00 30 Lin. ft. Drop pipe for drop MH in pl @ $150.00/Lin.ft. 4,500.00 2 Each Cut -in to existing manhole @ $200.00/ea. 400.00 1,000 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in pl @ $2.00/Lin.ft. 2,000.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic & erosion control, etc. (15 %) 9050.00 Estimated Construction Cost $ 69,200.00 25% engr., Fiscal & Admin. 17 TOTAL TRUNK RELOCATION $ 86,500.00 SANITARY SEWER (TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS) 2,550 Lin. ft. 18" R.C.P., Class 5, 16'48' deep in p1 @ $28.00/Lin.ft. $71,400.00 1,200 Lin. ft. 15" R.C.P., Class 5, 12' -14' deep in p1 @ $24.00/Lin.ft. 28,800.00 2,340 Lin. ft. 12" R.C.P., Class 5, 14' -16' deep in p1 @ $23.00/Lin.ft. 53,820.00 200 Lin. ft. 12" R.C.P., Class 5 w /steel carrier in p1 @ $200.00/Lin.ft. 40,000.00 1,340 Lin. ft. 8" V.C.P., ex Str 10' -12' deep in pl @ $18.00/Lin. ft. 24,120.00 20 Each Std 4' diam MH, 8' deep w /cstg in pl @ $1,000.00/Lin.ft. 20,000.00 130 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ $100.00/Lin.ft. 13,000.00 8 Each Cut -in to existing lateral sewer for MH @ $1,000.0 0/ea 8,000.00 30 Lin. ft. Drop pipe for drop MH in place @ $150.00/Lin.ft. 4,500.00 5 Each Cut -in to existing manhole @ $200.00 /ea 1,000.00 8,000 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in pl @ $2.00/Lin.ft. 16,000.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic, erosion control, etc. (15 %) 37.560.00 Estimated Construction Cost $318,200.00 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 79 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER (TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS) $397,800.00 55.rpt 8 WATER MAIN (RIVER CROSSING) 760 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 cover in pl @ $15.00/Lin.ft. $11,400.00 2,730 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 cover in p1 @ $11.00/Lin.ft. 30,030.00 270 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52 jacked in pl @ $150.00/Lin.ft. 47,250.00 200 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52 in steel carrier @ $100.00/Lin.ft. 20,000.00 2 Each 8" gate valve & box in pl @ $500.00 /ea 1,000.00 8 Each 6" gate valve & box in pl @ $350.00/ea 2,800.00 1 Each 5" valve hydrant in p1 @ $1,000.00/ea 1,000.00 2,490 Lbs. C.I. fittings in place @ $1.00/Lbs 2,490.00 4,000 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in pl @ $1.00/Lin.ft. 4,000.00 1 Each Pressure reducing station in pl @ $8,000.00 /ea 8,000.00 1 Each Cut -in to existing 8" D.I.P. @ $250.00 /ea 250.00 5 Each Cut -in to existing 6" D.I.P. @ $200.0 0/ea 1,000.00 2 Each Cut -in to existing 6" plug @ $100.0 0/ea 200.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic, erosion control, etc. (15 %) 18 280.00 Estimated Construction Cost $147,700.00 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 36900.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN (RIVER CROSSING) $184,600.00 WATER MAIN (SUNNYSIDE COMPLEX) 1,830 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 cover in p1 @ $11.00/Lin.ft. $20,130.00 50 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52 jacked in pl @ $150.00/Lin.ft. 7,500.00 2 Each 6" gate valve & box in p1 @ $350.00 /ea 700.00 220 Lbs. C.I. fittings in p1 @ $1.00/Lbs 220.00 6" thick in 1 $1.00/Lin.ft. 1, 950.00 m roved pipe fdn mtl, 6 hi $ /Lin Lin. ft. I @ 1,950 P P P � P 2 Each Cut -in to existing 6" plug @ $100.0 0/ea 200.00 2.5 Acres Seeding w /mulch anchored in p1 @ $2,000.00 /Ac. 5.000.00 Estimated Construction Cost $35,700.00 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 8.900.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN (SUNNYSIDE) $44,600.00 55.rpt 9 WATER MAIN (TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS) 2,330 Lin. ft. 12" D.LP., Class 52, 7'/2' cover in p1 @ $22.00/Lin.ft. $ 51,260.00 3,520 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., Class 52, 71/2' cover in pl @ $15.00/Lin.ft. 52,800.00 400 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., Class 52 in steel carrier @ $100.00/Lin.ft. 40,000.00 100 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52, 71/2 cover in p1 @ $11.00/Lin.ft. 1,100.00 3 Each 12" butterfly valve & box in p1 @ $900.00 /ea 2,700.00 15 Each 8" gate valve & box in pl @ $500.00.ea 7,500.00 3 Each 6" gate valve & box in pl @ $350.0 0/ea 1,050.00 9 Each 5" valve & hydrant in place @ $1,000.00 /ea 9,000.00 11 Each Remove & salvage exist. hydrants @ $20.00 /ea 2,200.00 9,440 Lbs. C.I. fittings in pl @ $1.00/Lbs. 9,440.00 2 Each Cut -in to existing 12" D.I.P. @ $300.0 0/ea 600.00 8 Each Cut -in to existing 8" D.I.P. @ $250.0 0/ea 2,000.00 1 Each Cut -in to existing 8" plug @ $150.00/ea 150.00 4 Each Cut -in to existing 6" D.I.P. @ $200.0 0/ea 800.00 6,000 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn, 6" thick in pl @ $1.00/Lin.ft. 6,000.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic & erosion control (15 %) 28,000.00 Estimated Construction Cost $214,600.00 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 53300.00 TOTAL WATER MAIN (TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS) $268,300.00 55.rpt 10 STORM SEWER (RIVER CROSSING) 160 Lin. ft. 18" R.C.P., 0' -8' deep in pl @ $20.00/Lin.ft. $3,200.00 1 Each Std 4' diam MH w /cstg in p1 @ $900.0 0/ea 900.00 1 Each Cut -in to existing 18" R.C.P. @ $200.0 0/ea 200.00 1 Each Cut -in to existing manhole @ $150.0 0/ea 150.00 200 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in pl @ $2.00/Lin.ft. 400.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic & erosion control (15 %) 750.00 Estimated Construction Cost $5,600.00 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 1.400.00 TOTAL STORM SEWER (RIVER CROSSING) $7,000.00 STORM SEWER (TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS 720 Lin. ft. 42" R.C.P., Class 2, 8' -10' dp in pl @ $46.00/Lin.ft. $33,120.00 3 Each Std 6' diam MH w /cstg in pl @ $1,30000 /ea 3,900.00 1 Each Cut -in to 36" R.C.P. for manhole @ $300.00 /ea 300.00 1 Each Cut -in to existing manhole @ $200.0 0/ea 200.00 700 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in p1 @ $3.00/Lin.ft. 2,100.00 LUMP SUM Restoration, traffic & erosion control (15 %) 5.980.00 Estimated Construction Cost $45,600.00 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 11,400.00 TOTAL STORM SEWER (TH 36 IMPROVEMENTS) $57,000.00 55.rpt 11 LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 LYLE J. ECKBERG (612) 439 -2878 JAMES F. LAMMERS FAX (612) 439 -2923 ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A. WOLFF MARK J. VIERLING GREGORY G. GALLER KEVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J. WEIDNER SUSAN D. OLSON March 4, 1993 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Ms. Barbara O'Neal, Mayor Mr. Jack Doerr City of Oak Park Heights Councilman - 6213 St. Croix Trail No. #204 14520 Upper 56th St N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Mr. David Schaaf Mr. Dick Seggelke Councilman Councilman 6201 St. Croix Trail No. #121 14256 - 57th Street N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Mr. Dean Kern Councilman 5885 Oldfield Ave. North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge Construction Project Minnesota Department of Transportation and Others Dear Mayor O'Neal and Council: We had previously been requested by the Council to address the City's options as it affects the announcement by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of its intent to implement construction of a new interstate bridge across the St. Croix River at the location identified and also as it affects the Department's desire to reconstruct Highway 36 either in conjunction with the bridge construction or thereafter. The City did receive an indication from the Minnesota Department of Transportation that they would withhold action on reconstructing Highway 36 for a period of years, however, given the time tables announced for bridge construction and the realistic appraisals as to when those can be completed, it is apparent that the desire of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to reconstruct Highway 36 would occur, if not simultaneously with, within a relatively few years after the completion of the bridge project and raise the same issues and concerns that the City has as it affects elevations of Highway 36 within the proposed reconstruction plans. f t M • Page 2 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge For purposes of this letter, please regard the comments herein as preliminary. All of the facts and circumstances affecting the construction project are as of this date not known. The environmental concerns are yet to be disclosed within an environmental impact statement which is yet to be prepared on the project and which will probably not be completed for at least a year to a year and one -half. Additionally, the multitude of players that are involved in the process dealing with the bridge also makes the addressing of issues affecting this construction project difficult, if not impossible at this very preliminary stage and, of course, the City will have to remain flexible and adjust to different opportunities and options that may surface as time goes on. Nonetheless, within that framework we generally foresee the City's opportunities and options in dealing with these issues to be in the following areas: I. Required Statutory Consent Trunk Highway Improvements This office has previously outlined for the City Council by letter dated February 26, 1992 the statutory provisions requiring municipal consent as it affects trunk highway improvement projects. For your reference, an additional copy of that correspondence is attached. At the last meeting that we held with the project manager on the trunk highway /improvements /bridge construction project, they indicated that at that time they did not anticipate reclassifying Highway 36 to interstate highway status for purposes of construction of the bridge project. Additionally, they acknowledged the provisions contained within Minn. Stat. S 161.172 requiring municipal consent on trunk highway improvements and informally offered the position that if the City of Oak Park Heights seriously objected to the improvements for the highway and the bridge, that they would not be accomplished and that MnDOT would withdraw its plans. I sincerely doubt that that informal opinion would hold within the department given the significant public interest on both sides of the bridge /highway improvement project issue, the environmental and political concerns and other ramifications to the community at large. Consequently, I would fully expect that if the trunk highway and bridge improvement projects were objected to by the City of Oak Park Heights under Minn. Stat. S 165.07 and S 161.172, the Minnesota Department of Transportation would implement the process outlined for the appointment of an appellate board under Minn. Stat. § 161.175 to review and determine the issue. Page 3 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge Obviously, the Minnesota Department of Transportation would like to avoid that process if at all possible and I suspect that provides a significant incentive for MnDOT to cooperate with the City of Oak Park Heights on issues affecting trunk highway and bridge construction. However, that cooperation certainly has its defined limits which do not include precluding the project in its entirety. Consequently, I strongly suspect that the overtures made by the Minnesota Department of Transportation with regard to housing relocation within the City of Oak Park Heights as well as an informal indication that the Department is willing to work with the City to minimize costs and expense on relocation of utilities is, in fact, generated by that desire. Nonetheless, as indicated in the previous correspondence of February 26, 1992, the City must be aware of plan submission dates when they receive documents from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and keep in mind the various time lines that provide the opportunities to file objection on those plans, should that be the City's desire at that time. II. Environmental Impact Statement Review. The City of Oak Park Heights is, of course, an interested party as are several other entities and government subdivisions which will be involved in the environmental impact review process, either directly or indirectly. Although there are opportunities within the environmental impact review process for the City to raise concerns and file objections to the environmental review, the City is, of course, but one interested governmental entity involved. Nonetheless, the City must assure itself that the environmental review process raises concerns unique to the City of Oak Park Heights and opportunities may arise within that process to effect some modifications and changes to the MnDOT plan to address those concerns. Unfortunately, the process of the environmental review is instituted to affect modifications to remedy and address environmental concerns with the MnDOT plans, but rarely will provide an opportunity to cancel or eliminate those plans for highway and bridge construction unless, of course, a major environmental issue is discovered which cannot be remedied through modifications in the MnDOT plans. Consequently, although the City has a right of review and is an interested party to participate in that process, the opportunity to utilize the environmental impact process to significantly deter MnDOT in proceeding with its plans on highway and bridge construction, is not likely. Page 4 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge III. Miscellaneous Regulatory Requirements and Agency Approvals. As the City is well aware, there are a multitude of agencies that have input into the process as if affects the bridge construction and, to a lesser degree, the highway reconstruction project. Within the regulations of the Department of Natural Resources, Army Corp of Engineers, Minnesota Boundary Water Area Commission, Department of the Interior, Federal DOT and other agencies, opportunities within their own review processes may afford the City of Oak Park Heights the opportunity to inject its opinions and concerns. That participation, however, is usually limited to the focus of the regulatory agency and, of course, will be directed to the regulatory agency's specific role in approving or permitting or otherwise regulating the activity. Consequently, the City may well find that its concerns do not fit within the parameters of the regulatory agency's concern of focus and, therefore, may have very limited, if any, impact. On the other hand, if it is perceived that the City's concerns parallel or are in concert with the agency's concerns, the City may well find support in the regulatory process that may have an impact on the ultimate construction of the bridge or the highway reconstruction project. In that regard, the City should be aware of those regulatory agencies that are going to be involved in the mandatory permitting process and review the appropriate regulations of those bodies to determine what role, if any, the City can play in the permits that will have to be issued from those agencies. A listing of those agencies will, of course, be attainable as they should proximate the same list of interested parties that will have to be noticed as it affects the environmental impact statement and its process. Focus can best be made directing efforts to those agencies which have a regulatory permit that needs to be issued before this project can go forward. Certainly as it affects the bridge, the federal department of transportation regulatory procedures as well as those of the Army Corp of Engineers will be necessary permits and approvals to be obtained by MnDOT as part of this process. Review of those agencies regulations at this time would be appropriate to determine whether or not any avenues of opportunity exists for the City of Oak Park Heights to participate within those agencies reviews before those permits are issued. L. ' VIII Page 5 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge IV. Judicial Review. Throughout the entire history of MnDOT's proposal affecting bridge reconstruction, the community has generally been aware of certain groups such as the Sierra Club which has indicated a desire to obstruct the bridge reconstruction and, if necessary, commence some type of litigation to forestall the construction of the new bridge. Additionally, the City has generally been aware that it is, of course, an interested party and may have some degree of opportunity within the judicial arena to take action that will have an impact on this construction and bridge project. Again, this section cannot possibly at this date anticipate all of the individual avenues of attack nor the individual litigants that would be potentially bringing such action; however, the comments are g as a rovided general format to indicate the areas P where litigation is most likely to be raised as a deterrent to g Y construction or as a method to influence MnDOT or the entire time table on the construction of the project. (1) Federal Litigation. There are general statements within the community reflected within past news accounts that national environmental groups and organizations such as the Sierra Club oppose the construction of a bridge through the scenic riverway of the St. Croix Valley. If those accounts are to be believed, such litigation would not commence until after the environmental impact statements had been completed by the State and Federal DOT's and permits were or were about to be issued for construction. Such litigation if brought by such national environmental groups would be venued in Federal Court as that is their general profile and desired forum to be presenting their cause and, insofar as it would of necessity impact and involve the federal department of transportation. The involvement of the City of Oak Park Heights in litigation which is focused on environmental concerns of such national organizations may provide limited opportunities for the City of Oak Park Heights to raise its concerns, but unfortunately, it is entirely unlikely that the City would • Page 7 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge Obviously, we are still a significant distance away from any decisions to enter into litigation, either on a federal or state court level as it affects the reconstruction of Highway 36 or the bridge construction issues. The issues affecting that process will begin to focus as the environmental impact statements are prepared and more data is received on the project itself. Significant flaws in the review process or the environmental impact statement would enhance the City's position in litigation and possibly provide the opportunity to either delay or obstruct the construction process. In large measure the City is in a posture of wait and see as this process plays out as litigation, more often than not, is an after the fact challenge on decisions that have been made and as of this date neither the State nor the Federal Government has completed any where near the volumes of data and studies that need to be completed before the project achieves a readiness to actually obtain permits to proceed. V. Legislative and Executive Review. All government construction projects are, of course, driven by funding. This particular project requires federal funding at the level of approximately 80% with the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin participating to supply the additional 20% needed for improvements on their respective side of the boarder and their participation in the bridge project. Any activity on the federal or state level (Minnesota or Wisconsin) that would significantly impair or impeded funding sources, would have an impact on the project. Although the focus of the government within the media at this time is certainly with regard to fiscal restraint and conservative spending, nonetheless, we must recognize that highway construction is a major form of passing government largess on to local economy. The perception that funds not spent in this area will merely be diverted to and spent in other areas does, in fact, drive congressional and other state legislatures to secure funds for projects within their local communities and that perception may weigh against the City's interests. Page 8 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge Within the State of Wisconsin there doesn't appear to be any significant opposition to the bridge or highway reconstruction as it affects their region. Within the State of Minnesota there is certainly some degree of opposition, but a healthy amount of support for the project exists within the State and, to a degree, within the local community (i.e. the Chamber of Commerce, etc.). The City has not historically exercised a significant role in lobbying its interest within the legislature. The City in this particular instances is not going to be in the position to be able to rely upon League of Minnesota Cities lobbyists or other organizations to which it belongs to take any positions as those organizations are also funded by members that support the decision announced by the State Department of Transportation affecting this issue. It is also unknown to what degree many of our local legislators (most of whom are now freshman legislators) have taken a position or are willing to take a position on the issue affecting highway reconstruction and the bridge over the St. Croix River. If the City is going to be taking a position within the legislature or with legislators affecting the bridge and highway reconstruction, that position to be effective must be uniformally presented as the position of the City of Oak Park Heights and individually presented and packaged to the local legislative delegation. In addition, the presentation of that position and packaging to key legislators on committees which have an impact on MnDOT projects and taxation and funding matters would be appropriate if not essential in order to sell that position and make it an effective one within the legislature. No matter what position might be taken by the City of Oak Park Heights as a uniform body to be presented to local legislators and key legislators that need to be contacted on the issue, the City will certainly meet opposition from other neighboring communities and organizations. Although that opposition is to be expected, the City can certainly minimize that opposition with a well coordinated and effective presentation of its own interests. The presentation of the City's concerns within the legislative arena should not be limited to the State Legislature. Those concerns should also be packaged and marketed to the congressional delegation as their influence should not be under estimated in relationship to the Federal Department of Transportation which is funding 80% of this project. II Page 9 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge A positive aspect to the City in developing a consistent uniform policy and position on matters to be presented within the state and congressional delegations is that it allows the City to be on the front end of the process suggesting changes and modifications to the plans before actual permits have been received and we are placed in a position of attacking that which has already been done through the legislative and congressional process and completed. In order, however, for the City to be effective, the City will have to show a broad base of its local support and certainly, unity at the City governmental level as well as an affective presentation and consistent follow up procedure with those state and congressional delegations. VI. Concluding Comments. The City of Oak Park Heights options in this issue are going to be consistently evolving as this project weaves its way through the environmental impact, state, federal and other regulatory process. The City should maintain its supervision and participation of the issue on all fronts and be constantly reviewing opportunities that arise to present its position. It is also important for the City to develop a position that can be supported uniformally by the City and presented at each opportunity that arises. The City has already seen that it can have at least a degree of impact within the administrative agencies as a result of the presentation of the City's position to Commissioner Denn last year which gave information to the Commissioner which he was not otherwise aware of and which, to a degree, did influence his decision on the project and precipitated overtures to the City of Oak Park Heights to assist in the issues of utility relocation and resident relocation within the City. The City should seriously consider expanding its role in providing that position on other fronts, both with other agencies, congressional and state legislative delegations so as to cause an awareness of the impact of this particular project on the City of Oak Park Heights and force the addressing of issues to deal with those impacts in one manner or another. However, in order to be effective, the City's position will have to be uniformally presented and it is imperative if it is to be effective, that the City present a united front on issues that affect the City of Oak Park Heights to these various Page 10 March 4, 1993 To: Mayor O'Neal and Councilmen Re: Options - Highway 36 /Bridge agencies. If the City displays a positi. which - not uniformally supported within the or is subject to i ernal •rmoil and dispute, the City will be hampered in making an eff- tive and creditable presentation of its interests. Very tr- y yours, Ma k J. Vierlin. MJV:sms Enclosures i ili -.',. 1\tiiicr Onc • G. -D mead Z, 1 -- _ - td 36 — . — - v ,,..■/ ou - -Wail C -D .Head if,-41 • _ Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. L JAN 2 8 1952 • oca;Pt : 1 ' - 400 '! TN 54 • • 1 T.H. 36 RECONSTRUCTION r ^QnM, CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE 2 AUXILIARY LANES ON T.H. 36 BETWEEN OSGOOD AVE. AND T.H. 95 ONE --WAY C ^D ROADS BETWEEN GREELEY ST. AND OSGOOD AVE. J t LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF 8( VIERLING 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 LYLE J. ECKBERG (612) 439 -2878 JAMES F. LAMMERS FAX (612) 439 -2923 ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A. WOLFF MARK J. VIERLING VICKI L. GIFFORD GREGORY G. GALLER KEVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J. WEIDNER February 26, 1992 The Honorable Barbara O'Neal Mayor, City of Oak Park Heights City Hall 14168 - 57th Street North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Process On Local Approval Over Plans For Trunk Highway and Interstate Highway Improvements Dear Mayor O'Neal: At the February 24, 1992 City Council meeting you requested that this office provide you with a brief over view of the what the process and protocol is with regard to issues of local approval over trunk highway and interstate highway improvements conducted with the municipality. You also requested that we offer an opinion with regard to the ability of the City to have input in or approval over bridge construction as it applies to the new proposed interstate bridge now being considered for construction between Minnesota and Wisconsin over the St. Croix River between Oak Park Heights on its west end and Houlton on its east end. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a brief overview as to the process and protocol for trunk highway, interstate highway improvements and also as it affects the bridge construction as a necessary and ,integral part of any such reconstruction plan. I. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY The City of Oak Park Heights is not presently served by an interstate highway, however, I understand it is the concept and intent of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to potentially upgrade Highway 36/212 to interstate status. The appropriate section of the state statute dealing with local control and approval issues is Minn. Stat. §161.17, Subd. 2, which provides in pertinent portion: Mayor O'Neal Page Two February 26, 1992 "It is hereby declared that construction of the interstate system of highways will vitally effect the future development of cities through which these routes pass and such municipalities should have an important role in the development of this highway system; on the other hand, the future planning and programming of construction projects over a period of years is necessary to take maximum advantage of federal aid and to build a unified and coordinated interstate system; that excessive delay in local approval of plans for construction of one segment may seriously impede completion of the entire system and adversely affect other municipalities along the interstate routes; * ** The provisions of Section 161.171 to 161.177 for local approval of trunk highway plans must be modified for the interstate highway system in light of these various considerations. Before proceeding with the preparation of final plans for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any route on the interstate system lying within any city, the commissioner shall submit to its governing body, preliminary plans covering the route location. The preliminary plan shall be submitted as part of a report containing such supporting data as the commissioner deems helpful to the governing body in appraising the plans submitted." "Any public hearing on location of an interstate route held in compliance with federal requirements shall be held at least one month after submission to the governing body of the report provided for in this subdivision. After the public hearing and on preparing of final plans, the commissioner shall submit the final plans to the governing body for approval. If the governing body does not approve the Plans within three months after submitted, the commissioner may refer the plans to (1) the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, if the project is within the area of its jurisdiction, or (2) the Municipal Mayor O'Neal Page Three February 26, 1992 Advisory Committee on State Aid Rules established under Section 162.09, Subd. 2, if the project is elsewhere in the state. If a member of the Advisory Committee is from the municipality concerned, that member shall be excused. If the plans are so referred, the commission or committee shall give the commissioner and the governing body ample opportunity to present the case for or against the approval of the plans so referred. Not later than three months after such hearings, and independent study as it deems desirable, it shall approve or disapprove such plans, making such additional recommendations consistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate and it shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendation to the commission and the governing body. The commissioner shall not proceed with the proposed construction, reconstruction, or improvement except in accordance with the plans approved by the governing body or, if referred to the commission or committee, until after the commission or committee has made its report and then only after the governing body has had an additional 90 days within which to consider the plans originally submitted or such modified plans as may be submitted to it my the commissioner following the report of the commission or committee. If within such 90 day period, the governing body does not approve the plan submitted to it and the commissioner then wishes to proceed with the project according to plans differing substantially from the plans recommended by the commission or committee in its report, the commissioner shall, before proceeding with the project, file a written report with the commission or committee and the governing body stating fully the reasons for doing so." Minn. Stat. §161.17, Subd. 2. Mayor O'Neal Page Four February 26, 1992 For disputes in construction and layout issues within the City of Oak Park Heights, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Planning Commission would be the effective agency to hear the matter if the City of Oak Park Heights would fail to approve the final plans as submitted by the Commissioner of Transportation. Also, note that the statute draws a distinction between a lay- out plan which is the preliminary plan for the proposed construction and the actual construction plan which means the final plan sheets, profiles, typical cross sections, and supplemental drawings which show the location, character dimensions and details of the highway construction or improvement work which is intended to be submitted to prospective bidders. You will note that the statute as it relates to interstate highway improvements and constructions, does not provide for a manner of appeal beyond the submission to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. It is uncertain as to whether or not a right of appeal exists to any district or appellate court and further research will have to be completed to determine rights of review beyond that stage. II. MUNICIPAL CONSENT TO TRUNK HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS Minn. Stat. S161.172 provides, as it affects trunk highways, the following: "Except for routes on the interstate system, no state trunk highway or any part thereof located within the corporate limits of any municipality shall be constructed or improved in the manner specified within this section without the consent of the governing body of such municipality, unless the procedures prescribed in Section 161.171 to 161.172 shall have been followed by the commissioner of transportation." The statute then goes on to provide for the submission of proposals and layout plans to the governing bodies of each municipality impacted by any state trunk highway improvement or alteration and setting forth time deadlines for reports back from the municipal councils from each governing jurisdiction, either approving or disapproving of same. In the event of an objection and failure to approve by the local municipality, there is a process built in the statute that ultimately provides a final review by an appellate board created under Minn. Stat. S161.175, Mayor O'Neal Page Five February 26, 1992 which appellate board consists of three members, one selected by the Governor, one by the governing body of the municipality involved, and one selected by the two members. The three persons so selected serve as the highway appeal board and have the power to review the commissioner's plans and the municipal proposed alternative plans and recommend to the Commissioner of Transportation the plan to be followed after hearings have been conducted on the issues presented. III. CONSENT TO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Minn. Stat. §165.07 provides in pertinent portion: "Subd. 2, Interstate bridges as part of highway system. When any trunk highway, county state aid highway, or a municipal state aid street leads to or connects with an interstate bridge other than an interstate bridge owned privately or operated as a toll bridge, the bridge or so much thereof, as lies within the borders of this state shall be part of the highway or street leading to it." Any bridge constructed as part of the trunk highway 36/212 across the St. Croix River to Wisconsin, which would have as its connecting point, a location within the City of Oak Park Heights, would be deemed to be part of the trunk highway so improved or reconstructed and therefore, subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. S161.172 through Minn. Stat. §161.175, as it relates to trunk highway improvements. Although there does not appear to be language within the statutes dealing with interstate bridges as part of interstate systems, I believe it logical to assume that the same would be construed to be applicable to the process set forth within Minn. Stat. S161.17, Subd. 2, affecting interstate improvements with the bridge being considered an integral part of the interstate highway improvement and therefore, also subject to the approval provisions within the statute. This office has not yet complet ed investigation and research as it effects federal requirements for municipal improvements which will be provided to you by supplemental memoranda. I am providing you this memoranda at this date with regard to the State t Mayor O'Neal Page Six February 26, 1992 requirements so that you and other City staff can prepare appropriately for upcoming meetings which, I under --., will be held in the very near future on this matter. Yours ery ly, Ma2k J. Vierling MJV /adc xc: Bob Voto, City Auditor Joe Anderlik, City Engineer Scott Richards, City Planner LaVonne Wilson, Administrator /Treasurer 1� Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. A� U R B A N P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N • M A R K E T R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Richards FROM: Allan Hunting DATE: 11 December 1991 RE: Oak Park Heights - Highway 36 Traffic Study FILE NO: 798.02 - 91.16 Per your request, I have inventoried the existing land uses along Highway 36 to the extent available using background information in our office. I have identified primarily commercial uses and have calculated the building's square footage. Businesses with calculated building square footage are identified with a dot on the map. Businesses without a dot have no background information in our files. The following list identifies all businesses from our files and the square footages when available: Business Square Feet Map 1 McCormack Furniture Swager Bros. Realty Eagles 94 Club Gardy's Cycle Jerry's Auto Pond Villa Condos 5,800 (x 3) 22 total units Map 2 Zaczkowski Beauty Salon Oak'Park Plaza Super America 3,840 Conoco 2,500 Dairy Queen 1,050 McDonalds 3,000 Pizza Hut 1,950 T.R. Gibby's 3,400 Champion Auto 6,000 Goodyear 3,500 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595- 9636-Fax. 595 -9837 Business Square Feet Bank Gas Station Holiday Gas 4,050 Rapid Oil Change 1,200 KFC St. Croix Mali 163,900 K Mart 55,552 VFW 11,200 St. Croix Bowl 16,800 Auto Mali 26,000 Erickson Post Gas 1,220 Knutson Motors Washington County Label Joeseph's Restaurant Wendy's 2,500 Fred's Tire 2,400 pc: LaVonne Wilson Cindy Greg �,I ' / . / ! pen e`" _ 31 a - t '','',';',:;;.;:',4.:;'..;i2;,',1"^',1:•;;`,;1';';.;;'' ti { ` ` r ! y 1 n 'S ; P ' , 0 ••a •- + F � , , ,, i,"; , ' , .:•., ! t •S � Y t• . 1 �1 P'. • { ;i} . -1�< ! l tif f, 1 Y f�'f , 1 / • t, • ` , } jE '' :'::::::.:.:.:.x........ • r' t 1 t I t �Mt f ' . •. *••�••••• 16 � Y F,} Fr,�t¢ t r k a :.::::::::::::-. �� , t 1, � a ff t 3 � {{ 1! 1 ; Yl' F— y R �;t t .. N W h ..•: ......:.,,..,..„.....,.,...,,,,,,,,:::::::::::::::: ,• :::„ •• : ;• 'kin:: —.;:;;;;;;;:;7 t;:i.::: • • • • iii;"?..1; : It i w S l t C ttrr )' .�x�. i`i 'r. - .: t S E • • +��+ { .:::.-,11,.-.0...,:•',..•,•••, �StJ fk 'r fi `rrt� O i; 4 • p - G $! u tY a ar y t W .. ? pS •,,,, y',f t {� 1 3 +' U (: dK { SS { {{ • w. t 3 1 t ° CC i f Y4 l i a l i l C : �. � � 1 . F N (.. 5 1 x:5. t i O � ' a ' :� •: • M J y, ),".t t k E }, Y 5 y .k i 1 t t•- Y ••. • ••. J . • i � [ t.• t^ y y t 1 O r 1 I r ' + O A 9 r 4 FY 1 4i• •1 1 }t i ' , ,, t - N MI • • t ,rr r Y ,I ! i 1, kttt! ' v ) . 7 t � 1 r t o t }7� °+th P J v . e t a fr • - .r t ., 1 M ti • of rq:kh t • c‘i ��z .r . j T r S '"j i 2 'lt s! t jk S� S {3 ;, � l 1 } t t ..... «.. • t�t 7�S x tH F -} ^ a w #f} t v v ! • • `.', 7 r r "/ : *n t+ 5.�s� t.. r i ,. 111 a � ! i + t I ,. „ +tt�''1 � " I h � >` { aRq!' ! h j' t �1 (f�iyk��n1 f.' sry \ ' t S tx? I g t, d �,�}5 t �9` t W �•..la. .. .... -i O K s" '^w1 I r * ` P •'6 -.; . r � C �' g j' n : .....r.,. { 1b{ 0 '7 r q M r t $` S o 3• - 7 I : f . { I ; t ` ;Cs F'l, t t{ h w tit i,, •t W ,�y t {°x - - n 2 M t o A t ii t r r r"` 1r�1 t r ly it "x +• •Kt i .. � ,Y }1{ t, c,1 J y •"F+a� t t3 n`t r 3 V , a ,, f d ,. a al3 r' + ltt r j { : t t r 5 t} .. { xf: ; t . t y �) b f t y 11 i� t 'R N P o a , t y 1 i +, S ° yY k `P' t ' f d u v r 3 : .7't .7'R 1 T M 111,7.,',.;-- , 3 t r 1 Y q 1 l } tv z, > F � F r „ ! { I 0 II , � ` 1 c, t * 0 t lid 1 , ✓ i. ” ° r n _ (/} • J S"' C3 t �! t �zf"a 1 « , d r`tF " ,ys � >F i��sn� v 1 ?t . d�ti! P s�1 i ; ,7 I � q•y yf t;10"f k r i 1 a fG'r 1 x N ,Y� F`CT y Yt71 � }� F . `,41t! ,` �• tSrc y ,�7 d R t , :1 �f U i L • , � 1Tf � �y i 1 " a�p r�t1�'"t�d { ° \s4t Y y 'l y i;� y'" id t '+ !R � y N� s. G l�a�c } f .:' , t ' 1) S"` r { eu :� e.a F t' O v ' V ,, W ,; , . > 0 ." y r ,tT 1 { !.il, t � ;4 \S � 4 �14-Aii t 1 i : n" ■ '' ,' p pt r t y t " 14 V . v y �_ / E:::::: 6 3 : 1 -, , 1 .....1 , cc.. t y 3 3f ,,,...„:,,,,,,,::,,,.,,,,,,•: 1 tt X i r ? r i i ar 7 • 6 . rt1` CD 1 a + w Rt C �.. O m ..1K .1 r. ' S N -..• t at w 3 ti ` V♦ _ r t f ' H O 1' a .- J � ., ,r, ' , 0 ;,i , '.4 1 ° v i N 4, sC C. AT • Q 1} s NMI r M+ S ti: �' M maim . 0 t I :2 r 2 1 = t r 11121116,1 11121116,1 M>x fye`Y! 0 T I (} � i .� R it II 11111 • nt `.1 ';'..,,:. : :.,,,c::.:::::: ®® o ice a G• 1 *+ ►vso 00 N .-47 row '03 Y c • D fOSO U co _ ( R. • r C C . I o > m i i j � 4 �w0 �' ' rr cc p N 1 C x O _$ y r .� 1 � t c 1 O C• N 4 f y s C �k . U -00., i 1 ,< 7;''''' IS x t r., s , { a , c AY M 7. — ' N I. S RS + _ ' n O .1 ,2 , 't 41 ; p! rt r C t i0:5 ;1, . r - ,11 P. • ell 1 U fa �� v - 1 n� t l t • • -F 1 , 8 �� ; Y fi t` t i:, ` Q J V N AY • M ' 4 v I. -42 t iw U v a o , , ': 1k i k 3 W I' Y tt w i u i " J N a .r Q i 2 3A •O 0 ` " i a r,'� ,' ' r i *+ fib q F,r, h . r , tt' 1 n. i. • 1'3'44 E , ,,.,!4;,....,,,, � r i x r ,, 5 y `3 r t tt • e ( -� .. �� MIMI t r , s u i1: c r r t ; t ` q t i ' t fit i Y w > ry 1 to , d + . S'd r ly �..y- $ 1;,Fy { ,e G ` R ' $F « '' 1!y k t , .. u , , x ■ I "rrt"b't 11�� . ; . ;;', 1 ✓ i,4' ` 5 � a � . y. 1 r T, s t al: 13a -1 I gird • iv r N ;� N , .,, .,, 4 t� N 1 i i a i� 4 1 i k 1 N { r N r 1 F p-t , a .{,4 A t .k F b 1 7 1 Yi J , ' ` • / t.. Sri i i o .'i f ,(/ 4 ' # 3s i i r ii � **1 ..] 5TW32111.UNO Tuesday, September 3, 1991 6:26 pm Page 3 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITTY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 323 204 200 > 200 > -123 > F > 208 > -135 >F RIGHT 21 600 600 > 600 > 579 > A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 21 602 602 602 581 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET 58th St. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Oakgreen Ave. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 09 -03 -1991 ; PMP OTHER INFORMATION.... 2000. WITH SCHOOL. 58TH ST. 2 - LANE . STOP ON 58TH. no' it Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. Keith A. Gordon P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Mark D. Walks. P.E. Bones t roo Robert W Rosene. PE. Richard W. Foster. P.E. James R. Maland. P.E. Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. Joseph C. Anderlik. P.E. Donald C. BurgardL P.E. Kenneth P Anderson. PE. Gary F. Rylander. P.E. r " „' Rosene James E. Turner, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark R. Rots, P.E. Miles B. Jensen. P.E. James C. Olson. P.E. Mark A. Hanson. P.E. Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. L. Phillip Gravel W. P.E. killiM Glenn R. vi Anderiik & Thomas E. Cook. Ted Noyes PE. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Howard A. Sanford. PE. LeCharles . Pawelsky Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. Robert R. PfefferIe. P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton. PE. Harlan M. Olson A ssociates Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. David O. Loskota. P.E. Mark A. Seip P.E. Susan M. Eberkn. C.PA. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Philip J. Caswell. P.E. Engineers & Architects February 21, 1990 • Ms. LaVonne Wilson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street No. . P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR T.H. 36 AND OMAHA AVENUE Our File No. 5592 Dear LaVonne: This study was requested by the City Council at its November 13, 1989 meeting. The purpose of this study was to determine if the existing access to Omaha Avenue from T.H. 36 should be permanently closed at this time. Our recommendation concerning closure is based on: the analysis of accident data from the last four years at the intersection of Omaha Avenue and T.H. 36; the potential traffic impacts of closure on the surrounding streets and intersections during the average P.M. peak hour; and communication with Traffic staff at the Oakdale office of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) Metropolitan District. We evaluated traffic conditions at the intersections of: T.H. 36 at Oakgreen Ave. /Greeley St.; Omaha Avenue at T.H. 36 and at the south frontage road of T.H. 36; and Osgood Avenue at T.H. 36, the south frontage road of T.H. 36 and at the north St. Croix Mall driveway. These intersections were reviewed under three different scenarios, as required. The first involved existing conditions, while the second evaluated the effect of the St. Croix Mall expansion with the Omaha Avenue access at T.H. 36 remaining open. The third situation included impacts of the mall expansion, but assumed that the Omaha Avenue access at T.H. 36 is completely closed. STUDY APPROACH Accident data for the last four years was furnished by Mn /DOT. They also supplied recent traffic count data for T.H. 36 at the Oakgreen /Greeley Avenue, Omaha Avenue and Osgood Avenue intersections. In addition, we found it necessary to supplement that data by taking our own traffic counts on Osgood Avenue at the south frontage road and north (current) mall entrance intersections. Detailed traffic count data can be found in Appendix B. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Report', 4th Edition, was used to estimate how many additional trips will be generated as a result of the mall expansion now under construction. The "Highway Capacity Software" was utilized to evaluate the capacity and level of service of each intersection. Page 1 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612 - 636 -4600 L SAFETY The safety record at the adjacent intersections of Omaha Avenue at T.H. 36 and the south frontage road were examined collectively. .e re were fifteen accidents reported at these tvo intersections over the : near .r year ported.g January_ 1986 through November 89k This is an average . .. S '. of " 3.8 accidents per year which, given the high traffic c'' is not an unusually ° large number. 'None of the fifteen accidents were fatal and three involved personal injury. eve perce.t o the i teen reporter acc eii `- t s F -t entyg4101 ': r r# f4 3 " i ce x = . tt*uati i Thirty -slit percent` involved vehicles trsveltn at . sa tws i-oo►e ,. reent were a '- reetat . -Of " 'f ? r " ' tr °igh t -of -.uay. In an"yzing the accident data, it was determined that the majority of the accidents would not be eliminated as a result of closing the directional median opening from T.H. 36 to Omaha Avenue. Four of the fifteen accidents involved vehicles turning left from westbound T.H. 36, seven involved an- eastbound T.H. 36 right - turning vehicle striking a fixed object, specifically the raised median on the Omaha approach, and the remaining four involved conflicts between vehicles at the three -way stop at Omaha Avenue and the south frontage road of T.H. 36. Completely closing access to T.H. 36 from Omaha Avenue would, of course, eliminate these accidents because this intersection would no longer exist, although the majority of the accidents were caused by external circumstances and not a result of intersection safety. More detailed accident data can be found in Appendix A. CAPACITY RESULTS An analysis of the capacity of the previously mentioned intersections during the P.M. peak hour was completed, with the exception of the Omaha Avenue -South Frontage Road intersection (which is controlled by three -way stop signs). Under current conditions, the signalized intersection of T.H. 36 and Osgood Avenue operates well below its overall capacity. At the south frontage road of T.H, 36 and Osgood Avenue, the eastbound left turns (to northbound Osgood) experience some difficulty and delays because of the lack of available gaps in Osgood traffic. The gaps provided in southbound traffic by the adjacent T.H. 36 signal are more theoretical than real, thus the level of service here is likely somewhat worse than is estimated by the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual. The eastbound left turns at the north St. Croix Mall entrance and Osgood Avenue intersection also experiences difficulty, for the same reasons. After the St. Croix Mall expansion work is completed, the signalized intersection of T.H. 36 and Osgood Avenue is expected to operate satisfactorily if the Omaha access remains open, based on estimates of the new trips generated. Page 2 � Y The intersection of the south frontage road of T.H. 36 and Osgood Avenue is a different story, however. The demand to make an eastbound left turn will be greater than its capacity, which will result in very long delays and perhaps safety problems. The same is true for the intersection of the north mall entrance and Osgood Avenue, where demand for the eastbound left turn movement leaving the site will far exceed its capacity. Such adverse impacts of the mall expansion were foreseen by our firm and the city's planners in our site review last year, and we so informed the developer. They eventually agreed to re- configure their access to Osgood by providing a second, better designed entrance at the south limits of their property. However, motorists will want to use the north (existing) driveway as the mall's main entrance and exit simply because most of the traffic is coming from the north. Recommendations to improve the design of the mall's shared north access to Osgood were essentially ignored, judging by the final site plan. If the complete closure of Omaha Avenue access at T.H. 36 were implemented, it would divert approximately 390 vehicles per P.M. peak hour (vph) to Osgood Avenue and 40 vph to Oakgreen /Greeley Avenue. The proximity of Omaha Avenue to Osgood Avenue is a major reason for such an uneven distribution of diverted traffic. There are others. The expansion is taking place on the east side of the mall, and an additional access is being constructed to Osgood. So with the complete closure of Omaha Avenue access to T.H. 36, approximately 901 of mall - generated trips will likely enter and exit the site via Osgood Avenue. Considering that traffic demand leaving the mall site to proceed north now exceeds capacity (with the Omaha Avenue access open), it becomes apparent that worse (and excessive) delays would occur at both the north mall entrance and the south frontage road intersections along Osgood Avenue. As a result, it is likely that a traffic signal would be required at the north mall entrance and Osgood Avenue, based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Warrant Number 11, the "Peak Hour Warrant ". The intersection of T.H. 36 and Oakgreen /Greeley was not analyzed in detail because it will not be adversely affected by the diversion of only 40 vph during the P.M. peak hour. Details of the capacity analyses can be found in Appendix B. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Based on an examination of the accident data for the intersection of Omaha Avenue and T.H. 36, no unusual or severe traffic safety problem currently exists. It appears that the closure of Omaha Avenue at T.H. 36 would therefore safety. improvement in refore not result in any significant he y p y Page 3 IC I i II 1 . . y For the existing roadway system, capacity analyses indicate that the St. Croix Mall expansion will not have a significant, adverse effect on overall capacity at the T.H. 36- Osgood Avenue signalized intersection. At the south frontage road and north mall entrance intersections along Osgood, delays for eastbound left turns would be long during the P.M. peak hour. It is possible that traffic signal control will be justified at the north mall entrance with Osgood Avenue. To effectively operate a signal here, however, this shared driveway would have to be widened (to provide two exit lanes) and the curb cuts to the car wash and gas station closest to Osgood would have to be closed. If access to T.H. 36 from Omaha Avenue is completely closed, the overall capacity of Osgood Avenue intersections at the north mall entrance and at the south frontage road of T.H. 36 would definitely exceed acceptable levels. Traffic signal control would almost surely be required at the north mall entrance and Osgood Avenue intersection, along with the design modifications mentioned previously. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the existing access to T.H. 36 from Omaha Avenue remain open. No significant safety problem currently exists at this location, and closure of access would have only adverse effects on capacity, and potentially safety, along Osgood Avenue immediately south of T.H. 36. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 636-4600. - Yours very truly, M V BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. le r4.41 0 -9— Gary F. Rylander, P.E. Chief Transportation Engineer Enclosures Page 4 T ! APPENDIX A COLLISION DIAGRAM AND ACCIDENT DATA I , lllor7i+ {moo Nr�, stn. • 1 Th . 34 4 01 Ate- ALL ACC 1 oe&ITs w •6. 3G J` • 0 / .., ..... .- i NW C - °7 .1G .l./1-!•i 4eL /® - /1 -i'1 L'' \ EP.) T14.34. .. "_<, N. • r .z....,.:.,..,,s. ,.., , t. ... .1_1:4:•.:."--- . r ,ia CI i , ......,k...., a4- io - r9 LCD • T. 3( S. F E RI). _ //0 ST. 4 ■? r7 _,-o ID`- i , F,a GLJen d j' • -- - - --- - - - - -- -- - - --- - -- - - • ---,-- - - - (- I i I 4 . , I . . • . . 1 . , • . , , 4 • 1 . . 0-• Cr. ' N h- ,D 4- 0 1- .7 0 - 43 0) , 1 0 V- r() 0 4) o •-......o 4:( r- c-i - sr CO 3 : 1.1 .•- r 1 C •c c4 , : Cc in ',"' ' 4- r`.I •-.) ro 4 ) ..`" VI i4 ) 4 ) 7 • CO 7 0 a r'l IA . 7 .0 0 r- irr 1:0 ri C4 :1 ..• kr Z.4 • 1 CO 0 3 0 1 0 0 141 C4 0 - to to 5 CO 4- L4 0 (3 - C4 r) ' : 4- 4 Ci 0 4 VI •-• - C4 .- , .- 0 , .- ri .4 c) •- i: 00' 00 '300000 0()•• 00 )000 �0 • 00••00 0 (30. 00•00.--0 4.0 ....: 3. 0 ii ; 1 hO • cr in r- 0 C.4 ' et O 0. 1 4 1" 0 4 Pa ...- • - •43 - C4 • 7 4 1' 7 1 3 •- 43 if. 1 -1 15 0 1 •43 N -• LC) ••5 t 4 0 4'4 <r ; h- C4 ' In .4" I"- 13 4 - 4. PI il ' PI 1 1-1 i, , ,- •••0 • • 0 C.4 1 -4 C Cp 2 0 4- • J m+ rq • 0 V 0 0 .,.. 0 45 4 (3 0 0 (> C4 (4 ru • .- 4 hry f4 4 0 y■ ■ 4 4-4 .4 4) 0 -.-.- - ,- „... .- ,- 4,4.1 L-1 t 1 Cr h-• h- . '0 ' Os 0, , 7 ) 43 N 1.3 CO X 3 0 Ch , 0 Os lts 0 - ,-, r- r- co, - - 0 4 3 ' '0 "0 - 4 + h . 1 h- 1- is- 4 i- Is. ..i.. :41: ,... . „„,„ . . ,r_ i- 7.:r 1 CA 1 .1- - - Os • 0 s- 4... s- -- s- s- .1.7 s- s- -- s■ 0 .... ,.... .. ,- .... ,- „. ■ ,■ y ■ .4 ,... ,■ 1 ,-. ,■ ,■ r L ...) 1 v. I ..- In . ... ... 1 .... ... t 1 ..... (-4 -- ••• ..- •-• •-. 0 ••••- ••••• .3 •,- •••• 0 ... v- •• 4.. .1- . .... ... - No v- ... ..■ • ..-• .- ...4 .- . . . • ,.. • .. • • • t Cl .0 . N. r) - 0 44 14 0 c> b 0 hi 1 M , 4 1.41 0 M r) r4 r tra -• • 1 .4-- C-4 - 7 4 CO 0 00 0 - 0 •-• C. 00 0 -.:: i• 0 i .• r- • ,- 0 N 0 0 7 "7 c4 -4 0 WI V I 20 i I 4- -'0 n ..- ..- 0 •- ••.--. : (5 • ; ..- ,- .4.- r. C.; L. I 14.1 0' 1" 0 C4 CN (N •.- r) - 4 V PI 0 C4 )11 C•4 Cr VI -.. 0.C4 - r -0 I .--... f':1 s 't 1 0 00 0 0 • .... 0 0 0 t) 0 0 0 :t 0Q t• 0 - • '7 4.- 1 Ci 0 - 03 7 Wi U1 tri s- in 141 Ul a -.--- V■ .- 0, • ,- ,- 0 ,- 14 45 - 4 •- , 45 .., - (3 .3 .7- i N e .t. i i t‘) - 4- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 • -000 0 -C 0 0 - ri 0 • 0 0 1 0 ..z. 0 0 - -- 0 4- o + : . 7Z. 1.,.. r e PI - 0 0 1 3. W 1 W - LI L.1 4/.4 44.1 Jal LI 1 4 .- - 1 15.1 444 W 4.) t- •I' 0 ' La:a 1 Lit- 3c ' Z •-■ C4 ' ? ,..ci 7 ti V . ..... 0 3 0 45 -3 0. Va .. 4. Ul .0 if. .,1 ,,, 43 3 4- 4- 1 CI. On - sO 0 m Cr .... m■ r 1., .0 :, 0 43 - .- .- ...- • - c> , C) V .) en (a ,.. 0 Ca - . 4 0 0 0 1::: -r CO , .1 ... 0 - u- 0s • 0 ,- ,- 0 .,- 0 0 • • .,,,.) 0 . pri 0 • -. ., 0. • - h- 4 4X - LI 1 . --` LL.1 LLI . WW 3 Z . - .Z 7 , s ' w 1 . ‘ . 1 ILI 4.1 2.Li . Z :-.4 i ■ • 3 3 " - LI E . " ) - LI 2 - Z - . - 4 . 3 Z :j c• - 3 0. 1. 0 Z c.,-. .-‘ 1...i c-, 24 C4 CA ■ -4 (s4 CA 1 C4 • - ,0 C4 • C 7 C-4 1 4 C4 Ci 0 Cl Cl (4. - 0 - 40 4 C•4 C4 1 Ci r4 ) CN C4 4 C4 Ci ; 4 •ct P4 4 C4 V • t4 • 2:: C.3 7.... .0 C.G 1 •-0 ,- . 4 •-• •h• - ,- ..- • - .- 4- ‘ C4 C4 • • ri C.4 .., C4 .- ‘ 4 ' ..- Ch -.- C4 .- •- ••-- ..- - -- •,- - •.- ••••• • C •- 4 •••• V 41 0- 740 • "•-e 1 ( c4 10 ,-+ CO 1 0 -.Z • u_ I .- •- •-• -4- - , 47 -- - - .- 4- 7 V V . A CI V r v •- • - -,- ' - •- ('4 (1 - -- . ) - - ,- (.1 4 • le. 4 1 4' 4 .- 4- 03 LI 0 . - . - .4 V CA - r (4 .., .. - (4 C4 7 '4 . C . V . r C4 4 -- ' 4- - 4- (4(4(.1 . - . - Nr - .. - :4 :1•0". ' :4 -.... 7 •- • •i I-, 0 r 4- 1 ,- ,- - q. , o - ..- ..- 1 .4-. Cr ,- m- m- • m- ri - m■ m- '- y- .- mg- V. V. - ,. ,. Cr ....■ .....■ ..■ • ,.... ..... ... ,-. c r - ,... --- 0 0 i. 4Z1 r- 1:1 .3 LI •0 I(4'0 In •0 •3 tr) 4 r4 C4 i C4 C4 C4 C4 4 Ca C i . 4 C•4 Ca • 4,4 0000 j C 4 i + I C3 0 c> 0 0 <3 C) C3 C> . C) .' C Ca 43 43 C) 0 "A ,....) • J . . 4: 0 ,. Ca ' n i . • - 3 0 43 1 • i4 1 0 0 0 c- r.•; 1- C,... aX1 1 2: 0 •C , Li ''. 0 Ca 4 1 V. rq .... ,■ ...1 .. .... ,v ,... 14-4 1..... ,r 4- /- m- eh v. we. w... ...... . ... .... - ..... ..- Nr... ..... .... .... v■ I...7 `r... W 2 CO 0 h• 0.- L 0 -.- 7 4 0 ■-• :-. •-• 0 11 14 03 • - ••••• 1 • 0 1 .C. 1% 4- 0 4 • lit - 0 • WI ■•• l I .e. V) : c.4 PI 1 0N - 0 0 ••••.. 7' ..,,..." ,- LI 2. e-- 3- 4.41 r0 r- 4- 4- - ,- ca 4- 0) ,- 4- -- -- ,- ,- 4- -- ..- - V V. ..... .... ■ V. ,.... v. v.. 4- .- 0 :-..:-. /.... 0 "'"' 00 - 000 00000 •00 0 0 .00 -.00 A00 .00. 0 ,... L.4 0 v- u_ L..1 i-4 'Z. - . 1 0 0 •• VI If) - 0 0 0 0 0 •I• 0 0 • 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 • in 0 0 - ) 0 0 • 0 0 - 00 0 0 . 0 !al • • 0 0 44.1 o V. VI ; in 7 • 1 1410 41 tO if) :,) ii) le) ' e 11) 11 0 if. V) LI tO ' I 441 ' 111 ill I if) in 4( 44(4 3 4( 44( I it, i.) ) if) 1-1 • 1 1.C1 •:J 1 - I J _ 0 41 tri ' ill In , ) r.4 14) 4- (.4 ci 4-4 C4 0 1 C4 C4 4 C-4 CA r . A l'4 1 0. C4 C4 Cl C4 PI C4 4 C4 04 C4 INt f 1 ( C4 • 4 in .1. i".■ ' 4I > • • 3: CA ..- 4 ••-• C4 7 -4 Ci C•4 .- ci ( 1. 4 C4 •- . 4 ci s- t 4 C4 C4 41 C4 -4 1.3 4 04 C4 C4 C4 4 C4 C4 t 'I C.: t i a Ci C4 . 4 Ca C4 • a C4 0 pi 1 0 • c- ' > C) C..) • 1:4 a. .. c.L. o'... i. O. Xi A.. 0... 0... Li 0- 4:- 0 < •C -0 a Cu 00. Ca. or a_Al A.A., 00 _A_ cf. :-. i •-• t.i. I- ::-_) 1-- i-i : Li 0 -0 4 - ,- PI - .0 r- •.- 0 0 I- (-- -0 to) `CI L.) C4 IA lal "0 3 h- 1 -04'- 0 0 . 0 In • 3 , r q (-4 (4- - ......: ..- .- 0 V` V . )74 C4 - ,- w- C) v. cd .-...• v.- v- i v■ C) 0 V ... .... C4 V■ . 4. • 4. V. 4 0 0 0- .- .- i ... 0 - .- 4 .4. ..- .;•••) J-4 cc _A cs 73 . 0. 0. , 4:1 P- 4 o c (N th p. . 0. (- .. r- cr. 4 4) 4) - 4) -43 .4: p- r. r. f... P- I- h- I CO 03 ) 0) co ci 03 .35 Ci 05 01 41 0 Cc3 • ' CO co i.) c.o co 0 CO • ez. , • cgs (0 4 03 CO Co co i - J - c.', 05 :, 03 ,33 ,, .. , :, ,.....; .:-7, _ -• :. • )-- L4 ,... '... ', ‘, , ', ".. ' ‘s ' * L s , - .., ., s , N. ', ..., '... ' N ..., `,.. ,.. ' , N. "... 2: Z h- 0 C4 • ('4 1 - r) I.Ci Ca 0 .. - 0 0 03 4 7 05 r) cr tti C., PO Cl or. .4- •-,31• 1.17 - ••-•-ii 7.4P-- -:••••1 4- Li W ,cr rl .1 1 0 V • N V .... Ca ri Ca 0 C.. ' (5 C4 0 (5 •- -- C) 4 C4 0 ••- 4 hi *- c4 .- - ..- e .,- .... ■ C I 1 .-. C:4 I- C.' N . '''■ N ' N . N. ". N. 'N. '.. N .. '. . s. N. . '. s ■ %. N . ,. .,..,,' ,,,.. '.....N.'...• ,..,..,...'....',,, i-i 1.,.. rl 141 • 4 3 0 + C4 4" 4' *tr ,) ci ci ('4 ' ) 4- C 1.1 Vl CI 0 0 3 , 4* ., 4- co ., ,- :41 i co o. -.. 4- ri - v . . 4 4 - r- 4- 4- • •- C) 45 , .4: 1.1 V...4.....e....• - 04:A(300000.; 000000 0.. Ca .. 00 400. 00 • 0 0 • 00- 00. • (7. .._ 0 0 • ) 0 0 , 0 C. '`. 0 Os 4 • 0- Ca- o,-.o-c-. 0-. • 0- . 0- - 0- 0-- O. - 0- . . . C. 0. c.,. c, -0- F- ;73 00 . 0 0 :4 0 03 01 03 4 3 03 0 ; 3 CU 03 .• 5 CO 03 0 0 5 co - 03 CO La 0 4. 0 CO 1 0 03 . 3 CO CC, 0c 0 :3 4: c.4 C.4 1 4 CN C-4 J. 4 C4 4 . 4 ii C•4 4 4 4 C•4 ( 4 C4 4 C•4 -4 .74 C4 4 t C4 C4 • 4 4 04 , I C 4 C . • 4 C4 04 : Ca - ' C C5 0 02. 3- 1 C•1 CA I. 4 Ci C4 • C4 C-4 l 4 C.1 C4 I 4 C4 Ci t 4 C•4 CN , A C4 C-4 44 C-4 •4 C4 4 C4 C4 1 C4 C4 ■ 4 C4 (4 l I C 4 C4 4 C4 Ci 4 Ci C4 4 I el 1 03 al 1 03 CO 0 CO 03 0 CO 03 45 CO 0 . 03 CO •C• 10 CD 0 o 3 o 1 o co r.,:i co . a 0_1 3 i.,, ,33 ..., 03 cc, ; , (0 .. 03 a: i-- g; t i 1- 4 ....• '7: 4 2 A. d (01 i m m 4:.) m■ m - r.) r) V. V. ..• V ".■ V■ V. ^. 0 - .1 4- 4- - C4 4- V. V V. V^ ■ 0 V.. ., r". ..... a.....! U.1 3- i r4 . - .4 . - (4 - . - ■+ .-- .... .- ..- ■-• v- V 4" ... 4 V v.: ' V .4 C4 4- 4- 4 4- 4- 4- -,- -- 1 4- ,- 4- •- • . Li -I la Z ' • , 0 7 0 0 5 ) •,,,.4 .0 41 • 3 43 +0 3 .45 - 43 ,3 •43 -0 -3 .0 J co 00 43 , 0 •• *0 -.0 - / 4) 43 45 74) • 7 1- ..:a • i 0 U1 .1 -4 • 3 43 - .0 - O. ct l• 0 0 ■ . c,... 0.. • o u^. ,- o C. 0- 0. : CI I7 sr Cr • ' .4' 4 • V -7 7 ... .4 'V •: ,, • •( - -0 -0 3 -0 43 - () 03 CJ 1.0 17) I. 4 (..1 l . 3 CO ‘15 07 - - •••• - ..- •••• - - •- ... ..- ••• - -c- •- .- •••- - • • -- .- - .1:.: - V4 • -.I • ••••• •• •••• ■•••••• ■ • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • IL • • t • • L. 'C. 64 0 C.4 ..5 0 (5 5 0 <5 .,..) <5 0 e3 (3 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 4: 00 CA 0.. : CA .17,.. • 0 <A ,. <7. C. . : OA 0 0 .• 0 <5 -5 0 (15 43 C.> 0 4:5 0 (5 ; 7 0 0 • --• 0 (3 0' 0 .3 0 3 0 0 .. ■ 0 0 • 00 ••• 0 ..5 . 0 0 • -7- 0 • . Li 4 i - I. 1 - • 4-1- ;- 1-1- - ++---,-+ - i- -I- .- + + - + -+ 1-+ 1-4 1-+ 1-r 4- + Z i ci r.4 i 4 C4 C4 -4 C.4 CA 4 i 04 CA . 4 CA CA -I CA (.4 i, 4 CA 4 .1 C4 . I') i 1 h) pi t . Pi 0 i 4 4.3 1'.1 . ■ t`i I. i 1 c•I 4 i . i•A i.".. . 1-. C0 0 0 t .., 0 0 ,.• 0 0 ' 0 0 4- 0 0 ..) 0 • ' 0 > 0 0 . 0 0 •• 3 0 0 • , (7. c., • + 00 : .0 4... • ,i. CC. 1 4:-4- i C4 C4 ' C4 C 1 4 iN C4 t i C4 C4 I - 4 C4 ri ; 4 (4 C 4 i 4 C4 • .4 C4 -4 CI C-4 4 a C4 C4 • j Ca C•4 4 . C• :4 . 4 04 il I . i '0 , :i ' - -0 - .0 - 0 - ,3 - 3 -0 '.4.3 ' .0 -0 -3 •0 -0 -0 •Cl 7 .0 -CI -0 • -0 -0 - -0 - .. to) - 7 : 1 .0 '0 ' <I .. : - 0 CK I 4.7 4.7 ; 7 rc, r) .) 1.1 hi 13 In r) i ) 1 tc. I . 1 1 ...) 4'1 '4 1 4 I . 1 r) Pi i ■ r) 1.1 i . 1 r) 1 . i• :••■ . ■ r) ri ■ I.'. , : ,-) d 141 1 -4.4:. i 1 J - . 5 - l -,::. i : 1, 5.: 2.X ,..- i. i. i. i ::. 1, . - ... 4 1 iI : :-. i S : , t ". •: : i 7 : ; -: :i ::::: .L :. : 7 . : I T . i : 4 . 7 ,... , : ,: , T . , 7 . L i il :4: .. : -,..: v =_ , - ....,..• 7: , : :_,„ I :.....;: 4 7.--.. :-...•: p. Z 2'' --.- ;X •••.' :r. 2 ."?' : •. 2 2: : -- - 1 a •• :a IC. .L Z.. C Z : X. f. 7 ., :. • Z. 2 2: ' .- .!. • ..7 It - • 'It 1 :4 ) : : A. X. .. k .11 :: r. 4'.' ..." I: >:. .- : A: .17. : 4: i. : X: : X: . .1.: a: ::. 17 -..... - :,-: z . „:. - . 7 ..- _ . \*........ I . . . . ... . , 7 , ti .; .:_filq7ft _ ; ,-:..: 11 ..; .... ;., 1: r " : • . --('--- - ------ - ---.- -- '/Vsi • - VWC) ---- . . . • TIP/ *tummy 1711.44GOir1 44110,4 Y•1.avv(M CO.L . inns . • •I •!141.3: .- •7,io .0• * w. 1. OIw7AY010AVN•C•3 • l/1t00141C1 1 G0 SIR.1Er.1A•a•010•1,Orww3 •1 O110SSwG waft l.(1M. 3 *0 OIRER110.47wwr 1 01 ' 710.00•.7 •a ER03304•O•.11SI3.*1 * 7 ••11+101101011 101w E14 11011 {0••1{•011 { 3 •••..0 war 0•l 0 OPPOS1G 10•41 it 19 f.I 3.4*4 p49G 430••.• 0•q ' • " � 4 R*4*0.0114.f 10 O4ENIU • 3 R1G1111wa•Cs.*1(O 5•44•: / r s 341C1131 ii 1I ((*s • 1111 how Oft 71t0 w C �. . • MOE SIRM11 4 Y.m .o R•G..t 11•11, •7 Rata pd..", 1.3.•12 *a.. 710•1 7 44wµ >V 011,411. • •••••••4 tell Is R R M My. q•. w1.WA•CA4S111.•II{ . • • • 12[.110110.fMfl ea/1101/1.1v1.80 �' i Y•aw.0 WAN S1aaOr.GwI1G•O 1 04 11•110 w•r 1r.C1UE1EKIE0 ($UVEww7 [ICI • SI&AIw 7hOwPAWp M twat, /Row 1 • • \ 2 7. Offi1.E 8 lot ROADWAY 1 Ou150(AAG11tQfwwl • ilA8iwClwiA*/1{ 40 Gw•C Gttt..6O 6 • V 3 0 8 1.0WAYON Y1o*.. 1O 0111411* 10 31.0 wGw17a1I4 14 C(n..;10'Of•31•14:[ •. . • V[ • Off 1•4 RO.ONOAY ON *0193o( 11 3I93PEO w 114.4 f 1t ..• •1 •.41.1. .Q1••.4 0*. •(wC•L 3 •aRnw6 107 • Muria( PROPERTY la • •a lN/(Rr.G ►a•.*COPOLt.p11 03 •.* wOR.. .G ..Gw11G*.7 1.1 ARS7.o••EGa•.v 64 v. w 11000 • 1 la 13- 13 ••""t O • RU GK►r / IOCaTIOw Of r'lOEi1R.AR OR •.a7. 44COERT •f ArO. !• NOT w 110.0 r 1 *I SCw001 CROSS*4121•40•0 SC..00.1.03•0.0•••G '. 0•{ :L OvECI •EOEi SMan q Olwt� •COL570•••• *C1oN• i 2 aT wlE115ECtOR • • •l NC7CUST a r01 al wiERSECTOR 14 3/20•031143 •-• N0143w638 V*•00007. . 141.174 7$ *. MIN 1c \ • 17 GwaNGNG LAMS la "4.4 4 *..841 18a8SK • v IS Galatw�1 w •w45r0 7a •■•• &Gni WA.. F ,1 RLCa7o.SNU TO wtLA$(CIOR It 1KRi 0.0 7• Yaa.. 1.1FN /T 1S / ` I. wT[hCwwNG( ,MIA 1 NON J•M'K f � 1{} 1 3 M(ASECIOR ?a •44..1.0 A Y.a.•GU11fM \ 4 3 MCNSECT.01.•RE4T[O 71 11a••(OVEw{.{ 73 I ACROSS *0A0 .. * 1(1 D11wEw*r *CC[SS 1011 RE4tE0101 33 07114, 31.11t4.4 ACTOR' 77 4:120•10 310 31•R1wG w 0 0.0 • N 1211.111 3K7C•IS11 *[11211• "LLD 01164C STRUCJI ' 1. CO+SIRuCT1p* •*RR{*OES 11 4 • • EQ..••••NT. ETC. la YEDAw SafETV •MA•[R 31 , 40 wow./ 501• 1/04111 A 1 poi sic SAG,.• 13 1 'ALAS 1•.C••.OES DE•r Of sir 1.9.4 'I `: • l 16 - . 3 AA CROSS.G OEVICL •RQIECTIVE 6u44661,664 3^ •R(- wCCw(wr • S • 1AGNr1QE I• OT3R00•119,1•1 POLICE TRAFFIC' «E st � 3 -=gut wana,or im \ 4 UT1.IT►•0•E I1E•L►I1p.E.ElECT71K1 IS 10404 *so YEDu13110M * 11[0121,7 REPORT �,• f • ./ IR.r(. . \ ( 64.4 STRUCTyRE 3031 K. 41•.41111 wLA0***l c....4 �`' / 2 17 7. 11 a460741*N00RYOST 17. EYBw4A41(Nl paps two •S370D}a711i71 imams f. 1 Quest PO•LS r0513 SUPPORTS 11 •11.W4.G wall. ' 1. 411E 1•0••Nt 8 MC7EA /1 ROC.OU7CROPi i4 116.61.6.443A668*. se. 0711101• • POPutiRr CONIA.*t.•G Iac IONS 1fW8K [0141 110• D1vKt M.. . IS 0.150 0 •11•17 1, 1441 I. N01✓RO►ER*[110•.5 1• P(OEStMrw VOU/o1.(RAy► 35 1 . 1101,E 1. 541001.4E 10 S.GR a I•auRC TO VIEW 11‘.0.1•01•0314 77 M4*4. 75 •1•aforaa 7. . 0• 1R.f 81C S.GNAIS I•. AR CA0554G GATES 3 31(0• 30E10 11 n1.0/1 O•SCw*LO•ww0iw.t•0 E..43$ • 1 6 & Ov( 11. RRC •0SS..G71..aft .[7.131113 • 1 0:1Ow 1 4 1000105E1.7 111 w3O••0•3CUACO• Sue. 3a0:•Gw7S 19 • STOP 54:11 • KI *3130141(5 la AR CA05S1.G 510. 34.4 3 00.444A0lluff 4 COR A V4.0.10oSCI A(YENt • • O1w(R 1. STOP 1GR • OIAEA 13 AR CROSSING • 07•1, f•A • DON 1[/7 Of ACVOw*7 CLN1EA. 30 010•111 swam 1101•A710118AC10A• �` • 11119 5.61• 14 3.0 3w5540• 1014 IOl 7•35110 411144U••: 7. Of I1Gtt 7.114••• 54'00. PwIR01 •O 1211111• 7 "01410 011.11 14, •1 DEf(Clw( tvAat3 ♦ $C.. WS S10P 0•/w • .• ..11E 1•i1 W DEfECI.v[ I.A{ 7.111 1•404 1 •••00L11•••ww4 3,I•01 110• 47 0E7IC1wt •K,.0 3 • 1•0OPCR 1•••10t h •.aOE Oval II V• •••03at .0 G.4 % L.. r 17 1••W[ •. •1 C *G •5 0•11154[ 0.7.4114.1 51.4.1 • .AGN DM1t I. o.T S • STREET 4. 1a 1• 413 Off 0 •••ux.& •4.N• N * 5.00.G 5.00.G . Carw11Y0ANw01 E DA*4. ?MEET 4013 /3 4 111 1YP(OwC liwff.0 70 07w4R V(1.C•E Ott CET f •c OW Ar 27� • 3 01134 aV w EwGI 10 °TAW 7• DARIO wnr7EN7.OR tl•SIfMCt1W W • SC[•11w(OUS J,-, • 0.3.1 . STAEE1 ON ‘74 w(•lw(R CI (O.0 0E13415 • ••*43141 ••••44.4. [04947.1211 11101A01•15•41•05•111101A01•15•41•05•1411101A01•15•41•05•14114 1 7o7.1.a11110044345 . 071w3.0•4 1 • 7•)144/10 /3 2 1' c6 44.1.•71 6ou 4 304 SMOG 110004 3 1•/0111 TAE 1 .f u(..c1 1 411 • 6 3 Amp. • SEVERE CROSS 0.41 111,0• 3 Rao 4144 12110•.0•0 • 1WQ.4*••EO 0 4. SNOW OAR • .0 t(EN 1•50•0 004•05 10 071111• • S•7.t71M1LfR{E1wG8a•I ! /4511(► /2 231 80 .1•114 ACE V 00• /� 1. i 644=7 644=7 0347 s*71771wr(R ww 0•1 0416E L 0•(T • 0(•415 / 1. 4419 RESiNT USED 9 3. SROw SIUSR 7. 04.1, 3 SEAT IAA'SROT 1•S11 3W 1*E0 1ET .,.LO 113.3* wrs Oft \ 4. CCPAC4EO 10 OiRIA• 3 5E*I01, 4073640 5 34a11.07US7.0 \ • 31.A 7 114I1344744.1.30 ...OSLO E 341(1 NOT OSLO *4OItr11S 812 WOK 5 445.(1 4.433 1• 3•Y(1 401 3SE0••Q •.01.1106 110144 0 44•.31 105[9 6•41 •AG.1r3 ON 11 0 344.115 OR • • • 3 a C0.4rI111CTIQN Mod . 13 41070NCIIC1d 11G..t$ 0.3 • 0 3 w 4••.wTSRaNC1 1•0•14 AIWA P010.0.• w OR 411/0C111 fa OMa C1.01.4 • 311,114.17Y NOON/ AREA 63*601*0 4314414 RC • 1•00•1•01114 N 110.11 PEI•(C7•1E C•01..04 . 1 OA:v(* 3 07w411 .7 3+17.71 (91•.13131 r•34,473 *PAO C3*A*C7L* a4 • *35(30[, w •ASS( "Gt." .4 snow 1. •1Rw 6 T 1 1LV11 1 C Mvt 4 LIat. • 4 *C(1.i..G OR VE•1C44 • 11 S:DE CAR S•50114.1•VO a. 3,TR*1GN• 4 GR•91 • C* v7. • 0 ON 4(40.7. 1 11 3 SThar•NT AT 1.4.CALST 1 CIwv3 Al I••1CRES1 0•1134110•.11 1 344C1104 IRON 1•,µ417 • I01AIG11 IN 110 • C1,0111 IN S*C. OCC■•1(o .N1. N. 411441.E 7144 1 U•1:1 1110 1 / 111••110 3 1341 AO ono Q A 11 ..10 • 1. 734(1*•714141.1p( AO 311.140 n DOO• Q] E a1RCAlEO 4 • Ra•••S/ 1. 344 {s C Pali 1 a. 01w(1av10LO4gNwa/ • 3LA1KS 14/a • • 646C.4,1611 a (•[C /[O • r l bw • 3 *away SI4ECT 0••4 • •10(111.* . • m 3 1•10112 C*311G4 Al81f. 1 • N/0• tsL.4.•O(O 7 at Iv 12 w ■•11•153 AGE 311 • 1107 144C1/O C •9534.4 3J 0•.13 E3C4 NO*7 1. 0/1LLM - 0 0111(8 6.0017 /.0•A• • •PL49I I1 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 • 17 tom. moot mow 014 3P•813 cad Al 13 ROC/03.11a. COO( - • rya 11p)T QD ON(. / . . • • • . • i .. APPENDIX B TRAFFIC COUNTS AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS , i t • al/ii Bonestroo _ Client: Page acme Rosene Project: Proj. No.,55'12 1 & Calculations F o r . Prepared By: Date: 2- l3 -9 0 Associates I l� 36 4 Osa e.cl Reviewed By: Date: 714. 3rn 215 .3Aff 55 Z75 ,- 1 _ .. DD - -3 730 575 t77© l ► 7 . :?yes - leo 15 _ _.. I . 135 2 75 185 . 2 IRS 320 1 , *e ►`biE.2 Prese v61v ' 21 yg. .. ac. ' ► _ I _. i _ -• ` Inc-ceased). 1S% ave r'a . 510 595 1 5 : : : 1 W 30 5 55 r 1 ILID j — 750, , 510 , -1 ' 1 _ • I Zoo . • ; ' 1 - -- -- - -_- _ - _ -- _ . . 1 : . fi , 1' ( H 6G-n,(, MI ' ' 1 ! 5201 ` I ■ ' . 0MiN CLOD Q / � � ► 240 tzs 55 • - rt+. 36o • I L-130 ----:-> 750 • S 35 -- LS, OS) . y '10 i 210 i _ .. — ._.. r. Z60 J ' J r' 1 � � --• - - tit 15 i _ .. o 4/ 1 - 1025 . j I 1 i I • A T 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** INTERSECTION TH 36 /OSGOOD AVE AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE 2/15/90 TIME 4.30 -5:30 COMMENT JANUARY 1989 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPEN VOLUMES • GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 185 135 135 55 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 730 575 275 275 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 180 60 185 215 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 25 10 50 25 : R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 . 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.94 5 Y 25.8 4 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.97 5 Y 25.8 3 NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 2 0.94 5 Y 31.8 3 SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 2 0.86 5 Y 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X X NB LT X X X TH X X TH X X RT X X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 16.0 4.0 44.0 0.0 GREEN 5.0 4.0 22.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.561 0.208 33.9 D 14.7 B T 0.502 0.458 10.9 B R 0.253 0.433 10.2 B WB L 0.583 0.142 39.2 D 21.1 C T 0.448 0.392 17.5 C R 0.088 0.392 14.9 B NB L 0.044 0.325 21.1 C 24.1 C TR 0.523 0.258 25.1 D SB L 0.141 0.233 27.8 D 37.8 D TR 0.886 0.192 38.9 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 22.6 (sec /veh) V/C = 0.528 LOS = C A 1 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** INTERSECTION TH 36 /OSGOOD AVE AREA TYPE OTHER BRA/FTF DATE 2/15/90 2/15/90 TIME 4•30 -5:30 COMMENT JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA OPEN VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 190 155 165 55 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 750 590 335 305 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 200 60 225 220 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 50 10 55 25 : R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 . 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 20.5 4 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 20.5 3 NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 2 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3 SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 2 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X NB LT X X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 16.0 4.0 44.0 0.0 GREEN 5.0 4.0 22.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.885 0.142 59.3 E 23.0 C T 0.630 0.392 16.4 C R 0.282 0.392 11.8 B WB L 0.491 0.208 32.7 D 17.6 C T 0.424 0.458 14.2 B R 0.085 0.433 12.9 B NB L 0.095 0.325 21.4 C 25.7 D TR 0.674 0.258 27.0 D SB L 0.141 0.233 27.8 D 39.5 D TR 0.907 0.192 40.7 E INTERSECTION: Delay = 25.2 (sec /veh) V/C = 0.579 LOS = D ■ r 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** INTERSECTION TH 36 /OSGOOD AVE AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE 2/15/90 TIME 4.30 -5:30 COMMENT JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA CLOSED VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 190 210 260 55 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 750 535 510 325 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 490 60 345 200 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 50 10 55 25 : R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 20.5 4 WB 0.00 3.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 20.5 3 NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 2 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3 SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 2 0.90 5 Y 26.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X NB LT X X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X X TH X RT X X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 16.0 4.0 44.0 0.0 GREEN 5.0 4.0 22.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.885 0.142 59.3 E 24.7 C T 0.630 0.392 16.4 C R 0.830 0.392 24.8 C WB L 0.665 0.208 36.4 D 19.6 C T 0.384 0.458 13.9 B R 0.085 0.433 12.9 B NB L 0.560 0.325 27.7 D 58.7 E TR 1.072 0.258 68.3 F SB L 0.141 0.233 27.8 D 39.0 D TR 0.901 0.192 40.1 E INTERSECTION: Delay = 35.3 (sec /veh) V/C = 0.742 LOS = D r r r liii Bonestroo Client: Page ____ Rosene Project: f Proj. No. 55 12 VII Anderiik & Calculations Fo Prepared Associates P By: Date: 2 -13 -.10 S.Fr - r hRb. Osqc)c.c, Reviewed By: _ � Erv-r' _ . 4 595 1 1- 5610). _ +. _ . ._,... : ___ _ ? __ � 1 _.. ` ! 105' 5 40 - ,.. 1 - 1 • n� .., 5 77 � Io - . T r, S' X55 • �N�: Pre _ • _ `.. TI . ... . inC - reRScA 15% Vic- av wag� ` tqol, `►�a ! I - • . i � _ . . ` -I t1.„...,,, s Io <—•'— EV - . • .7"):, 50 • , , .- ' ... _ i Q I _F_. _ 30 545 1p , I 1 : , .4,11 Omer -6 C1.1)1) w /exp m,P,u. z 3� 7 -,. i i , , . _ 1 . I --. 1 t : . _... ; - - _,x+ 250: , . _.._._. ___ t_. ; . _._.....__ . X15 . Szo 15...... i I :_ _ ._ - i . • - • • • 1 1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 20000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE NAME OF THE ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 2/8/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPE N INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 105 5 25 40 THRU 5 5 455 445 RIGHT 40 35 10 105 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 3 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH S TREET OSGOOD AVE II I DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/8/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPE 1 r CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 117 143 127 > 129 127 > 7 11 >E E THROUGH 6 187 174 > 174 > 168 > D RIGHT 44 785 785 785 741 A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 6 132 116 > 134 116 > 123 111 >D D THROUGH 6 172 159 > 159 > 154 > D RIGHT 39 917 917 917 878 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 44 615 615 615 571 A NB LEFT 28 548 548 548 520 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/8/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPE N 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 20000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE NAME OF THE ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA OPEN INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 145 10 30 45 THRU 5 10 545 495 RIGHT 50 35 10 120 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 3 2 F ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 I PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/15/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 161 111 93 93 -68 F THROUGH 6 144 130 > 130 > 125 > D RIGHT 56 753 753 > 525 753 > 464 697 >A A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 11 99 84 > 98 84 > 76 73 >E E THROUGH 11 130 118 > 118 > 107 > D RIGHT 39 883 883 883 844 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 50 544 544 544 494 A NB LEFT 33 501 501 501 467 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/15/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA OPEN 1985 RCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 20000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE NAME OF THE ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA CLOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 250 15 45 70 THRU 5 10 820 720 RIGHT 70 45 15 235 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 3 2 , ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/14/90 ; 4:30-5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA S [ CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 278 75 50 50 -227 F THROUGH 6 95 72 > 72 > 66 > E RIGHT 78 605 605 > 405 605 > 321 528 >B A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 17 75 50 > 57 50 > 29 33 >E E THROUGH 11 95 72 > 72 > 61 > E RIGHT 50 779 779 779 729 A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 78 364 364 364 287 C NB LEFT 50 307 307 307 257 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET TH 36 S FRONTAGE RD NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/14/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA CLOSED I 7 IA Bonestroo Client: Page Rosene Project: Pro'. No. 55 9 2. rims Anderllk & Calculations For. Pre ored 1 Associates P By Date: 2 - �3- 90 N. MALI. EN iEi2RNGE z4; QsGoc�p Reviewed By: Date: P sENtT 8 j 178,.L l 01 1 0 3 8 0 0 .55 315 O * No Prese * .Val w.4.5 Ls 4 �' • 1 , InG'� �rJ°�o cc._ cav o g � 3, j • cMpr� A _ . : w . . . M au 2.52 � 1 0 ;1 - _ ,_ ; __ ................ 155 o .-27 2 75 39-0) --� O . ; .. 0 <--= — - - 297 115: :- o/. _f. - 60 33D p ; ._ . _.... icr; f ..- I 1 • y l o� , , ! .._ Ci o /ex m, �- i l -- _ • 24{0 56 D ; : i ! { _J X1 20 - _..p. • , 515 _.-_ 0 ; • • O ‹-----7 I -- : -- - - . --�, 175 - Q �- i -- - - 1 . no %O. r 1 . , 1 ._ , , , , , , • ; , . . . , • . -, - -r ‘ : : 1 : on, : : 1 . 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 20000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE NAME OF THE ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 2/8/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPE N INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 195 0 55 0 THRU 0 0 315 380 RIGHT 80 0 0 110 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/8/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPE • 4 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p 14 SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 217 230 215 > 215 > -1 > F THROUGH 0 272 255 > 274 255 > -32 255 >F C RIGHT 89 818 818 > 818 > 729 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 179 157 > 157 > 157 > D THROUGH 0 248 232 > 0 232 > 0 232 > C RIGHT 0 916 916 > 916 > 916 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 745 745 745 745 A NB LEFT 61 595 595 595 534 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/8/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, VOLUMES PLUS 15 %, OMAHA OPE N . t 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 20000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE NAME OF THE ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA OPEN INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 275 0 80 0 THRU 0 0 330 400 RIGHT 115 0 0 155 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 2 30 %20000 1 II L n ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 1.00 1 0 1 WESTBOUND 1.00 0 0 1 NORTHBOUND 1.00 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 1.00 0 0 0 VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 110 270 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 325 0 75 SOUTHBOUND 390 150 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.00 0.00 5.00 WB 5.50 5.00 0.00 5.00 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/15/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA r CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 353 236 157 157 -195 F THROUGH 0 277 185 > 185 > 185 > D RIGHT 148 647 647 > 647 647 > 499 499 >A A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 140 78 78 78 E THROUGH 0 208 139 > 139 > 139 > D RIGHT 0 1000 1000 > 0 1000 > 0 1000 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 827 827 827 827 A NB LEFT 249 619 619 619 370 B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/15/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA OPEN • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 20000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE NAME OF THE ANALYST BRA /FTF DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA CLOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 420 0 120 0 THRU 0 0 460 565 RIGHT 175 0 0 240 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 1 0 2 2 . . ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 WB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/15/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA J w CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET EB LEFT 467 104 75 > 75 > -392 > F THROUGH 0 124 89 > 101 89 > -560 89 >F E RIGHT 194 666 666 > 666 > 471 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 75 42 42 42 E THROUGH 0 104 75 > 75 > 75 > E RIGHT 0 834 834 > 0 834 > 0 834 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0 619 619 619 619 A NB LEFT 133 380 380 380 247 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET MALL ENTERANCE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET OSGOOD AVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 2/15/90 ; 4:30 -5:30 OTHER INFORMATION.... JANUARY 1990 DATA, AFTER MALL EXPANSION, OMAHA CLOSED MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION . ,•� "�� DISTRICT 9 - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING P. 1. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES - - i C.S. ; 8214 964 DATE • : JAN. 12, 1989 LOCATION : TH 36 & OAYGREEN AVE. /GREELEY ST. PEAK HOUR : 16:15 -17:15 i.. 11 NORTH v 414 1 . kIll 1 t 2 4 1 1 5 9 0 4 0 0 . O E F T ?6. _ _ r H' a� .- t. k-: G 191 44 978 - � . 4- H 726' ~ 2100 -13 130 C -fi i - J 18 12 2117 1 915 B -� 2 . • 2 77 A •-. 1182 -4- ,� .1 t r _L M L - K . . 2 1 1 1 LANES OF APPROACH 0 4 6 1 f 9 . RIGHT LEFT THkU TOTAL TURN TURN LANES ,, i 328 11 1 1 1 3 12 1 1 2 4 13 1 1 2 4 . % 14 14 1 1 1 3 y F73-71 - . 4 IA Bonestroo Client: Page Rosene Project: 5 ri Proj. No. 59 Z Ze 1 derlik Calculations For. red Pre s pa By: Date: 2 -1 3 - 10 3; ttoN-r ►r\- Rfl . Om w Reviewed By: Date: l 4 � . l2.s ? - 30 2 a5 '10 I , . . - - -• - -- - a4 2 _ -- ... k . 1-474.._: : _ ..._.._ _ • -. - - 15 74 { •X71: I1. ) -- • V IAA E: Presens_V4Ium¢5 ' A a% 1 _ inc-reascd IS#) AVe e . . zes I j 5i1 ?o N. PRom �mv1ir� C�Me� A 0?eN ' w - Mflu.. 7 7p � 2•_ ' . i - i .. _ .. I - 2 i i I i - .._ .. Ib9 S g51‘.-!--51-1--- , . - - --- • • • DRE nIT 7 PR£. , 41 . (1$)1 + PRasZ. n lL s�l2i)235 135' SO Fob MHl,t- TkWF#<I DIVLy � t . ! - 1 ' ' ' - t 7 2) -. _ .. -.;.. _, ■ ALL OTH E T1 . 'F1C: 3 9row�� 3 0 1 . . ()MAW'S C\., OSeD fEX .IY LI.. / _ jss - -, • 90 it t 0.--- Igo ------- , Vs 1 0 55 j D►vER Cep T - _. ..._. ' ]Q . . - .__,.�..�;_._;. _ _ KT i 6a) 6 3rd, f i ' 3 Z- 0 ='' 210 To OS t ' i ! � •- j I ' I . 30 To c+HK6KEEN . ..4 __ .. . -� .. i ILO LT == 100 To o ; ; • , . ' 10 '1-t oe. r4 .. I Z. _••._ - 8S NB at 6EGorhe 2T: To csGoot, ! 1 • • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION METRO DISTRICT - OAKDALE - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING P. P1. PEAK HOUR INIERSECTION VOLUMES C.S. : 8214 0 DATE : 01-17 -90 LOCATION : TH 36 N. FR. RD. Divsm4I4 t PEAK HOUR : 16:15 -17:15 ■0 NORTH 11 0 0 Ili K L r M T. W. 3 to l `f__--_.l__l__�L• hi 1 `i 146 0 0 0 121 261 #3 0 0 135 12 437 0 99 0 16 0 181 ` 1 _ j r F E D _l_. M 1 ii LANES OF APPROACH 5 2 8 , 1 5 0 2 RIGHT LEFT THRU TOTAL _. TURN TURN LANES 107 1. _ 1 11 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 1 I 113 0 0 1 1 14 14 0 0 1 1 258 E- 2 1 I 4 Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. Keith A. Gordon. PE. Michael C. Lynch. P.E. - Philip J. Caswell, PE. Bonestroo Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Richard W. Foster, PE. James R. Maland. PE. Mark D. Wallis. PE. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt PE. Kenneth P Anderson. P :. Thomas R. Anderson. A.I.A. AEI Rosene Bradford A. Lemberg, P=. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Keith A. Bachmann, P.E. Gary F Rylander, P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. Mark A. Hanson. P.E. Mark R. Rolls, P.E. Charles A. Erickson IN James Ted Anderlik & Glenn R Cook, PE. Michael T. Rautmann, PE Thomas ER Angus PE. Haan M. Pawelsky M. Olson Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E. Howard A. Sanford, P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.PA. A ssociates Robert G. Schunicht, P.E David O. Loskota. P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton. P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, PE. Thomas W. Peterson, PE. Mark A. Seip. P.E. Engineers & Architects February 22, 1990 Ms. LaVonne Wilson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street No. P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: T.H. 36 AND OMAHA AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY File No. 5592 Dear LaVonne: At its November 13, 1989 meeting, the City Council authorized our firm to undertake, with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT), a joint traffic study of safety and operations at the T.H. 36 and Omaha Avenue median opening. With the St. Croix Mall expansion approved and under construction, we recommended that the impacts of the large- scale project also be included in any analysis. I was present at that meeting and was asked to estimate a project budget, without prior preparation, which would be billed on a per diem (not to exceed) basis. Assuming all of the traffic data required was either available or would be gathered by Mn /DOT, my estimate was that such a study could probably be completed for no more than $2,000.00. The Council approved the study on this basis, with the results to be reported to the council in February. This study is rapidly nearly completion, and I plan to attend the February 26 Council meeting to discuss the study results. About two weeks ago, it became apparent that, for several reasons, the estimated budget of $2,000 would be not sufficient. The total cost of the study is now expected to be about $4,000 A major reason has been the lack of data available with respect to traffic generation of the St. Croix Mall. We found it necessary to supplement available count data with peak hour turning movement counts at the mall entrance and T.H. 36 south frontage road intersections on Osgood Avenue. Another reason has been the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent count data (which were taken at different times). It should be noted that a major part of this study consisted of analyzing the traffic impacts of the St. Croix Mall, conducting part of what it often referred to as a "site impact traffic evaluation" study. Many, if not most, communities now require a developer to prepare, at their expense, such studies for review prior to granting approval of a commercial development, particularly one of this large scope. As you know, the City did not require such a study prior to approving the expansion plans for the St. Croix Mall. But because traffic to and from the mall comprises much of the traffic that needs to be accommodated, it could be considered appropriate and equitable for the City to request that the developer absorb some or all of this cost overrun. Page 1 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612- 636 -4600 f If y ou have any questions or would like further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 636 -4600. Yours very truly, BONE TROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gary F. Rylander, P.E. Chief Transportation Engineer Page 2 Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Mark R. Rof/s P.E. Rene C. Plumarr. ALA. A LI Bones t roo Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Robert C. Russek. A.IA. Agnes M. Ring, A.I.C.P. Joseph C. Ander* P.E. Donald C. Burgardt P.E. Thomas E. Angus, P.E. Jerry D. Pertzsch, P.E. Rosene Marvin L. Sorvala. P.E. Jeny A. Bourdon, P.E. Howard A. Sanford. P.E. Cecilio Olivier. P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. Mark A. Hanson. P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. Robert R. Dreblow, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Ted K. Field. P.E. Mark A. Seip. P.E. Gary W. Morten, P.E. And erlik & Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Philip J. Caswell, P.E. Karen L. Wlemeri. P.E. Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Ismael Martinez, P.E. Keith R. Yap), P.E. Associates M. Eberlin, C.P.A. David O. Loskota. P.E. Mark D. Wallis, P.E. Charles A. Erickson Thomas W. Peterson. P.E. Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. Leo M. Pawelsky Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Gary F. Rylander, P.E. Harlan M. Olson Engineers & Architects James R. Maland, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson. P.E. L. Phillip Gravel It P.E. August 7, 1991 RECEIVED AUG 8 1991 Ms LaVonne Wilson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: 58th Street Traffic Study Our File No. 55100 Dear LaVonne: Enclosed please find a letter and proposal from Enviroscience to complete a traffic study for the proposed 58th Street. This study could be completed concurrently with the traffic report for the Senior High School. Because of time limitations and with this firm doing the High School report we believe that it would be appropriate for the City to authorize Enviroscience to complete the traffic study for the annexation area at a cost not to exceed $2,950.00. dau r Ood , Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 411 I/ 0. 004%kiiif • Josep C. Anderlik • JCA:dh Enclosure 55100.cor 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612 - 636 -4600 • 35th Anniversary A U r- 1- 1 T H U 1 3 : 3 3 F @ 2 - • COST ESTIMATE for 58TH STREIT TRAFFIC STUDY OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MN Project Er al Maur Enaira � S z l ($75.00) ($65.00) (555.00) ($45.00) ($30.00) Data Collection 1 4 Data Analysis 2 4 16 Report Preparation 1 2 8 2 4 Meetings /Site Visit 4 TOTAL HOURS 3 11 35 2 4 Cost $225.00 $715.00 $1,800.00 $90.00 $120.00 TOTAL ESTDKATED COST $2,950.00 I , _ ENVIROSCIENCE --r . AIJG— 1 -9 1 THIJ 1 : ?4 F, 0 3 • ENV 1RD CIENC ..„ • ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • LAND SURVEYORS 6474 CITY WEST PARKWAY EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 July 31, 1991 Mr. Scott Richards Northwest Associated Consultants 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 555 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Re: Traffic Study for Oak Park Heights Association Area Dear Mr, Richards: Enclosed please find our proposal for completing a traffic study for the proposed 58th Street in the Oak Park Heights Annexation Area. The study will estimate traffic generated for expected development in the annexation area to be used in determining impacts of the Senior High School generated traffic on 58th Street and Highway 5. The traffic report for the Senior High School can be completed concurrently with the annexation traffic study, 'Y`he tasks to be completed as part of the study include collection of data for adjacent roadways, projecting traffic volume, trip generation, design recommendations and report preparation. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Lori J. McIntyre, P.E. Environmental Manager LJ'M /rel Enclosures cc; Dan Parker, Stillwater Andy Matzke, ATS &R • .".$ 4 .3.• . - # 1 .....: 4 :-.... 1 t 1 z Ili 4 i .-I l . ,..ii _ . e 1 1 , v -- )".1 . . .. ..ic . ,4 a.. _.......::: ,... , : 4 . : 1: ' v ; • a...0-4 '3 411.: . IX ..:. e."4 k. ii -) .... •,,, ••'" 1 At . .... .. ' , 1 1 4,0 ••••t9...•14... Pt ........... , • 1... e”. .............. 1 i 11 1 • . . %. N. • -ilh .4 . i 1 1 «.....- i . .. 2. ....... « ' • 1 . • 1 44 ••■• 411 -4.44 , 14440.. t • • . i r 4 1 % tl I • z . i • , t 1 i I . .• • . w - f 4. .....a....... k 1 % \ I i . '-, q. r. --I ..-.. ...... .. - -....1 ......‘......-. a ST ' cri.„ - • ..-.1 1 % i % 64 P 14 Et. 1. 11 \ . . • ' ••••••••111. 14 •:. . 13 , • . I; 73,,, • . ' t \ ‘ 4 k ........................ ..• ...... : .. ,... <:. : e 4 4 ■ e . „ I .. I 1 '.. 1 .. ., .. .,. . .. do • 1. 1 t 1 t I ! b; i :: Po • .4. • ^ i ..4 • • . . .... • 2 7" 1.P : ‘ I • I : IP ... ---1......4.4- .- i - .. - • « --At... ,.. • t 0 % 1. ..,. ,-- ( • i I I • • -..- i I 1 1 1 . 1 . ; 3 :-.. -... ... .... .. \\. .. , \ ; , , , , , ‘ , , „. 1..1... ,,,t,...K-4, ., i i c.) v.) 1 a ff . , f, l . .'* , ‘‘ \ \ , ... s • i ... : 4, \ \ % \ 1 \ \ ...,. 1....1.... ...t..i...1.- g.--I • i „i .14....p...... .... E._ ........\ i . Ai?, • xi v • ij. .. • s' '\\* . \ 0) 0 i 1 0 \ \ \ 1...........- .... .. ............... 4.. • .4 : \ '1 \ .-, ‘. • • ;43 .,.... -r-r 1....q.....1 hi 6 0 ', 3 -4) I , T. ) \\ \ \* '.. 1 i ‘ L....i... It\ '.',. ,. \ I I .p..,- 1:-. ....... , - .1 ...... . ...... . ....... .. k c p c., D • u . i LT 0'. ...10.... . --1..i.,34 \ . ,....,e s WL e. 4.6 * "1 * " 'I. s - 4 -.................? .. -4* ,,, .,.., \-.• , ......... .,..„, E r r . ip.... . • \ s ...„.•••...„.., „ 6 .... ,., . ,•• . f 1 \ ‘...,,, \ '' ' ..".. I ;II 41 al t 1 T r * 1 1'4 .. .• 1, Va 6 131 • ' .4 • \ ‘:. \ \ . • *<..). ....W ' ...- ..."'"' ■ . I 1 ":•••1......1. .. 1 1 ‘ ." • • *••• . 2/ 1 . ..1• L 1 v. .\ . ...., , ,... .,_. \ \, :•,,•-/ /......x ' --4,1....i.. . / \ ><,...• ,...;....- -•,...•••... ...... • .... t.--- . 1.---t ..... • -- -- ' i ( '" : rT • -.. . 7 - - - " 1;fejlti / > ) ./ .,,. . „.. ; .!..: : 4. a „, if 1 a ii. :: i.• .;". i.".. :: i'. ‘ . -.: ...i.i • * • . I .....„..,. ...,.>,.......\. , .. : e...1-1.1,1 .. --.... . . il 1 l r- :, • r \,‘ .....:.-.::-..-„.,..>. \..\\.,.... . • . 1,-,) ,•...... . .,... ....1 , • ,-. i .... 43, : ... 4 ..._.... k. kin . , , ,-.... 4 4 .....„?.. ,.. \ .. .. t...S "•... s.,.... i 1 4 , 133 \ 17, • \ . ....- - • I ". • ''" s 4 ty , N 1.....1.....11 .. i ./ .••• ••:./. - ,... ....>, .,.. • • /, . . •• ..-•.= •4 J. . t . t• (ci i. ..,,,, „.., . 317 4. ,.., • : 1 ... f i 1. 1 .1- 1 ' "• •• ll i ti Li ............ , ., : 7 .;,,.. , / ' ••• \ - .. ....)■• . .."-- ..... ... \ .. ; ......, \ ••:.N. .... ...c.... ..- \ \,...._ r - Y f . t •+: ie i i . I .ii : ,/ - - • n -.. 1 " v 11"--; : . - 41 V 1 i i i - - i 1 I i . . i i ci : I It. . CI1 . 4 C. ii i .4:k.; s.r. ;) .., • sr 4 01 .. • '4'9: \ .' •-•‘■ ''.o.,4:'..yer, int::, pii .... • . 44 - 4 (4 1146,', .I.: IV> F4 .. .4 * 4 ii. ii; - ' .1/ ffe i ' \ ' ....\ ''•• 'C ..L %. 1 • i 1 1 .....1. ' /•• ... l* ... 4 ..3 . ..j......1., 1..... I • - • •• - 4 t4 I ons h i L ,„... .. . •,• , .{, .... .14 • • 0 l t 1 -) 1 .--- r - t , ,.,.. ; ,„ t iCto 1 , ;„.,....... - • -r 1 k. N...., $ : ,.. . I . •.' 4-)4 A' , ..1 'in, 433 1'11 ' tco 2: u.1 ts. •• I ijo • . I t. 1 i *../•'N ... . ;,.. ......... .. ft* : 4.4 .4 ..01.1•4., , no . 1 • . . el" • i iles ...4 4. . 4.11 : i E It. N • . 1:: / ... 1 t .. • . • A . .. . ii , .i....,....._..t..t . .7 ..... 1... ... i..., to... ...3.......L..6...1...i...../ fr / 1 i ...A . 3. 1 . 1 . 1" 1 _ ....... . ..... •-• • .. ....... ..,.. ........ .... •• • . I b -..... 1 ...,)..„ :4 .... 44 v4 A 4 e3, ...; (0 as / ,,, .1 -• 4:4 A i .. ,ii.1%.,e e •• ..i= 2.. ,.. 41 I tz■ .14 43 ol to . -VS .. - .. • * V . 'C . tFt K111 4 it s ...." I ' . : i . : . 0 No Co No ? f : • .11 : 1(4 -' ....- . : • 4 ::4 L I 1 i th, i I 1 i... i ..1 .. .1. .... ' : 1 • L...1, ' A. • .• •,... • T S...3 ". : ,.• ,•• Is 1 ; 1 I 't• • • • . . ,. . . 1- . 1 • . - : r Ki ? I % 1 , _. 1 e$, L. ..-t--- ..• ... . - 1 . i I i 1 I.3ii 74 . • . : . . : ! :. ... . e.•‘ ; , ,,..4.........-,.. toh ; A Y. $. .• 4 " 4 ''' .41 .‘ 1 •': I - ' I , IC. • t•S 0 « • j,......," ....S......... ''' ,,...... I .1 4.4 io i* • ••• . ''' . C's I I '' IV I - 11 Iv, ■ ..... '''••-• V ('. i ....., t !- ' . i . ......i .........A ...v.''' '''' ' 7,1 ../' • ." ....• ••• ' .....-. ...-........ • • • ...••• 1 I •„•-•'''' .•-• . ,.. ri s% ..... • '1 I ....• ,. .... :.'-l• ' .•-.. .. A ..•-•• \ 1 I 1 1 -. I I ( ---c- -1 ...... . . ...../..- . d . '. .:... 1 ., .. ..-.' ....., ..^ • :••••• .....- ••••• '1 ';'" .."-•.' ... • • t ' t 1 .; 1 1 1 ‘ 21 -2; ..... • .........-- ....z.;-- ..--- A ' • I ■ % I t 1 ',‘ 1 , • • 1 1 : .1 I .1,---i' ' • ..".". 1,n1.00 ., % • 1 ■ 1 ; I . % k 0 , % 0. 1 i.r i fr. ' ' , ----le...-. , .. . .. •- e I •• , 4 : $ --.• ■ 1 1 .. ‘ ,. s i to.... v. ".44 ....% 1 • , A 't , .....- .: ...., i - , ..„...-- ... . 4.;. 5 ' • ,...-** cr C \ . ‘ '''' . ....• ‘ `, 1.. vt I ■ .t.....1-• -'t t . 1 i 1 \ ; I ...:4 1 ....i.....• ■?. . .L.• ,,,.... ,...' ". i 4.. • Oe ..1." S X• •••• , ,::, .....,• 11. .. $ .. f • 1 \ ‘ \ 1 IP O; \ I ..)....'•‘ le t...-1-1, .....- I „. . j,„ •-- „.• .... , ; 1 t 1 . ‘ : ; ...A-- ' % .....-........ • «1 ..) gm .... .. ... . .. .. . .. ... W . .. ". ....... .,., l l'... .. ...'.. I 1 / ..... 1 .0.•'.......k ;... `o t •• otto '., 1 \ ...s j,...)....... ,t.. • •••'' ....•'" ,.. .... •• , • . .....• ..,,::•:.;••''''';'.. • .•/.•::•:•••• .... i .. ■ i V. / I No •• : 7 % .• ..,•'..., 1 % .....•••"''.... ';,f, 1 Se.■ \ 8 ...• ..... _ : .. . 1 .....4.-- - ---- <;; ,? ‘.:,‘ . . ,...•-' , ,.., • . • : ........-.1--.:-... ..: w . .-6‘. t) 1 i /4 1 . • , . ---- • ; ',, > : ,.., 9 .s., I ..,..„ .-......, .„..,,,,..4 . ....., ...• - ' ....- - . ,....•••-'N-...;:" ..,...,-.- 8 • ' .....,•'^ ''...r•eiVel..i. %I. .., % I ■.:: ' 1 . ..L.: e SA :1 't ..• ...• ... / • •.' ' ..... ....X • ...," 1 , '7 . 1 ,. . ' •11 1 Cot 1 LP 1 0 . 1 L.:. 'o •'.. t CA L . • ' • .....• • •-• .:::;"" , .•''',..iS .0 en 1 l c' i • \ '.. . 1 ti 1 . . -• . • . fe .4 4/4 1 . tot t....• • "1 •••• ...1 ''.' ' .•• ,,. ' . ..,......4 . - . 4 r •/..". 1 1 ‘ ' A Zot . \ /.." • ' . tA•';.'"*""" .'" ../•''' .,.. ••••••-•' •••••• ...,.../. ....." 1 C1 % s !to 1 CA o •,./ ‘ ,41 , ...a 4 2 1 % r t _ .,..........,-- -,-;,, :.......;;:,.............±.::_. ..7 ....' c .." 4* ..... it • .. .... : . - ........4.- ...-• • •-: , -, - 1 .- / ..,;/ l• sj ./. ..," / *•• '-‘°‘.. • 440 . ; ...." .,... ,„ (. .., :4;=,--,,....,,,,..---. ......,:, t,, TC.:<:. • .. • ' ". 1, . ••• ' . '''' ' .." ei" ,.." t z • .... ..... do r 1 .• .. / :.• •...1 op . e I •••••• ,,,,,Y .,..," .. . • 4 .," ''' .... \ \ •' .," 1 I SL" .•,' •-.* .." ..• .. ,,.. • .9. r.: .. • • ' - , r' '.. ..'" .e•' co /.. .*". ' . ." ,... ., i ..,* ..:›le ,," • S • .- , LI ,....; ....;;,. . ......./ . . .. .... .. . . ... . ., •. ' , ... • . .. ... . ., I .•••• .. ..' . • .., ..4;" ,eal '••".' ••• ' • ••• . .. • . . ../ . . II • I' " .. •* ... • ...• '...' • .\. ) ./. .:,;;... ,/.. tol ... • ...1 . ..• : ... . • .... •••• '.. ••+. I. fi; ,,, .:::- „..---' ... ... Vk 'Y 0 ... „ •„ --. „ -- „ .. „ 43 „--/ -, k . -1 ft • ■...,‘; ... ." •*. .. V ' c Z ? • / ■ , \ .. ../. .f ' ,..7 . ••■-: •. ... 0 ..• . -, 0 .." ..' , ••• • c.i.> -. . ..-• . .- . .... . .-• '.. .••• .,;:;.. . <.. '..i: , t.1 \ . • .-• ....* •.• . '.;:! • i.•' ..- , :. ..1..•:. -. l . . • .::-. ../ .. • . ...• . ....,.. . . ,.. ::.. io •• , N‘ C> !.. / .. . • • es CA •/ ./ ..,A. r e' . ;„,) V, I C}' .• ... ,./ ./ / v-1, ... • ,,, .›.• ' ..... • ,... •,.. / • / ..- • • . •, ' .' " k A .I • ..''' ..• ./ • fY . •/ ' , ' .. ..• . ' . . ...." .... „. e " ../ ...Ski ,...," . - .. / . •••• • : . • .-- /.' ;CI .... . • • / i . / .. , - .. ..._ .'• . re ., / / ./' ' , -:': ..• ., ., ...,,,, I /7 > .. I ; • .. .. ,•1. i I i i . i • • ... .. - / I 1 .--". ,••••••,--, • ..... - .. -- " ) 1I • l ik • /., .., .6 L , -' ''' . •• • .. TH To 0.uR .. FuTuRE .. The St. Croix Valle Prepares Y for the 2lstCentury ... ... . .......:;..... . � 3 '� . '� . �* £x "`9s a % r � 4'1U1le, 1 1 . T Q c ,� .4 � � ;�. � r P �,'��� ,� r�, 1N do sa a ." '\� � ' ": gig r F\ ;; * y .: :A44 �iD �` $ T s h l , q .C� x s, !� ,emu � . a �.,, Q @ 3 \-\ \ \\ \� \ \�\ \ \�\ �i \\\t\\\\\\i \ \Y �`F i3: INSIDE . , ..............,.., . . A E view of the .. Med anon i ,. ... i �� ` �.. C ni an�i pose St:. Croix River F s �� r � x . a � ' corrid laat�rt i e fl for new Idge � s ta l l ing taetic� r • � �ys � g ,�itillwate .1histor c. . -, The brid protect on m et ... • : hold ' ... onree$ car,,: e t a t brf to In „ • • s � r . bi z .'" s ` ' � � � � e leg i sl ai to b y =tle x 1111111111111 111111111101111111111111i1111111111 .. The St Cr oix All iance brid a built. •7 ' �s ' � ' 3 � ro `k a l :fi r s � ' ��s l Z ti :t a�,F� i� for the Interstate Bridge 0,�z 11� a • • • I • PAGE 2 I l • An Eagle's View N ational Park Service Action A Bridge in Lawsuits, Put Bridge Plans on Hold , the South Corridor is It's really remarkable. After 30 years of study, 10 of which were conducted under the strict Federal Environmental Im,act "The recent decision by the National Park Service the Answer Statement ( EIS) process, 58 different units of government from to block construction of the St. Cro River Br the federal to the local levels approved a very specific plan . — a process that began more than 30 years ago By BOB UTECHT (preferred south corridor site) for the building of the new bridge.' and has cost Minnesota taxpayers millions — Is Over the past couple years a over the St. Croix River. outrageous. misconception has taken place relative to . the need for a new crossing over the St. Yet, after the 58 different government bodies (all of whom Croix River at Stillwater, Minn. It's time sought public input every step of the way) signed off on the . By allowing the NPS to make such a contradictory the pertinent facts of the whole debate be proj and w construction be ginning, a special interest . dedSlOtl at this Stage of the pro cess, the federal laid on the ta ble so that the governmental group sued the federal government to halt the project. . government iS Clt clearly Sending a message to the powers- that -be can finally move toward Unbelievably, the National Park Service responded to this very . , States that we Cannot d0 business With a federal • an intelligent and sensible decision that Political lawsuit by reneging on its ear l i er approval of the will bring about the construction of a new project. agency because another federal agency could south corridor bridge over the so -called r�/erS@• scenic St. Croix River. Invoking a strange and legally questionable position that the Move back m time to around 1950 construction of the bridge should be classified. as a water . An even more disturbing message is that the resource project under the Wild and Scenic Water Act instead federal government is forcing econom of a transportation co ncern — w hich all bridgesof this kind to � environmental and safety .concerns to take a back • ��� ,• date have been classified —the National Park Service entered ° into a gray area of law that will now require a federal judge and to Special i politics." o I . the Congress to determine the fate of the proposed bridge. Minnesota Gov. Aire Carlson 9 In short, although the National Park Service endorsed the 11 ' - preferred south corridor site and the specific bridge design throughout the EIS process, it recently recanted and sought to • be brought to the judiciary. However, citizens can and should call, ; ' take authority over the building of the bridge away from other write, and demand that their congressmen speak on behalf of the t , federal and state agencies. ma of those in their districts: particularly on such an important . " ' issue. To date, several residents living near the planned construction • t r A 1 In addition, the National Park Service has supported three site of the new bridge have formed a small, but quite vocal group that �, other bridges on the St. Croix over the past 10 years without has organized against the bridge. ' invoking this particular action, which suggests something more -',,,, ,,.;•i.:• ,-,,....• •-: is..... ,,,..,,..... ', ' te., , htical ma Y be at P la Y• , .; • : On the back page of this insert, it explains how to contact public po articular) U.S. Rep. Bill Luther, D- Minn., and R Ron �� So that's where it stands. No bridge until the officials, particularly p. e `� `" � � courts and Kind; Wis., who are instrumental in pushing federal legislation when the Minnesota State Sen. Raphael Congress speak. Of course, no public influence can and should through Congress to override any possible adverse court action. Salmore of Stillwater recognized the . eventual need tora new crossing. The State Transportation Officials Oppose Park Service Action present Interstate Bridge at Stillwater had been etc in idh. a n ametime ay, Still Bridge Has Become a Na Issue street cars, the rapid transit of the day, disappeared from sight. Salmore had . watched as horse and buggy left the scene, The American Association of State "AASHTO opposes the action taken by resolution approved by its Board of a war to end all wars was over, and people Highway and Transportation Officials the National Park Service to declare bridges Directors on March 20, 1997. gradually were able to afford a family (AASHTO), the national association to be water resources projects subject to automobile and the fuel to crank up the representing state transportation officials, review under the Wild and Scenic Rivers The group said that there are 37 states engine. During the Depression years of recently came out and formally opposed Act and regards such action as usurpation and more than 12,000 miles of designated the 1930s there were few cars let alone the National Park Service' s action of authority not specifically designated by wild and scenic rivers will be affected by the cash to buy petrol. regarding the Stillwater bridge and called the Congress," the group stated in a the National Park Service actions. i With the war over, cars became a upon Congress to overturn the decision. . necessity, then eventually two cars. The cash for gas was evident. The 1931 bridge t ,, 3 ; _ �; began to be loaded to the gills as the , ` § " fishermen on the river were wont to say. rr � amt M , As the years unfolded the Andersen e x � aY' W indows plant at Bayport grew from an This y t aMloid'is puhlls by th e3S P 0 t o f or t he lIttte Bilge, , o • , ai r t t # A ': �`I� � l )liar ce i 4 $ Pu ! P 4 1 8 ! 6 �i� 7 M G . k � .p ,a . ,+ employment base of has 500 local '� . folks t 800 workers fr all over th e r o f th n p _ 4 4 , � ' i , , +a = ( 6 12) 4 9 + ' . i' a foIlo wst M .. 1 :44 A. . moo . � ... . x ? 7` x. , , � ,� _ fi r 55 fi %. 6 " � r t �:. .v a ** western boundary of Wi scons i n . , H P O .T $ � � ,W • V ' " `, _ <s �. 4 �c� a r= _�', 3e �� 3 Y yam] § t ? • Stillwater became a visitors' destination l ! jll l 1 ► . s �� � � s,� ; ��'�� s a y ; . .. �+' t :.�scp� � a a� >:� • point because of its historical nature and lohrt e erbe ,i first: Nano �,. .r ,, _ ', . .. � b f • landscape. People were on the move: the Bank lei l ' • mond, �` t b ° * , : a '� inherent right of humans all over the ° i 3 .�� a� R g ` ° x , ° a world. Pit sidetitgi 9 m �� ��� � e= �� �q � �� �,� R N ;�,.� � m (NPs) declared the Upper St. Croix, north 4 �0 � a , t , ■ ' . r „ � , o ,.,„ 3 ` , �, ,, ' . ' Meanwhile, the National Park Service �� s ofStillwater, as "wild and scenic" and the Stills to :4 s r 4> l; " ' ` 4 . / �, p s `s{ as Fc tr & %i,P� 3 h _ # a F � ii _ « a , a g portion of the river southward to Prescott, � ° £ w, ° , r 7 < � ` ` . ` t. ga Wis., as simply "scenic." Folks smiled, a r b . Y `: ap h appy re t ha t a rive o full of �a , , 4 ' �., , (See Eagle's view, page 5) 1St ttt q x x ¢fi 3. t , " x t >;. • • • • • • PAGE 3 � 5 1 : t All Sides Agree: New Bridge Needed Environment, S Safety''..and T raffle Concerns Propel Need for New Bridge During the last 10 years of formal deliberations over , Thereareeasilyover30, 000residentsintheimmediate valley and the new bridge, one consensus has emerged, even from i n heart att ore k a car s"�'g areas who are bridge and the lady of those who have expressed concerns about the present Having a mo routing• As often silent' is Just that" H a v proposal: a new bridge is needed for the St. Croix accident, or a stroke at the wrong Our government representatives hear onl �t the very vocal Valley. time of day and on the wrong side of qty, and it is a small minority. It is now time for us, the majority, to be heard Whether the concern is about the traffic congestion in the river, can mean the differ � ence between life and death. �'� • downtown Stillwater that may mean a 30-45 minute trip P ollution i mpac t s Historlc,Downtown to go two miles, or the degradation of the historic "Remarkably, certain environmental groups who cry buildings due to the exhaust fumes from daily stop -and - go traffic, or the shocking safety record of the highways With the popularity of its historic downtown for tourists loudest about the environment have been surprisingly mum about the degradation of the historic buildings in downtown and the increase in pedestrian traffic, families who bring g leading to and from the present bridge, all agree: a new Stillwater which has been caused by the excessive carbon bridge is needed. children for a family outing to historic Stillwater also find Stillwater of the stop and go traffic," said Kimble, who themselves increasingly at risk as they walk the sidewalks ers standing h from resigned froois long staa membership with a well - The Stillwater- Houlton bridge was built in 1931 to and try to cross the narrow streets o.f the downtown. known resigned f his environmental group nding membership of their lack ofconcern primarily serve local traffic between Stillwater and small over this issue. "But the impact is very real." communities in Wisconsin. Over time, the bridge has Andersen Corporation Shows become a major recreational route between the two states Concern for Employee Safety River Traffic: A Final Straw and an important commuter route for individuals living in Wisconsin and working in the Twin Cities. According to Increasingly, tbeconcem forthemanyworkerswhocrossthe Increased river traffic has a direct relationship with the the EIS, "problems with safety and congestion have been bridge daily has become a concern. In a letter to Bruce Babbitt, congestion in downtown Stillwater as well. According to the Secretary of the Interior, Andersen Corporation President MnDOT data, the annual number of lift openings grew fiom documented for many years, and they continue to grow to over , 436in 1977 to 1,628 in 1989to2,178in 1994. The number worse as traffic volumes increase." and CEO Jerold W. Wulf stated , Our company employs 3,500 people in, the St. Croix Valley community of Bayport, vessels passing under the bridge increased from 547 to 3,830 Like most formal government documents, that's an Mu Approximately 65 parent live in Wisconsin and a to6,962during the same periods. With the pn jectionofusage understatement. significant number of these use the bridge at Stillwater at least, only in easing over the next two decades, the situation will twice a day. Their safety is of primary. concern to all of us. ... only get wale. Something needs to be done ... and quickly. Current Bridge Thoroughfares: ,, ..77 , ='Unsafe at Any Speed' � � � �� � ' a "%' a `� s ; , -*, S s :: s ya ' ' r+4 ``a. ° 9' 3' , c " � 4 it e t l' $�' � r '` .� 3 y, ' 7 i re ' g 3x r ."': L ?3 a � e 3 �, `. :.xF•' . z z Traf ficac d ident statistics leading to and from Stillwater s � , ,"" ` • ��� A ' ,downto bridge are an unbelievabl six to seven ti m es � kt F' ,,,,,,. ,, zi < ? . .those of other highways on the Wisconsin side and more �� , �; ,� K � � , � Q � � �° � � 2.::z.4.. �� �B - „!..,,,, - „,..,-,,4, x �� . than 50 percent greater than other state highways on the � . =s s > �, � 3 i s t N � '. � r .. � . � �; ��` g , Minnesota side. Unnecessary accidents, often with trag F , :, unfortunately just part of the a� „ and fatal consequences, are y J P 0 X Fay , 4 4 a a current transportation landscape leading to and from the ��x 3, ..%,,.. � � � �, • . E` y V :: i� 1 . F . x . " a 3r d `x ,� z '. •� £ 3 ,.fir -£, m i,"s r, Y 7 4” bride. a1 F s r A s 4 . Traffic Congestion & Safety � . � > � . II I rt^' � r ,. F" sy ; 'salq � .: �,A ' - } �'� g � 4 j ' s Not only are the traffic accident statistics alarming, but 2 � r f . 44 s ~ . ? 1; - the regular congestion in downtown Stillwater continues to ; £ F gi ■ Statewide problems for emergency vehicles enroute to Q , fi . : 0 1 � , ,. resent �. 4 e of one -lane. F ' ,: �� �� : in Stillwater. Because = ;;f .fit x5 , � � Stud). � �'�.� '� �, i� � _ � � � �� Lakeview Hospital S ® Area r Lake � E � . ! , limitations for cars in downtown Stillwater, even the p > E ,� � 3 ambulances with lights flashing and sirens blaring have a w , � r , r 1. problem navigating the narrow streets. '` ��� . " a ' 1' According to Dr. Paul Spi medical director at Ant a i it- z` F Lakeview, "the delays caused by increased traffic on the �� t present draw bridge have the potential for serious patient - 'sh �,x €� ' risk because emergency vehicles cannot get to accident SJ ,,,,� �` f. , z io victims or people with emergencies in manner.y _ This is particular an i ssue during periods of heavy R ,��` ,,_, 2 _ congestion, which is a dai ly occurrence. " In other timely words, ' s - having a heart attack, a car accident, or a stroke at the wrong ,144,0441:,;;.1,,,,,.1;,;:,..31,,,,,;:,,f = , _ - ; '" l jjY��ffi'1y3RN ;*,1-,10,,,,r,,,,:. 3 . g4 : time of day and on the wrong side of the river, can mean the difference between life and death. u 4 t - i "while the City of Stillwater has implemented numerous F ?, � 4 Q w — � t ;' - traffic and parking management strategies over the past two E __ - - , ., to three decades to address the concerns of safety and i _ _ - ` congestion, the physical limitations of the downtown restricts , our ability to do any more," says Stillwater Mayor Jays x # "04� , Kimble. "A city can only be so creative with such physical < , rry At H 10 limitations as we have in downtown Stillwater. 4i ,� l , s f 4� 1 , _ � . • • • • PAGE 4 Other Alternatives Discussed Wh the Central Last-minute y Med i at i on Seen as Corridor Site • Opponents of the Brid e Tactic b g y Won'tWork Minnesota House committee, Seven p� opponents �i corridor Communities Reject Mediation the current g to eneart JayKi Cafe. According to Ac MayotJay Kimble of Stillwater, "froth an environmental peispedive, the central corridor alternative is really indefensil le. It would carve out aportion of the natural A total of seven communities in the St. Croix Valley as ISN'T MEDIATION WONDERFUL ? IIEWRE bluffs above Stillwater, relocate many more residents, pass GOING TO DUIL'D JUST NALF Of A well as the Minnesota House of Representatives have 5RIDGE AND WE'RE. i 0ING To through two packs and other environmentally sensitive rejected the call for a formal "mediation" process to resolve BOARD -uP +4A�F of Dort . , areas" RId€12 -VIEW gr' ,, , ,.4 a,. wiNooWS I n /., + 7' :1 , "From 8n environmental The EIS process is recognized by �1 ` ",", �; " • corridor for mediating both federal and state law as THE 11111 ', 1 perspective, central the central differences alternative is really indefensible. It - K..� , 11 of opinion, protecting the lull , \-! would carve Dora portion of the 1 T 4) : natural bluffs above Stillwater, and reaching Mil, '; � infrastructure project decisions. The - ----- 4. relocate many more residents pass issues opponents of the bridge now J through two parks and ottr want to . mediate ... were all sustnsri'E a r e a s . s. ccrrocs Jay Kimble, Mayor of Stillwater thoroughly addressed in this state 4 �TM '�'' and federally mandated = 4, , ��f ,. Tie most serious � issue would require environmental review process. `u cueing into the bluff and dumping fill into the river which, Commissioner James N. Denn according tDKmtble , "simply notbetoleiatedbyany governmental agency Irby the public." In addition, Minnesota Department of kill the bridge have sought to use the mediation as a prop ts o f p� t Transportation smokescreen and a tactic, said Mayor Jay Kimble of constttrctsd to service foirr4arre highways feeding into the ; S tillwater. The E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t (EIS) " bridge hum both Wiserse itn and mmuesota and a spaghetti process is a process of mediation. For 10 years the St. Croix j unct i on of u and pvetpasses would be requited to make any issues relating to the proposed bridge. • River Bridge project was exhaustively studied, with very it wale, The House, Transportation Committee recently voted stringent federal, state, and local environmental criteria This p would do little to ease the wirent congestion in 11 -10 against the mediation process, joining the required for the EIS process including public hearings and downtownstillwater" communities of Stillwater, Bayport, Hudson, North Hudson, community input, analysis of alternatives sites, review and Other suggestions include a "no -bad" option which New Richmond, Somerset, and St. Joseph Township who approval by state and federal agencies." would require a rerouting of traffic down to the Hudson" A all unanimously rejected the mediation process. The St. Kimble also pointed to the fact that no federal, state, or major problem with that is that the Hudson bridge was built Croix County Commissioners and Minnesota and local agency or communities objected to the EIS, having with the i mat afov<lane b would bebmitm Wisconsin have also rejected the rationale for such a been reviewed by some 58 different legal jurisdictions. Stillwater" In other words, to route all the cars to 1-94 would project process. Letters of roject approval were received by MnDOT from - soon =ate daily tramo backup of its own for that area "There is little question that those who wish to delay and both Stillwater and Oak Park Heights. R s. Luther and Kind key ■ ■ • Built n to Have Bridge . t Le �sfat o ongress Can Enac g No matter what happens with lawsuits or . , an earful in recent town hall meeting& in rising costs to taxpayers due to ongoing 'National Park Service actions, the.United ! their districts regarding the bridge. litigation and increasing expenses for construction that will inevitably have to States Congress has the power to ensure a 1 Kind recently announced that, after take place," Kind remarked. bridge is built over the St. Croix River. ,.'� mo of stud he favors the proposed 'Congress tbe included can enact in on usiona v e r ill b ion Luther has leaned toward bridgeandthatheplannedtocontact To date ,to be included in one of several bills � �; � � i , and others in Congress to see what can be mediation. presently going through Congress to � '. ` ' �` � done to facilitate construction as quickly as override any and all opposition to get the ' i possible. Citing transportation, safety, and The congressmen need to hear from their ibridge built. -" 4 � ; _ < environmentalreasons,Kindsaid common constituents. Please see A CALL TO sense dictates this approach. ACTION on page 8, which outlines how to U.S. Rep. Luther, D- Minn., and U.S. �� contact them and other .federal and state P ;Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., representing ,districts on both sides of the St. Croix, got u.s. Rep. Bill Luther U.S. Rep. Ron Kind , "Any further delay will simply add to the elected officials.. y c 2 a , , ` � � o s � l Y � 'S is ; fig. � �.a �,�., K� k ,: ' '„ t ". e S ��!, r: � �s . .�'�a�, �rF .s �' � o S . Re . z on ind,M F � ther :t f lr A‘,7..' # �: �5 . I :���� Lu � � � ; �, �° �� F � x,� ��,�_.- � . � .�,� , � � N � �, p � �" �%€��;f �. '�. ;�a3 W. `'3Y.i3. ;ss -. �'; � � �° '� Z-.r,^ �, 0 lathe :U . Congress o g �*r r (':s r err :" .. n et X 53 i � . �,.. , 1 V ��,, �; �u .�a; a �t � � � ;� �, � �e �3 � o r a� � � '3�a #'�F o it onl k bridge. _ ( e e, a � k n and�� ® 3 s �', x3'� , avrr � a Y p �,�s t a � a 9 '� [[ s '�� a '��� a t �. � i ' 3�; , t ��yy.3��'��1 �`.�3� sg'1+ 'wN� �.� .Xa � ,, - .: � �� FY �`IY S' sb i�� �� a • • • PAGE 5 Flood Melts Opposition to New Bridge` Commission Endorses - , . , ' '' -,s New St. Croix Brid The Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary improved river crossing is needed. as Area Commission (MWBAC) reversed its "We wanted to make a positive stance" �, ' Y , & ' $ .. ° long standing opposition to the St. Croix and not have the commission's official '°. -,- � -., , Rivercrossingandendorsedtheconstruction position be simply "what we are against," „ ., of a new bridge. The action reflects the said Dan McGuiness, the commission's , • • _� *:',:'—'4',3,„„,,',,,-,s‘,4 .' s growing concerns that a new bridge is administrative director. �� '�': essential to the communities of both sides of ' ° the river. The MWBAC action was prompted by a • °''' � � N On April 18, 1997, the 10- member resolution recommended by its St. Croix s advisory panel of the MWBAC, which had River Regional Committee, to abandon the new bridge "no-build" alternative as the group's first been saying since 1990 that a e g " � over the St. Croix River at Stillwater was choice for the future traffic needs of the area. unnecessary, officially changed its position. The subcommittee gave three reasons it felt 1 �._ No doubt the recent flood, which closed the long -held position is no longer tenable,: i down the old historic bridge in downtown including 1995 traffic system studies ‘ „,., ' 'y ,. Stillwater for two weeks, helped the indicating the need; the belief that further z� commission reconsider its previous stance delay ofanewbridge will hasten deterioration . ,,, -.:; • against a bridge. of the historic liftbridge; and the factthatthe .. k ,., governors of both states, who have appointed , �' p ,„� In a resolution passed unanimously, the all of the current MWBAC commissioners,, ' r - , :r '° commission said: "We are no longer certain have made it clear that building anew bridge that the no -build alternative should be our to bypass traffic arounddowntown Stillwater Volunteers fill sandbags during the building of the dike to protect downtown first choice. We now believe that an is a high priority project. Stillwater from the St. Croix River flood during the second week of April. „ Ea Eagle's v (Continued from page 5) logs, snakes, sewage and much mom, was now a thing of beauty. Yet the need to tra t ral corridor a roach, ` ` .with The' resultant toxic fumes, and a who propose a central PP p . . P and cross the river did not slow down any ,, � - � , , � roundabout way of carrying life _ saving more than the need to cross the Mississippi jum across where I the Oasis Cafe nestles into vehicles to needed hospital care. Simply fly in downtown Minneapolis from Hennepin the bluff are out of touch. Such an approach would with the valley eagles and see the picture for Avenue. It wasn't long before heavy duty cruisers call for 300 feet of rock stone; riprap and the tike yourself• and yachts began to populate the river, from being dumped i nto he St. Cro It would call for s To bring things to a close, take note that tate's rights have been dashed, common a few dozen in the 1930s to today w cutting into the bluftwail South of'Stillwater,`do sense discarded, pure environmental issues nearly 2,000 boats in permanent dockage i ntense d ams a to an -already of core earth. It , s as toxic fumes, thepossibility of riprap from Stillwater to Prescott. dumped i nto the r eyesore v Along the Minnesota side, designated would ad a ` s paghetti junction " , and in the end, pollution on the Minnesota side, plus scenic, came 11 marinas and the largest cause an even larger lar g traffic pile-up with the resultant ignoring our Wisconsin neighbors to the concentration of boats on inland waters in ; east, have all been tossed into a trash can, America. Along came an immense electric toxic fumes, and a roundabout way of carrying life- leading to a literal verbal war between the power plant in Oak Park Heights. Along saving vehicles to needed hospital care. Simply fly residents on both sides of the river. came a condominium complex at Sunny side with the valley eagles and seethe picture for yourself. Anyone, and I say this with emphasis, Marina. Along came a fertilizer plant near who takes the time to look at the total picture the south end of Stillwater' s precious Lowell both on the drawing board and from the Park. Along came a sewage plant and a up -in -arms group cried out, "No, no, not buildings, foliage, or softwood trees. The eagle' s eye in flight, cannothelp but conclude river- bargerepairfacility. Before the soaring where I live! Build it right at Stillwater." definition "scenic- recreationist” is ill- that a new south corridor bridge crossing is eagle could blink an eye, the Minnesota side Clog things up even more, and to heck with defined. an absolute necessity for public safety, for was and is an environmental disaster. All it our Wisconsin neighbors who, I might add, The citizens of Stillwater, Oak Park the preservation of the environment, for the takes to recognize that fact of life is to cross make up 40 percent of the retail base of Heights, Bayport, and western Wisconsin good of business and commerce and, in the over the Wisconsin side and take a look, as Stillwaterbusiness plus the same percentage followed the government process from end, for the American right to travel and the eagle does, at the Minnesota side. of beds used at Lakeview Hospital in priority funding to ground breaking. This move about more easily. It' on that premise To alleviate horrendous traffic backups, Stillwater. was never a pressure political movement, that the nation was built in the first place. the toxic fumes in downtown Stillwater, 18- Some people indeed question how condos but rather a common sense approach Editorialize, if you wish, study all the pavement, wheelers pounding avemen , the and the could have been built on the river's shore, following correct governmentalprocedures. facts in the process, remove emotion and obvious delays and hardship for life- saving spoiling the visual environment. The Sierra As a matter of record, some 57 federal seek common sense: the end result will n of ambulances to cross the river, a new bridge Club got into the act to save some mussels, agencies, along with the involved groups sure the prove the depth o the eagle's view. A new was needed. Finall y , the b ridg e gained clam s to ea g most of us. So the MnDOT gang from both states, signed on to make s south corridor bridge at Minnesota's priority with the Minnesota Department of saved something like 18 clams at a cost of south corridor bridge would be built. birthplace city must be built. The better Transportation (MnDOT). Citizens in $85,000 and moved them upstream toward Those who propose a central corridor answer than a few river dwellers stirring up Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo, Stillwater. The NPS then did something approach, jumping across where the Oasis a storm over what has become troubled Bayport, who all cross the western boundary, very unusual by adding a new term to the Cafe nestles into the bluff are out of touch. waters. breathed a sigh of relief. word "scenic" making the definition of the Such an approach would call for 300 feet of I " s roc stone ri and the like being dumped a freelance columnist Preparations were being put in place river now scenic- recreatronrst. How k, prap Bob. Utecht is fr or f when, out of the blue, came the voices of a strange that the only recreation on the south into the St. Croix. It would call for cutting th Stillwater Evening Gazette, the Gazette very small segment of Sunnyside condo end of the river is big boats plying the placid •i'. i Into the bluff wall south of Stillwater, doing Extra, and Weekender publications. His residents objecting to the location of the waters. Strange also that the, river is rarely intense damage to an already soft core earth. columns appear four times weekly in the St. crossing because it would be near their seen from cars or by pedestrians and others It would add a "spaghetti junction", and in Croix Valley. riverfrontdevelopment. This smallbut vocal since it is shut off from view by either the end, cause an even larger traffic pile -up �.- . PAGE 6 . Environment. Safety Weighed Heavily in Final Plan ONLY ONE _ SITE , POSSIBLE FOR BRIDGE , . PubIic In Drives EIS Plan for Preferred Site The National Park Service endorsed it. as the only possible solution in the final Windows and two state prisons also dot the cost, safety, and adequate traffic flow design. Minnesotaand Wisconsin endorsedit. Every Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in landscape °tithe Minnesota side. Itishardly ' community in the St. Croix Valley endorsed large measure because it was the best and the wild and pristine setting detractors of the Virtually every social, economic, and it. In fact, 58 different legal jurisdictions most sound alternative from an bridge suggest. . `' environmental issue that could of been endorsed it. They all endorsed the preferred environmental and safety perspective. addressed was. Traffic and safety concerns, south corridor site at Oak Park Heights for In all, eight potential bridge sites in the bike and pedestrian access, economic issues, the new bridge over the St. Croix River. The fmal location of the bridge was placed north, central and south corridors were future growth of the area, and of course, in perhaps the most developed part of the exhaustively studied and reviewed in the environmental concerns were reviewed and Wh entire river. On the Minnesota side, the Environmental Impact Statement. Three `fro addressed ... for more than 10 years. proposed bridge will go over a sewer build sites, .. an on -site replacement In short, after 10 years of study and treatment plant, which is adjacent to the alternative, and two tunnel crossings were In fact, at therequestof the environmental community input, the preferred south NS P plant with its towering smokestack and also examined. Eighteen bridge designs community, the final bridge placement at ' corridor site, which is an extension of coal stacks, a barge repair business, and the were carefully evaluated on the basis of the preferred south corridor site was actually Highway 36 in Oak Park Heights, was picked Sunnyside condominiums. Andersen appearance , the blend with the environment, moved 1,000 feet upstream. COST O F BRIDGE: $ 58 MILLION 18 Bridge Designs Reviewed . K : .s " ,� . DesignSeekstoBlend .0„0.„,,,,:„,,,:,,„,„.„.„,,,,.„..:...„,„:„.:::..i:,::,..:::.:,...,.,..:.,„..„....„:„......:,..„,...„..,:.:,:.. •:„,„,,,,,,„:,..,:„„,„;:::,,.:,::,,,,,,..,,,,,„,,,:„.,..„:„:„.:,:,„,.„..„.:,,,i,„„„:„.....,:„. ..:......„:„,„::::,:::„.,„„,,,,,„„,„,„„„„:,.,„,„„,„:„,:::::,,,,........,„,... ,..„„,,,,,„,„,..,„„,.„,„:.,„::::„.::.,„„„„,„„„..,„:::::2,„,„,„.,:,_,,,,:„„:„:„:„.„.. , x WHO PAYS? £ R 1to Into Environment 4 basis of appearance, : :_ �_ -:_ A tota of 18 bridge designs were carefully evaluated on the basso �`�� A i g 8 Y 114 `; the blend with the environment, cost, safety, and adequate traffic flow design. The j a '"' % \ ' , ' ° final bridge design was picked according to the EIS , fii "to minimize the competition for MN 10 /o . environment". The lan called for the bridge y � ,4 \ �, �. � visual attention with the natural plan g e to be ` t lower than the bluffs (using a natural ravine) and have the least number of piers in the FEDERAL , ' A1f,W water possible: eight. - , e 80 , _ , 47 ' Ironically, some ofihemore exotic proposalssuch as suspension or various arch designs (him the � � WI 10% # 't=';' Mendota Bridge) were rejected primarily because the public felt that it via�lly from the l; 140,,,4 4 0,1 n atural envronment, iparticularly when viewed from the Minnesota side. In addition, the soil in the Staligk 46.4 Million . �,n riverfieddidnotallowforthemuchheavier a rchdesr g n . Tbede srgnteammcludedsomeo fine est , larg • , � f� . and best bridge design and construction firms in the world. 41,01010 � 4 Pu 8s Ys tYPe�B 8n• 8n - Extensive blichearin andsurve weaeusedboseledthe edesi desi � `' r � c _ < � � X A 80% $46.4 million 1�� decisions were facilitated by the citizen-based bridge Design Review Committee, whichoompleted its wank in February 1996. x f, 10 %= $5.8 million ; M : v_. ,€ s � e4 Bridge design modified for environment ilitietilaiiitik. 414040..N :*0 Many have asked why the prefened south corridor bridge site dosses the St. Croix diagonally. WISIIIIMIN, A . 4 # � .114i.: Theansweris that its another example of the designers sensitivity to the environment and the safety of the citizens using the ri crossing. 4 e a nver tl,t it 0, 1 The original plan called for the bridge to be constructed at a right angle to the shore line. By i £ 6 ' � � changing the plan to enter the a river at the same point on the Minnesotaside, but slanting the bridge ; tgil : a f a t Imo' � uptiverbyl000feet,thenewdesign lishedthree .Itallowedtheconstnrctionto ass Y :;.4 a 4 , , through the bluffs, a high priority in the protection of wild and scenic rivers. Secondly, it created a r . safer entrance to the bridge by reducing the curvature of the Highway 36 ramp entering the bridge. . e 1 There; ig stn; a ddi $ 80 niiilon wol h '1� o .k. 1 And thirdly, the designers were able to reduce the rate of incline in the bridge from westto east by � li�hway approach wor Involved in a project 3 lowering the entry point of the bridge in to Wisconsin. l i 1 a s' ,t} o Since the river narrows to the north, the new diagonal design increased the length of the bridge a` * V i � . �Y F l ' ei K by only several hundred feet, an excellent trade -off for the protection of the environment and safety I k a ' , art et* �� of travelers. This is yet another example of the engineers acrdtheenvuonmentalists working together .. 4 # bS Y 2 M @. �,��' v S � q C � � � � N :; ;�� ` �' o� � r �"��r�� � z ; � �` * T �„ . , „ to provide a safe transportation system while preserving the beauty and the sanctity of name's . $16,500 Per Mussel Illustrates Concern the EIS P rocess had for the E . To illustrate to the degree to which no Ten mussels were identified in the river ingly minute •issue (and the jokes around That's not the end of the story. When the environmentally sensitive stone (even in the bed where the bridge is to be built. The U.S. town that it cost "a lot of clams" became bridge is completed, divers will be sent back St. Croix River bed) was left un- turned is to Fish andWildlife spent$165,000,or$16,500 legion), it does show the extent to which the to return the mussels to their original site, look at the case of the Higgins Eye pearly per mussel, to send divers to relocate the EIS process addressed every environmental presumably at a similar cost. That would mussel, a clam included on the endangered mussels up river. While it raised some eye- • • and safety issue possible in the most sensi make it $33,000 per mussel. That's a lot of species list. brows that so much was spent on a seem- tive fashion. clams. . • PAGE 7 • �� V � �, c� -;'�8 y.. � �`���' � .:om.. ���a � : Y deer .� a •, \� \� a vry c v c v . , • 'fit 4 ` ?, •r ` r :,,, :. - '. .,.. a7� J Vin, t \ � a? �'\�` as 6 a, ,, - - : b `. i `�' �� � � s z o ���v.� s�.v� �.y v` v'`.; i re \ . < .. =.:. � .. "� . .. � �.. '� >' ' •� � .a �i � � ? �,; � ,, . i.. ma � � ��� •��vva } � z�a�?a\ �� .� b xro € 3 4�6rw.w wyyp b` Jll M w�.. ..� -. _ - ° , e, '� + „.__. , . fi ..b....A a _ , . • w a �,,tt � a� v `, a ,- r ;' J 1,i . ,.�',> a i ' a s a . \ a m a^ '"e •�`"'.+. ,tea a�y a, . �.. \. .iy �,� :: �= a � � «. "'� v � ` ..� a barge e „•�, . - ,. •� tam` �` k '� � � a m , aa"�i .a car .� � a f � k �� �' � A .� ,. a � v .; • yr• :_ gy p, \ ,� $ ai . 4 , ,. , _x ., �i z.. e. � ? . �: � ....:. u ; g. The final location of the bridge was placed in perh the m os t developed part of the entire river. On the Minneso ta side, the proposed bridge will go over a sewer treatment • p l an t" which is adjacent to the NSP plant with its towering smokestack and stacks, a repair business, the Sunnyside cond oiniumrtn. Andersen two state prisons also dot the landscape on the Minnesota side. It is hardly t coal Windows and • P J he wild and pristine setting detractors of the bridge suggest. .0 & A - • • MnDOT/W A nswer Com .• .. 1,...._: o nly .. . _ , . , ....... ... AskedQ es toons lie a rdi n the Project •,, ,, � � . y s '. . Q: Are local citizens and officials in favo ' f :1: vehicles ea day. Projec show, that by the year 20, a bridge in this area will „.,. need to cazry more than 40ons ,000 vehicles per day, exceeding the traffic capacity lwater of the roject? existing b ridge ch . A number of other problems also plague the surrounding area, the p A: Approvals have been received from the Federal Highway Administration, the inclu ding ried vehicle movements and capacity -in downtown 17 Stil, bridge Metropolitan Council, and the cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Resolutions of lifts during rest the ct boati season, a large number of pedestrians, single -lane traffic leading support or have been received from Was hingto and Croix , St. into Stillwater, numerous signalized intersections, which slow traffic flow. on Highway Joseph Township, ip, Hudson, North Hudson, N Richmond, Somersetn St , Bayport, counties the 36, and the steep grade from Minnesota into Wisconsin. Pedestrian and bcycle use of West Central Wisconsin Planning Commission , the Stillwater Area Chamber of the area is also hampered by the current highway design.capacity in downtown Commerce, and the Stillwater- Bridge Task Force. Stillwater, b dge lifts during the boating season, a large num of pedestrians, single - Durin the Design n Public Hearing in 1992, 75 percent of the 469 residents who had an lane traffic leading into Stillwater, numerous signalized intersections, which slow g g opinion said the advantages of the proposed new bridge outweighed the disadvantages. traffic flow Highway 36, and the steep grade from Minnesota into Wisconsin. Pedestrian and bicycle use of the area is also ham by the current highway des Q: Why build the bridge in Oak Park Heights Qe W hat a bout runoff from the bridge? Instead of elsewhere? A • visual impact while A: A ho lding po will filter drainage from the bridge deck and prev hazardous . It is b eing built at Oak Park Heights to minimize the v s P spills from entering the river or spre on land. The current bridge has no safeguards addressing area and regional transportation needs. The chosen alignment was selected to prevent pollutants from enter th St. Croix River for its environmental, visual and social consequences. The effects on parks, wetlands , , farm land, historic sites, and the . St Croix River valley will be minimized while sti Q: Will the b rld a be sa for traffic, ' improving access for travelers, increasing safety, and reducing travel time and pollution, g pedestrians and cyc ilsts? 0: Did MnDOT receive any citizen direction in A: The b rid ge will be four la wide wi shoulders that will accommodate stalled designing the bridge? - vehicles. It is being des traffic to safel hand a vehicle speed of 60 miles per • hour: Csnercte median haulers Will separate the opposin traffic lnes. Ped fans and b will be A: Citizen input and involvement have been crucial throughout the planning process. an a„ eight-foot sidew along the a north side of the bridge. The sidewalk will During the 1980s, the Stillwater - Houlton Bridge Task Force worked closely with be the vehic traffic w a ooncx�ete baniei Three overlooks will Provide a MnDOT to review documents and provide recommendations. MnDOT also held resting viewing the river valley. The attire project is designed to the same meetings with citizens and agencies, public and iandatds hav made Minnesota highways among the safest in the nation. c the type of bridge design. Further while design decisions hearings were fa surveys cilitated by the used bridge Design sele Review Committee, which completed its work in February 1996. were LA: s Wh a t w i ll h a pp e n to the Stillwater lift Q: Why is the bridge needed in the first place? dge4 The lift design and narrow roadway of the existing bridge are outdated for the .The Stillwater lift bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is current needs of the highway corridor. The bridge currently carries an average of 15, , p rotected by federal law. A se decision - making process will be used to determine the final disposition of the cod brid at the end of its useful life (10 -15 more years). ,; .:, • 4 PAGE 8 New Bridge Will Prolong Life of Old Bridge q u� J �� h Y s Histor Stiliwater • midnight, while th� . - • + '. 'k, �, RN° r #R AF ,0 ik.„ .,_.. �v. � M P Bri to Remain . ..., s � : . E 3, ? o'er hecifupon i:400044.0Seitil o, Longfellow was not writing about the historic Stillwater- Houlton k �l �'e '�t church mower bridge cross but he almost could of been. Anyone who has Z �W • • ventured across the grand old bridge in the mis4 fog, or perhaps on a �°`�+� clear night with the moon rising over the bluffs of the St. Croix, may a 54,44..A, s �. T`he Britge # itlll..nrlgfelio0 f eel a sense of nostalgia of another time. Bridges, like lighthouses, d o that to you. , . ..- , . '..,,:''' ilh . -, ' .,..."S : g Z - P In fact there is perhaps no greater symbol of the rich, historic, quaint 19th 3 TS o �� century Stillwater than the bridge itself Yet, because of the tremendous use "" , ° 1 , =. �� £, �x and overuse of the bridge with trucks and traffic it was never built to service, - �� the bridge is in jeopardy of literally falling apart. , ,, y ' Built in 1931 to serve primarily local traffic between Stillwater and the `1i, �y3 4 £, �, 5s� small communities in Wisconsin, traffic has increased on the bridge from a ,, _ '� �s� , �' � � few hundred cars a day when it was built to more than 15,000 cars a day "` ., .,;:00,:1.80 , 1 , : J _ .£�; today. Projections regarding future use is estimated to be at 41,000 vehicles } 1 1 ' l in per day in the year 2017. The Stillwater lift bridge is on the National Register * �-' ai o Historic Places and thus protected b federal law. y Y f P yf The new bridge over the St. Croix will undoubtedly prolong the life of the old °k„ _ ��i , bridge and ensure a unique treasure will remain as a signature of Stillwater for years to come. r A CALL TO. ACTION -' —_-7.1 rite CaII, Fax ... W ., We encou you to write, Gall, or Minnesota Federal Legislators Wisconsin Federal Legislators =01 fax your position d o the brtdg6 to Congressman '11111 Luther Congressman Ron Kind Olt ail the;pubUc off dale belo , < Minnesota 6th District Wisconsin 3rd District this erltical,time we now h ee t d II; 1419 Longworth House Office Bldg. 1713 Longworth House Office Bldg. n CongressmartBiii. Luther, ©- Minn Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 end Congre00.0•4 40$0r P.1, (202) 225 -2271 Fax (202) 225 -3368 (202) 225 -5506 Fax (202) 225 -5739 . Wie , to peciflcaily dpOP ederai, legislation in the United'States Senator Herbert Kohl Congress that would override any ^ Senator Rod Grams opposition t0 the building of the 261 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 3300 Hart Senate Office Bldg. preferred south corrido bridg Cho `' Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 not accept anything but this (202) 224 -3244 Fax (202) 228 -0956 (202) 224 -5653 Fax (202) 224 -9787 position. : Federal Agencies Senator Paul Welistone Senator Russell Feingold Secretary Bruce Babblt 717 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 716 Hart Senate Office Bldg. U.S. Dept. of Interior Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC.20510 1849 C Street NW (202) 224 -5641 Fax (202) 224 -8438 (202) 224 -5323 Fax (202) 224 -2725 Washington, DC 20240 (202) 208 - 7351 Fax (202) 208 - 6956 GOVERNOR — Minnesota GOVERNOR — Wisconsin Governor Arne Carlson Governor Tommy Thompson Director Roger Kennedy 130 State Capitol 115 East Capitol Building National Park Service St. Paul, MN 55155 • Madison, WI 53702 Dept. of Interior (612) 296 -3391 Fax (612) 296 -2089 (608) 266 -1212 Fax (608) 267 -8983 1849 C Street NW For chore In forpiaNOf, piegsecall t he St�'.Croix Alliance for the. interstate: of our letter to the' Alliance a P.O� s Washington, DC 20240 Bridge 4398000 plea fiend a copy, y (202) 208 -4621 Fax (202) 208 -7889 Box 2i 31, $till rnte►r 1N 55082..x.. _ .:; s 3. , • •