HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-26 CC Packet Special Meeting
~,::t}
e
v{.
/2.
~.
/4.
/1.
e
{t1~~) ,
~.-~--
r illwater
"~ --- ~~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA J
June 22, 1990
M E M 0
TO:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 26, 1990, 4:30 & 7:00 P.M.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
This memo is a reminder to Council that a Special Meeting has been scheduled
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 216 No. Fourth St., Stillwater,
Minnesota for June 26, 1990, at 4:30 and 7:00 P.M. to discuss the following:
4:30 P.M. AGENDA
Staffing and Facilities Workshop.
Resolution approving Assessment Reapportionment for Oak Glen Townhome
Area. (Bruggeman Development).
Consideration of participation in weed harvesting of Lily Lake.
Executive Session to discuss special assessment appeal.
7:00 P.M. AGENDA
2.
This is the day and time for the public hearing on L.I. 257, the making of
an improvement consisting of Phase I, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, curb &
gutter, street reconstruction, watermain and appurtenances; and Phase II,
improvements for Lowell Park area and Mulberry Point and appurtenances,
located in an area bounded by Fifth St. on the west, Pine St. on the south
extended easterly to the St. Croix River, the St. Croix River on the east
and Elm St. on the north extended easterly to the St. Croix River
including the former State Prison site.
Notice of the hearing was published in The Courier on June 14 and
. June 21, 1990 and mailed to affected property owners.
Any other business Council may wish to consider.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
It
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
r illwater
"~ ~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~
June 22, 1990
M E M 0
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
NILE L. KRIESEL, CITY COORDINATOR
STAFFING AND FACILITIES STUDY
Please bring your copy of the Staffing and Facilities Study report to the
meeting on Tuesday afternoon.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. 8311
RESOLUTION TO REAPPORTION ASSESSMENTS
Whereas, the City Council of the City of Stillwater has previously
adopted the assessment for L.I. 184, and
Whereas, the remaining assessment balance for L.I. 184 for parcel
#10602-2000 is $306,086.70, and
Whereas, the remaining assessment balance for L.I. 184 for parcel
#10602-2100 is $96,027.20, and
Whereas, the total of these two assessments is $402,113.90, and
Whereas, the City Council has approved the PUD first phase
development for the above-mentioned parcels, and
Whereas, the remaining assessment balance for the parcel #'s 10602-
2000 and 10602-2100, shall be reapportioned to the individual
parcels platted in the Final Plat Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA, that the following assessment
reapportionment for L.I. 184 parcels #10602-2000 and #10602-2100 be
approved:
1st Addition -
14 Lots @ $6,485.71 per lot =
$ 90,799.94
Future Development -
48 Lots @ $6,485.71 per lot =
$311. 314.08
$402,11~
Total Assessments
,.r
e
e
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FR:
City Coordinator
DA:
June 22, 1990
RE:
AQUATIC WEED HARVESTING OF LILY LAKE
Accompanying this memo is a proposal from John Evans, Freshwater
Aquatics, to harvest aquatic weeds from Lily Lake. This proposal
stems from the initiative of Gene Bealka who has talked to other
lake-front property owners who are interested in this proj ect. Mr.
Bealka believes that the property owners would be willing to pay
for the project but is also asking the City to contribute.
The area to be harvested is shown on the enclosed map of which
about 30 percent (30%) abuts City or non-developed property. Mr.
Bealka believes that a 30 percent (City) - 70 percent (private)
cost-sharing relationship would be fair and reasonable. I estimate
that 10 - 15 acres would be harvested at a cost of $2,300 to
$3,300. The City's share would range between $690 to $990 under
this proposal. Mr. Bealka would obtain agreements from the other
property owners to pay the owners share.
I am not sure how beneficial this program would be in the long run
because it appears that the harvesting would have to be done every
year and more likely at least twice a year. In the long run, a
freshwater maintenance program may be more beneficial. Staff will
be reviewing the availability of funding assistance for this type
of program. In the meantime, the Council could consider trying the
harvesting program to determine benefit.
~/~
(
. "-,
08 Glalliola Sl. NW Coon Rapids. MN 55433
(612) 757-21nl
e
June 21, 1990
Mr. Nile L. Kriesel
City Coordinator
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater ,MN 55082
Dear Mr. Kriesel:
It was a pleasure to m et with you, Wally, Gene and JoeJ on June 20, and to
visit the shores of Lily Lake. The harvesting project is entirely feasible,. and
per~, request, we ave made arrangementsrfo_begin work on Wednesda"9 ~
....Jane 27i to harvest the over-abundant plant growth onTiIyl:ake;- ~~~. -' 2..- /
~- ~~w.
As mentioned, our equ pment is capable of cutting a 5' swath in areas as . "~q
shallow as 18" (spawnin areas will be avoided). In deeper water, the sickle can -j-.. II tc V
be lowered to a depth of 5'. All harvested plants are brought on board by . ~
conveyor, stored in the hold, and then deposited onto a trailer on shore which k.J.~ J.-..::s
will be unloaded at a predetermined location. We would greatly appreciate ot,l:~ ~ 10
being able to use the 10 al composting site. ~1 t<...
OtJl) ,
1\ p...tU)~
-~
The cost of transport,
harvesting is $220.00
$200.00 per acre.
et-up, launching and retrieval is $300.00. The cost of
er acre under 10 acres. Over 10 acres, the cost IS
We believe this project can be completed In two to three days, depending on
weather conditions and ther factors.
Thank you, and we 100 forward to assisting you In your commendable efforts
to keep Lily Lake beautiful.
Aquatics
JTE:sle
cc: Mayor Wallace A rahamson
Gene Bealka
e
~,==jJIII .~~ 11~~11~:IJ.1 1!~6T 111
2 ,,-:( 7 17 12 ~ /411< .....!.!- ~AI 7 9 7 7 12 !LlJ 7 2 12 I,.,
lL:: I (/)7 10 '''I 10 13 I
O~'. ~3~c=;.: 13 ~A 10 9 I 10
~~ Ii I I >-~.L 1.3 1 g 12 I W 12 : ~ 6
~1-"'-18-~ 13 8 ~_IO",,"-..J-6-~ 3 I
.. " ~ I :E
_ I W cr 9 II UJ -, I(I: I
6- ;;: 7 I 6 ~ ~ 1 im 4 1 X 7 -, 6 ~ 7 I 6
.... '
_. PINE
'F-/~~ 659' 12' .J)~",-~~L",[l3\{'1' 1<<~8 1"'""\
\ 1 <1> 4 5 4 I 5 9 4T 4 5..... I
6 \7T 6, .!
12 \ 1 I '2~1~" I -.... i 2
~ f'!"'7 - 1 : I" :/~""'I- .,: I ''fl 2
.~ "'~-' ~: ::, \,''' Iii
\
1 \ 6 ~ ~~ I t I I I I I I
~. i\- -- - - L L ~ _ __ _1_ -'_ .l_J -- Lo.K S.
-~ fr
______ \ /.,0/. !2f) 1
~\~~\ .', ~'?~ 1..// L. !I-.:'?~~~ ~ _.~,
, ' r "''''A-f.2 '33 ~ I
'.B:;j I ...,0 '" \' ,
,\.~~ 1..4J.,.~ . w '\ , ~ \ 1
,~' '1~ ;2d
~~~
~~j 41.7 ACRES
,~J ~~~ .
...~ 'h
~ PRDJtC:;: ~I ~~~~ ~I
~ f\ rtE1\: .. ' -,~
~-=-~ ' ,"'..... --, ' 1"
..:,~ '- ~t (L1L.Y LAKE ~/"
.." ,1 RECREATION ~ (
. ~ ~i CENTER) "1 ~eRICK
~~w1t/;~~
'T -- ~~//M~/~
1:- :W~~~~~ / ~ ~
'~~tA" "v~/.
-<~ RA~d?0~V.di~
r=-- _.=-=----=-J ~@ ~/.W~~U~,
i~iMtTSJ--------'------u~ -.-- .~ U~//'- / /. ~ ," '"
. OUTLOT A '" JUTWT C ! i -' ~ 10 II - . . ~ ~ r
I g 2 4 !!-~y:;;~ I~' . ~,.J r
I 2 3 g I 2 ~ If;~ . r/ ~"-'i' ,} r'
........~ . ~,." ~ ~ ~....... .AIr"..t I
I ,// T - -"-"-"-"~ "/
1/ ____.-J ......1
6 1 7 m5 t--=lJ D
I t--= (f) }-"
2-<1> 5 6 en
I 8 I
1 I ~ '
~ T I 2 'I 2 I I
W 4 T .3 4 T 3 >- 4- I .3
T Z~15 6151.JJ615
/ I ~-..! 32.... en~2 -L....J 8 I 7
--al 10 9 Z 10 9 W'ICi T
\ c:: 12 II UJ 12 II ~ 12 I I(
12 llJ 14 13 ~ 14 13 t::) 14 \ 13
.,1:::1
7
ST.
61 5
252-
en 10 9
12 \I
14 T '3
UI _
6 I 5
~62-
10 9
12 I II
14 'T 13
-
4:
a:
", 7 T
:---; ==--.J 3 1
---l I.^ -17-
H ~14 6
7 Ii'?:!
'if
IO~
9
NASHINGTON
21
J,.
--j\ \-
, l'~
,a::.
,1l
~.
PARK
V
p3
-----2.'"
I---
I--- 4
12
1 :
I
,
I
6:
i
~. :~::::\It
P3 .\
t
15
~
I
HOSF
"-...
R4
G\1'<
I"~
1\
1
r
, \~
I
PARCEL 4
e
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVE RUSSELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JUNE 20, 1990
SUBJECT: LOCAL IMPROVEMENT HEARING #257 FOR DOWNTOWN STILLWATER CAPITAL
FACILITIES PROGRAM.
Background:
The Downtown Plan was adopted in December 1988 after eighteen months of study
and preparation. The plan contains policy statements to guide the development
of Downtown and identified infrastructure conditions and needed improvements.
To assist in implementing the plan, the Council appointed a nine member
Downtown Plan Action Committee. The Committee was charged with working with
Staff and the community in developing a public improvement program as called
for in the Downtown Plan.
During the plan consideration by the Council, the Council stressed the
importance of dealing with the infrastructure problems in the Downtown,
particularly the old sewer lines and lack of storm water drainage facilities.
Other priorities are the Lowell Park Levee wall and parking.
In May of 1989, the City Council authorized Short, Elliott and Hendrickson,
the City's Consulting Engineers, to prepare a feasibility study and
preliminary plans for Downtown improvements. Short, Elliott and Hendrickson
worked with the Downtown Plan Action Committee, City Staff and affected
Downtown property owners in developing the feasibility study. The City Finance
Director has prepared the financing plan for the improvements.
Basic Participation
Downtown property owners, business owners and city residents have had several
opportunities to review and comment on the plans. The Draft Downtown
Improvement Plans were presented to seven Downtown and community groups and
over two hundred interested people. Comments received from the meeting were
incorporated into improvement program changes as outlined in previous memos.
Downtown Plan Action Committee Recommendation
Downtown Plan Action Committee recommendations include the following:
1. The Improvement Program be completed in three phases, Phase I 1991,
Phase II 1992 and Phase III 1992-93.
2. Downtown benefiting properties pay 75% of assessed costs on area basis
($1.06/square foot).
e Summary of Phase I
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
e
#
Phase I consists primarily of infrastructure improvements in a retail core
area. Infrastructure improvements include storm sewer, storm sewer stubs,
sanitary sewer, watermain, water services, and hydrants.
Street restoration following utility improvement, will include new bituminous
surfacing, new curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetscape and lighting.
The Downtown Stillwater entrance enhancements including welcome signing,
landscaping, and bluff landscaping and lighting will be incorporated in Phase
1.
Reconstruction of the retaining wall adjacent to the Stillwater Prison
Warden's House Historic site will be improved as part of the North Main Street
improvements.
Enhancement of the railroad corridor treatment has been included in Phase I to
promote north/south and east/west pedestrian movement throughout the Downtown.
The total cost for Phase I shown on Table No. 4,1.1., including design,
administration, and construction is estimated at $5,354,102.00.
Phase II programed for 1992 would result in reconstruction of the St. Croix
River Levee wall and improvements to Lowell Park would cost $3,836,000.00 and
a parking structure scheduled for Phase III would cost
Financing Plan
The cost of three phase Downtown Improvement Program is $11,184,500. First
Phase costs are nearly one half of the total $5,354,102.00. Of that amount
$3,043,855 or 57% of the First Phase costs are assessable. The mock
assessment roll shows 75% of the project costs being assessed on a property
area basis. This results in an assessment of $1.06/square foot for district
properties and generates a total of $2,285,112. The remainder of the
improvement costs are paid through MSA and MnDOT assistance, ($534,120),
Infrastructure reserve ($123,000) fund, a Downtown parking district
($264,580), and TIF revenues ($2,095,960).
TIF revenues are available to cover the costs of $2,095,960 bond. Staff will
continue to monitor changes in State law regarding the use of TIF funds to
make sure it is available for Downtown improvements. This may require some
additional bonding.
It may be appropriate to modify the area assessment basis for large parcels
based on the costs and benefits of the property owners. This could be done by
assessing large parcels over a certain size differently than smaller parcels
typical in the Downtown. Some options can be presented at meeting time.
The City has been informed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission that during recent wet weather, the Oak
Park Heights Sewage Treatment Plan was not capable of handling the flow of
sewage. One factor that affects that situation is the condition of the sewer
lines in the Downtown.
e
e
~
The Downtown Improvement Program will address tne I and I problems, a top
priority for the Council. This will result in savings to sewage rate payers
throughout the City. (See attached letters).
Recommendation:
Acceptance of public testimony, final Downtown Stillwater Capital Facilities
Program and Financing Plan and order preparation of plans and specs for
February 1991 bidding and Spring 1991 construction.
Enclosure:
Downtown Stillwater Capital Facilities Improvement and Financing Plan.
Letters: Mark Desch and Jelle de Boet - 5-3-90
Metropolitan Council - 5-31-90
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - 6-1-90
e
e
DOWNTOWN PLAN FINANCING PLAN
Cost
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Total
Phase I Costs
Construction
Bond Issuance & Capitalized
Interest Estimate
Total
Revenues
Non-assessable Assessable Total
$2,357,005 $2,781,820 $ 5,138,825
3,574,410 262,035 3,836,445
2,209,300 2,209,300
$8,140,715 $3,043,855 $11,184,570
$5,138,825
215,277
$5,354,102
1.
Special assessment to property owners
(2,155,000 sq. ft. @ .85/ft.)
$2,336,442*
2.
State Funds
MSA & MnDOT for storm sewer & street participation
534,120
3.
Parking District
4.
Infrastructure Reserve
5.
TIF Bonds (Phase I)
Total Revenues
264,580
123,000
2,095,960
$5,354,102
* NOTE: This is 75 percent (75%) of the assessable dollar cost.
MARK DESCH
PO BOX 82
STILL WATER, MN 55082
Office - (612) 439-7098
Home - (612) 439-9479
e
May 30, 1990
Mayer and City Council
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Downtown Plan
Phase I
Dear Mayor and City Council:
The Downtown Plan Action Committee has recently held a public meeting to
explain the Downtown Capital Facilities Program for improving the Down-
town area. The plan submitted is divided into six phases with implementation
starting in the summer of 1991. Phase I includes necessary improvements to
the infrastructure and public utilities, primarily south of Mulberry Street.
Phase II includes improvements to lighting and sidewalks on North Main.
The proposed plan indicates that the primary method of financing for Phase
I, be an assesment to all property owners in the Downtown District based
on a square footage basis. The cost is approximately 85 cents per square
foot. This basis puts a large assessment on those properties that provide
on sight parking. These properties are primarily on North Main Street.
As a compromise to the proposed plan, I would suggest that Phase I and
Phase II be combined. Also, since the project includes putting in new
sidewalks, the removal of overhead powerlines first would be more cost
effective if done now versus sometime in the future. By removing the
overhead power lines it will greatly improve the North Main appearance
and allow the development that is occurring on North Main to progress
without the nuisance of antiquated utilities.
It is my hope that the council will give consideration to this request
when making a decision on the Downtown Plan.
Sincerely,
~~U~v{
e
Street
n.J.
~...
e .,~'~
~-~"
,&/
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre. 230 EaSl Fifth Slreel. SI. Paul. MN. 55101 6/229/-6359
May 31, 1990
The Honorable Wallace Abrahamson
Mayor, City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor Abrahamson:
Yesterday my staff met with Steve Russell, Stillwater Community Development Director, Dick
Moore, the city's consulting engineer, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) staff to discuss Stillwater's initiatives regarding
infiltration/inflow removal from the city's collection system. As you may be aware, the MWCC
was required to bypass portions of its treatment process at the Stillwater treatment plant several
times last fall and earlier this year because of flows exceeding plant capacity. In addition, the
plant failed to meet its effluent standards for removal of organics because the influent
concentrations were extremely diluted due to infiltration/inflow. Based on these instances, the
MPCA has been concerned about approving any further sewer extensions in the city.
As was indicated at this meeting, in June of this year Stillwater will be considering Phase I of its
downtown plan which deals with infrastructure improvements in the downtown area. Mr. Moore
indicated that these improvements should remove 0.207 million gallons of clear water per day on
the average, and more during peak rainfall events. These improvements will assuredly help in
relieving the capacity problems and effluent limitations at the treatment plant. In addition, the
city of Stillwater should realize a significant savings in sewer charges from the MWCC because of
removal of this clear water. These savings will increase over time because of the escalation in the
MWCC's future sewer rates. I would strongly recommend that Stillwater approve this phase of its
downtown plan.
If the city needs any further clarification regarding this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Stt::::- /~
Steve Keefe
Chair
cc: Steve Russell, Stillwater Community Development Director
e
------,..._~,.....---_....-...--,,_. '~,
'"'-' -
.,
-.... '
" ;;;-"/ J V
> ./... t,
e
~ ~"-~?
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rS
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 'C~
~elephone (612) 296-6300 MINNESOTA 1990
June 1, 1990
The Honorable ~allace L. Abrahamson
Mayor, City of Stillwater
Ci ty Hall
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Dear Mayor Abrahamson:
RE: Stillwater ~astewater Treatment Facility
NPDES Permit No. MN 0029998
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of discussion which took place in a
meeting on May 30, 1990, among representatives of the city of Stillwater, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Metropolitan Council,'and the
Metropolitan ~aste Control Commission (MVCC).
The MPCA has been informed of several instances of bypassing which have occurred
at the Stillwater ~astewater Treatment Facility from April 1989 through March
1990. During this time five bypasses occurred in which amounts of wastewater
ranging from 116,000 to 550,000 gallons received only partial treatment
following storm events. The bypassed volumes did receive primary treatment and
disinfection. However, the MPCA is concerned whenever bypassing of this volume
and frequency occurs.
The MPCA staff believes you should be aware of this situation. It is possible
that the current condition of sewers in the city of Stillwater is impacting the
Stillwater ~astewater Treatment Facility following storm events. This situation
is of sufficient concern to the MPCA staff that current and future requests for
sanitary sewer extension permits may be delayed.
!
f
~e encourage the city of Stillwater to take appropriate steps to alleviate this
situation as soon as reasonably possible. ~e understand that the city of
Stillwater has under consideration the implementation of its Downtown Plan which
includes sewer repair and/or replacement. The MPCA would like to be informed of
the status of this implementation following relevant public meetings which we
understand are scheduled in the month of June.
e
Regional Offices: Duluth. Brainerd. Detroit lakes. Marshall. Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper
" J"""
,( ~ \
,~ J #
,-
I , '.
1 '
,.
e
The Honorable Vallace L. Abrahamson
Page 2
If you have any questions on this matter, please call Cynthia Kahrmann at (612)
296-7315.
Sincerely,
~~~.
~. Gerald L. Villet ~
J Commissioner
GU1 / j mg
cc: .Mr.'-Stephen S.'Russell, Community Development' Director, City of Stillwater'
Mr. Gordon o. Voss, Chief Administrator, Metropolitan Vaste Control
Commission
Mr. Steve Keefe, Metropolitan Council Chair
"'.;"~"-.,,,--,.~-- ....-,;"'.-"~ '^~...._,:
,..' '~"~_'. .",. ,-~.-,.__...,...._.~- '~"""._"~.'-'_.-.:"'"""'7,......".. ....A.. -
e
"
"
e
e
,
Exerpt from:
"Clean Water For Today: What is Wastewater Treatment?"
Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, Virginia.
Infiltration and InOo-w:
Insidious and Inflationary
Wastewater is delivered to a treat-
ment plant through a system of
municipal sewer pipelines.
Such systems stretch for hun-
dreds, even thousands of miles,
connecting each domestic and
industrial customer to the treat-
ment plant at the end of the network. Pipes settle,
manholes crack, brick and mortar crumble. Sewer
systems are never completely watertight.
In the ideal world, treating the wastewater that comes
to a plant through a sewer system is challenge enough.
But in the real world, this challenge is made even
greater by the intrusion of ground and surface water.
This additional water is called inflow when it enters a
sewer above ground or from connections with storm
sewers. It is called infiltration when it enters the pipes
below ground. The term III describes this phenomenon,
The amount of inflow that enters a system depends on
the number of low-lying manhole covers and cross
connections within a storm drainage system. The
amount of infiltration depends on the number and
size of cracks, holes, and leaky joints in the piping
system. When it rains, large volumes of III can enter
the sewer system and can disrupt normal plant
operations, lowering treatment efficiency.
It is usually impossible to eliminate all sources of III.
Federal and state authorities generally agree that up to
20 gallons of III per person per day may be a reason-
able amount of additional water to process; more than
that, and a community must pay a significant amount
to treat water it never pollutes. Studies of some systems
have found infiltration carl add up to 100 gallons per
person per day to the normal wastewater flow. Treating
the extra water is expensive because more capacity is
needed to handle it at the plant. But efforts to cQrrect
III are sometimes ineffective, and also very expensive.
Sometimes 80 percent of the problem can be cor-
rected by repairing 20 percent of the leaks. The trick is
to find the right 20 percent. Finding leaks is sometimes
harder than fixing them, but fixing them is more expen.
sive. Encouraging advances have been made in III
detection and some ingenious corrective techniques
have been developed recently. Reducing infiltration
and inflow saves the treatment authority-and its
customers-money.
jff~'I''I
I)~?,/III;;"
I f'l/;,~tl; If
~/ff;"
Common sources of infiltration and inflow.
e
e
..
POTENTIAL POLICY OPTIONS
Disincentives
D Peak Flow Surcharge?
D Surcharge for lack of 1/1 Control?
D Inverted rate structure?
D Physical capacity limits?
D Moratoriums on connections?
D Others????
,; ,,- ,.
e
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MONDAY, MAY 14, 1990
Call to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Sommerfeldt.
O'Neal, Seggelke, Kern, Doerr, Wilson and Eckberg.
Present:
Continued hearing on assessments for the Rapid Oil
Mayor called for comments and discussion ensued.
seconded by 0 'Neal, moved to close hearing. 5
Hearing closed.
project.
Seggelke,
aye vote s.
Seggelke, seconded by O'Neal, moved to adopt Resolution t90-0j:-
17 approving the amended assessment roll as stipulated in the
document presented this evening. Collectable for year 1991 is
$13,354.04,1992 $12,449.58 and 1993 $11,545.12 at 8.5%
interest per annum. Roll call taken with 5 aye votes cast.
Resolution adopted.
Clerk read public hearing notice, presented affidavit of
publication and mailing list for proposed street and alley
vacations submitted by James Corey. Mayor called for comments
and discussion ensued. 0 'Neal, seconded by Seggelke, moved to
close hearing. 5 aye votes. Hearing closed.
\
O'Neal, seconded by Seggelke, moved to approve the above request
for alley and street vacations. Roll call vote taken with 5 aye
votes cast. Carried.
Clerk read public hearing notice, presented affidavit of
publication and mailing list for subdivision request submitted by
Jack Krongard. Mayor called for comments and discussion ensued.
O'Neal, seconded by Kern, moved to close hearing. 5 aye votes.
Hearing closed.
O'Neal, seconded by
approval for Valley
seven conditions in
Roll call vote taken
Kern, moved to grant preliminary plat
Point 1st & 2nd additions' subject to the
City Planner's letter dated May 10, 1990.
with 5 aye votes cast. Carried.
o 'Neal, seconded by Doerr, moved to grant final approval on
Valley Point 1st Addition contingent on the seven conditions
listed above. Roll call vote taken with 5 aye votes cast.
Carried.
Tree City flag and other mementos were presented to council from
Ken Kaiser, City Tree Inspector. Staking for planting new trees
will be completed by mid June.
The Hall's pond overflow problem to be discussed further May 29,
1990.
.
- "."
Page two - Minutes-5/ 4/90
e
Seggelke, seconded y O'Neal, moved to direct public works
department and conti ctor to install a culvert on the Bieging
property to correct 0 erflow problem. 5 aye votes. Carried.
Three residents discussed the traffic problems on Oren Avenue.
O'Neal, seconded b Doerr, moved to schedule a public
informational meetin Monday, July 16, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. to
discuss the matter fu 5 aye votes cast. Carried.
Seggelke, seconded y Doerr, moved to approve the various
assessment changes made at the local Board of Review.
Information available at Clerk's office. 5 aye votes. Carried.
O'Neal, seconded by
time building officia
increase in 3 months
June 11, 1990. 5 aye
moved to hire Michael Kaehler as full
an annual salary of $29,000.00 with an
and full benefits. Employment to commence
vote s. Carried.
Seggelke, seconded by Kern, moved to direct legal staff to draft
an agreement, as soon as possible, between Oak Park Heights,
Washington County nd the City of Stillwater specifically
regarding possible as essments to the property owners in Oak Park
Heights relating to upgrading streets and utili ties. 5 aye
votes. Carried.
v1'Neal, seconded by ern, moved to approve Plan B of the County
expansion project and oppose detachment. County to pay all costs
incurred. 5 aye vote. Carried.
O'Neal, seconded by K rn, moved to approve minutes of April 9th,
23rd, 24th & 26th as presented. Aye votes cast by Sommerfeldt,
O'Neal, Kern and ~egg lke. Abstain by Doerr. Carried.
Park Committee
Hall.
Seggelke, seconded b
park attendants at
Friendt, Jon Fritz an
Monday, May 21, 1990 at 6:30 p.m. at City
O'Neal, moved to hire the following summer
4.50 per hour: Chri stopher Co Ie, Susan
Theodore Welsch. 5 aye votes. Carried.
Seggelke,
requests:
Copy Cat
Printing.
seconded by O'Neal, moved to approve the following sign
Metropoli an Federal Bank Drive-up, Mr. Movies and
Printing, ontingent on further review at Copy Cat
5 aye vote. Carried.
Doerr, seconded by K
gas main maintenance
Sommerfeldt, Doerr,
Carried.
rn, moved to approve request from NSP for
project *OPOA-ANP-AAF. Aye votes cast by
Kern and O'Neal. Abstain by Seggelke.
e
e
Page three - Minutes 5/14/90
Seggelke, seconded b~ O'Neal, moved to contribute $125.00, as a
sponsor member, to the Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce for
Lumberjack Days. Funds to be taken from the contingency fund. 5
aye votes. Carried.
Kern, seconded by Seggelke, moved to accept renewal of gambling
license from Fraternal Order of Eagles and City to waive the 60
day grace period. 5 aye votes. Carried.
O'Neal, seconded by Seggelke, moved to direct City Auditor to
decide the current status of Swager Bros. 9th Addition and
delinquents due through June 30th and the end of this year. 5
aye votes. Carried.
0' Neal, seconded by Seggelke, moved to close S,wager Bros. 9th
Addition Fund and transfer to 1987 Debt Service Fund. 5 aye
votes. Carried.
O'Neal, seconded by Kern, moved to close the completed
construction fund *510 and transfer to closed bond fund *500. 5
aye votes. Carried.
Doerr, seconded by Kern, moved to approve bills as presented for
payment, and Treasurer's report. Details available at Clerk's
office. 5 aye votes. Carried.
Doerr, seconded by 0' Neal, moved to adj ourn.
Adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
5 aye votes.
~~~l~
City Administrator/Treasurer
.
,........'..'"......... ,
, , , , , , , , , , - , , , , , . , , . .' ,
, . , , , , , , , , , - , , , , ' , ,
..,....,....,..,
, , , , , , , , , , , ' , , , , ' , , ' , , , , , , . , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ' , , , . , . , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , ,
"..."...."....,.."...."""
'r:Ji?
....1iID
........".. ,.., .... ......,
",-,....... ,- ,- ... "-_._-,
..,....... ...., , ....,
....,.., ...... ,.."
....-, ,--,..- -"
..." ......,
",-,.',',,-,-, , .',
:' <-:':-:-:-:-:.:.;, I
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, ..,..,...,....
"..,.......... ,
, ,.........,...
,..,'......'.., ,
, ....."....""
, "
, ,
, , , , , , , . , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , . , , , , ,
................ .....,""'c.,..s....
: II::: Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Telephone (612) 458-0936
Telecopier (612) 458-1696
e
321 Broadway Avenue. Saint Paul Park, Minnesota 55071
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Dennis L. Balyeat
June 21, 1990
Ms. Mary Lou Johnson/Clerk
City of Sti I Iwater
218 North Fourth Street
Stl I Iwater, Minnesota 55082
Re: City Council Workshop - Orleans Terrace
Dear Ms. Johnson:
The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, In Joint partnership with Dick Zimmerman,
is interested in acquiring the 13 acres of land
located on the corner of Highway 5 and Orleans Street.
The land would be used to develop 84 townhome units, a
commercial strip, a 48-unlt senior housing project and
a 6,000 square foot senior center.
The HRA Is requesting that a workshop be scheduled
with the councl I to explain the concept of the project
and to determine If the council Is amenable to this
plan.
Please let me know If/when a workshop date is
scheduled. If you have any questions In the InterIm,
do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
.~~~
Ter I Ga I I es
Deputy DIrector
/m
e
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
District 1, Thomas Paul . District 2, M. Neal Erdahl . District 3, Robert Lafayette . District 4, David Kriesel . District 5, Elmer Morris
MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
WASHINGTON COUNTY
e
1825 Curve Crest Boulevard, Room 202
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(612) 439-0101
June 7, 1990
To: Honorable Mayor Wally Abrahamson
And Stillwater City Council
,.> "I
I
From: M.T. Barlass
Extension Age~~
Washington Coun y
Re: Lumberjack Days Milk Carton Regata
The Washington County Chapter oz the American Dairy
Association is planning to sponsor a "Milk Carton Race in
conjunction with the 1990 Lumberjack Days. They would like to
have the event either on Friday axternoon July 27th right azter
the Watermelon Races ( It's OK with them ) or Saturday axternoon
about 4 P. M.
As a member oz the committee, I would like to request
permission to use the area oz Lily Lake between the Fishing Dock
and the Swimming Beach zor this event. We would not use the
swimming area. They plan to have 3 contestants in each heat and
possibly an Exhibition race zrom the winners at the xamous "Lake
Nokomis" race in Minneapolis which is two weeks earlier. The
event would be restricted to the shallow area and there would be
a zlotilla oz zour boats to act as sazety patrol.
The contestants are responsible xor the removal oz all
debries and cartons azter the race and there should be no
signizicant ezzect on the beach or water quality.
I trust you will concur that this event would be a
reasonable and worthy part oz the Lumberjack zestivities while
utilizing some oz the resources oz our beautizul city with no
additional expense.
You may reply to the county ADA Chairman Gary Rydeen at
14447 Norell Ave. N. Stillwater. (439-1624) or myselz.
Thank you zor your kind consideration and cooperation.
e
cc: Dick Belkum, Parks
Bob Bielenberg, Lily Lake Arena
Dave Magnuson, Attorney
Nile Kriesel, Coordinator
A. Sampson, St. Croix Valley Chamber
G. Rydeen, ADA Chair.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, U,S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND MINNESOTA COUNTIES COOPERATING
/
/
e
illwater
"~ -- - ~
T:E BIRTHPLACE OF.MINNESOTA ~
APPLICATION TO CONSUME
Applicant Information ~ _
Name of Organization~=~~ _______________
Applicant Name(FUIl)_~7f"_ ~-----__-----------
Stt~eet Addt~ess_3.Q_l:_____'-L!JLrt..-;t0:::_&..!__ B i t~t h Date__~__.LL_::_C{7
state____~_~_____ ziP__~Jt:9_e_~
Home Phl:IY',e_~,!=E=__.2t_~_~_ W,:)rk Phone_~_~.l.:::__?:::2~ R
"
Facility Information
Park I:)t~
faci 1 ity tel be
used__~__E~___
Date to be used~_~-L'f~" Time to be used__.ce_-::-L_Q-f.:-~-"
Numbet~ I:)f pet~sl:)ns expected______3_~____~~!.., _ -'"
PI.lt~pose(s,:)ftball game, wedding, etc. )__~--.t-~~----
Type of activity<fund raiser, dancing, music, etc.)__________________
Check Appropriate Information
________Beer to Consume
___~Beer to Sell & Consume
________Liquor to Consume
________Liquor to Sell & Consume
________Wine to Consume
________Wine to Sell & Consume
Securi t y I nformat ion ( I Y'lt et~na I Use O~'
Police Officer Required by City?_______Yes.
Officel'~ Rate of Pay $1_l!..J3!./ ~ ~
Mail License To: (If different than applicant)
Ne,.
-------
e
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
e
Memo to: Mayor and City Council
From: City Coordinator
Re: Bridge Task Force
trleet i rIg
Mayor Abrahamson attended a bridge task force meeting on Thursday, June
21, 1990. According to the Mayor the Task Force voted to recommend a
Build preference (8 to 1) and to use a southern corrider (6 to 3). Mayor
Abrahamson asked me to provide you with the enclosed material that was
passed out at the meeting. Mayor Abrahamson can brief you more thorougly
at the meet Tuesday night if necessary.
7l'(.1
._ 00 "
.:,.;(,/,'-.../(
e
STILLW\lEH-HOULTON IflSK For~l:E
~iscussion Summary
StIllw.=der Cltv Hall
7:00 P.M.
Am i I .1 9 . 1990
PARTICIPANTS: Mike Louis. 1"1n/DDT: Bob Winter-. Nfl/OOT: TErt~1
F'edet-snn. Wise/DOT: Jeff Er-ickson. Mn/DOT: Sally Evert. Washillotnn
COlll!ty: Bub Or-axler. St. Croix County: Joe Carufel. llal< Part
Heiql)t'.;: Oouo Schwartz. Gr-allt lownstup: David Murphy. Stillwater
Township: Howard LaVentut-e. HUll I ton: .John L. Je~\lell. Sti I lwaler-
Sally Ever t. called the mpetinq to ordet.
MikE' Louis Pt-ovided a stat.us uudate and asked for- react.JOfl5 to tilE'
dr-aft EIS. ~John Jpwell nointed oed t1HPP or- four minor errors hf'
had fOlllld in thl? dr-aft EIS. and exrlr'p'E,sed a opnptal dissatisfaction
witll the dOCUnH?ld ancj its uoolierl cnnclttsions.
DavJd I"'urnh'/ also Sdld he WciS disanooJnterl ~..,ith the draft EIS.
indIcatino tip thnut)l-lt a BlHlO decision had already been made. and
U1at he would sunl1or-t a NO BtlILD decision. He alsD took issue with
t.he ener-C1Y analysis. arouilHJ that a BIHLLi decision could not
nc;,,:c,lhl\ have a tleneficial iOloact on eneroy const.llTlotinn due tu thE
increased develoomellt it would cause in St. Croi.x COlmty.
A lellothv 'discllssion follo~'~ed on olobal Wc.rnllno, democr-atic
decisJon-makinCl' and how these relate to the lssues at Stillwater-
HOLt 1 Lon. Sever a I HI the or-Duo i lid i ca ted that they thougllt
Stillt.<wlE'r-Honlton was not lhe best forum for addressing olnhcd
warcolloQ. 1'1il<e indicatpd that if there is over-whelming oltblic
ouposition to a IIE'W river crossIng, a new bridge or tunnel will not
be bu i I t, .
Sally said she did not thin\< a BUILD decision was a "done deal,"
and asked for- discussion on the agenda items. Members were
enColtr-aged to get in touch wi th t.he governing bodies of tilE
communi ties they represent and Jet them Irno~'1 that now is the time
to makE' a formal resolution. Mil/DOT wi II send a letter to the
affected communities notifyino them about the comment PPtioll. Dave
indicated that he had already obtained a for-mal resolut.ion from
Stillwater Townshio.
e
Task FOI'-ce member's are not necessarily obligated to have their
viewc:-, reflec-t those for-mal 1,/ exoressed by their' community's
C10verlllnq body. Some ar-uueu It.ctl the lask For-ce's lalla involvemellt
wi tll the rlver- cr-ossino sltldies made their per-soective UnIqUe:
members SllOldd he DIven the oDDartunity t.D e>:Ot-ess what the'! have
I ear ned a.s a body.
I t_ was decided that T 51<. Fur-ce Members could decide for- themselves
whether- or- not they anted to testify or-ally at the hearings.
e
It was aor-eed that after- the oubIic hear-jngs. the lask ForTe would
assemble on /10nday. J _lIle 18 to vote on the BUILD/NU-BUILD options.
Fllr ther-mor-e. lask For e member-s will be able to vote again on their-
corTidor choices. if they feel the need. Milc.e agr-eed to have as
much of the assemble commen tar-y as he COli I d 1.n the mail to the
lask Force by June 8.
In addition to the lask For-ce.
malc.es a for-mal conlf ent wi II
annourlcement and explanation.
it was agreed that every person who
r-eceive a copy of the decision
lhere was still inte est among Task Force member-s in meeting with
the /'1innesota and Wi conSln Transportation Commissioner-/Secr-etarv
and/or District Enqi eers soon aftpr the vote. Some felt that
being able tu ver-bal v exuress their decision and reasonIng would
ue more valuable lhar sim[!ly nulting the infor-mation in wr-itint.).
Howard LaVenture ende the meetino with some OE.'t-sonal obser-vations.
and Questions about tIe tiraft ElS. Br'iefly. Howard said he thought
the NO-BUILD ootion was unreasonable. He also said he was
concer-ned about cutt off access in the Central Corridor-. Mike
assur-ed him that no would lose access. Howard also wondered
why it was necessary to have so many bridge designs with a grade
of three oercent. M-ke indicated that a three oercent grade was
lIot llllu:=:,ual for a br-i ge. and that the tvoP- and de~,iqn Dhi\Se of the
study oroeess would oak at these issues more closely.
-b
e
e'
The Southern Corridor seems to be the logical choice due to cost,
access to Andersen Corp., direct access to New Richmond area, and is
the least disruptive to environment.
2. I just don't feel that the amount of traffic congestion in Stillwater
warrants the addition of a $80,000,000 expenditure. I live in
Stillwater, and yes, there a considerable amount of congestion in the
summertime; but, I know from personal experience I have learned to
cross the river at either a different time or to use the Hudson Bridge
or the Osceola Bridge as an alternative route. I certainly feel that
the residents of Wisconsin are the benefactors of a "new bridge" if
not "the" primary benefactors of the new bridge, considering the
primary bulk of traffic is Wisconsin residents seeking employment in
Minnesota. If the bridge has the go-ahead, which I hope it doesn't, I
feel Wisconsin should foot 751. of the bill.
3. I have followed this project since its inception and I would recommend
a four-lane, bridge based, non-tunnel river crossing at the
southernmost site. This recommendation is for reasons of environment,
economy, and meshing with the existing traffic flows in the region.
4.
.,
~
I
If a bridge is to be built, I hope cost isn't the only determining
factor. If it is, I fear a large area of Stillwater Township will be
affected, thus ruining the rural lifestyle many of us enjoy, not to
mention a beautiful area of the St. Croix. If a bridge has to be
built, to me the most realistic choice would appear to be the Central
Corridor. Perhaps if the existing bridge wasn't lifted every hour all
summer to let the few go under--the majority of us might be able to go
over.
5. Please leave a part of rural Minnesota alone. As a resident in the
direct path of the proposed highway/bridge in the Northern Corridor, I
am very much disturbed about possibly being pushed out of my home.
But more disturbing is the thought of the future of the countryside in
which I now live, with major highways being developed--gas stations,
convenience stores, fast restaurants, etc. The township or county can
say no developing along the highway now, but eventually it will come;
maybe not in 10 or 20 years, but it will come. With a highway/bridge,
it would also adversely affect the scenic beauty of the Boom Site, the
natural habitat of wildlife, and the clean air and tranquility of this
rural area--ruining another small but beautiful part of Minnesota.
6.
On page 7 of the EIS, it clearly implies that you have ruled out the
North Corridor bridge option. I do not understand which facts or see
any information in the EIS to support your conclusion. Let me cite
the following: Highway 36 within Oak Park Heights is:
* dangerous~ People are being killed and injured.
* automatically off-load congestion on TH 36 at no extra cost.
* automatically make TH 36 safer because of less high speed
through-traffic, again at no extra cost.
* ~e $20,000,000 less expensive than other proposed river
crossings.
* provide many other (too numerous to mention at this time)
benefits than either the Central or the South crossing sites.
( con t. )
I recommend that you choose the North Corridor for the crossing. I am _
so convinced of this recommendation that I am prepared to spend money
informing all the ap ropriate people in this area of facts that would
make the North Cross ng option the only common sense decision~
7. We feel that the Sou h Corridor with either a central or south
alignment makes the ost sense. We strongly prefer the highest
elevation for the br'dge.
8.
I believe the South
believe we must have
faster this politica
public is informed,
orridor to be the only sensible location. I
a new bridge and the sooner the better. The
, etc., decision can be made, and the sooner
he better.
the
9. Once more we are hea ing into the season where we as local residents
can't even drive dow town because of the congestion. I hope all
problems can be work d out soon so we can get on to the building
phase. I'm sure the truckers would like it too. Also, if the trucks
were redirected the own town streets would stay i~ better shape longer
saving costs on stre t building. I would like to spend more time in
downtown during the ore pleasant months of the year, but the
congestion is prohib"tive. With the bridge, it would leave the
downtown area for th se of us who wish to enjoy it.
I designate the Sout ern route because it seems to be the most
practical route with the least disturbance of the natural look and .
surroundings. And s'nce it will be visible from my home, that should
carry some weight. If I can sacrifice some enjoyment of the beauty
for the greater good, so should others.
10. The process overall as been an attempt to focus only on a new river
crossing as the onl alternative to solve transportati~n problems.
Even this questionnaire unfairly leads the responder to agree that
since the EIS was co plete, since the information in the study was OK,
that, therefore the bridge must be OK. Why were there no questions on
the availability of ocuments analyzing the NO-BUILD options? Why
were there no questions about how satisfied we are about the analysis
of the traffic congestion, the degree of the problem, and the
identification of less costly issues? Why ar~ decisions being made
without a full analysis of these options? Why would a $100 million
bridge be the only answer?
11. I prefer the NO-BUI D Option. The congestion & traffic in the
Stillwater & bridge area is because of tourists on summer weekends. A
new bridge will not affect this congestion. I think the new bridge is
being built to prom te development & profit, tax base, whatever. Its
not really necessary at this time to spend all this money.
12. Build it soon~
I feel that the Sou h Corridor is obviously the best alternative. I .,
realize that there re many concerns to be dealt with. However, I
think that whenever progress is made, everyone and everything will not '.
13.
-
(cont.)
benefit in the same way. So let's recognize the fact that some
residents will have to move, some clams will be disturbed, some ducks
will have a pond or two less to swim on, but as our population in this
area increases, a trade-off has to be made, and the bridge is it. So
lets get on with it, we are at least 10 years late. We have already
been dazzled by enough studies!
I think this bridge is long overdue, and I feel that way too much
attention is paid to special interest groups and not enough
consideration given to those citizens that live in this area, and who
would benefit on a daily basis from the construction of this bridge.
I have waited "in lines of traffic many times just so some recreational
boater on the river can pass under the current bridge. This bridge
should be lifted twice daily, about 6 A.M. and 9 P.M.
14. My dad owns and occupies land that would be crossed by the southern
option on the South Corridor. I farm the land with him. I don't want
the road to cross our property. Better routes would be the Central
Corridor or the northern option on the South Corridor. If the road
crosses our property, our farm operation would be adversely affected.
We would be cut off from part of the property. We would not be able
to drive from one part of the farm to another--as we do now--to bale
hay and cut wood and care for the beef cattle. Also, the road would
damage a significant wildlife area. There is a lake and a pond on our
property, as well as woodland. This area is habitat for a great deal
of wildlife including ducks, geese, deer, and squirrels. I also think
that this route would be more expensive and would damage more
agricultural land than the other alternatives.
15. We are residents at ____ St. Croix Trail No., Oak Park Heights, and
therefore principals in the decision on whether to build an additional
bridge across the St. Croix River. We realize that it is an
impossible task for an individual not connected with the many research
portions of the bridge study to have an impact on the decision because
of the comprehensive nature of the study. With as many agencies and
departments of the various governments involved as there are, the
individual is lost in the shuffle of bureaucratic paperwork.
It is obvious that the intent of the study is to lead to another
bridge and that the consideration of keeping the old bridge alone is
only an act designed to placate those folks who do not feel the need
for adding a bridge designed mainly to increase the future congestion
in the region. Therefore, the deck is stacked against the old bridge
or the use of the site of the old bridge and all attention is directed
to a new bridge or additional bridge.
-
For example, significant consideration of building a new bridge above
the old so as to connect with the uphill banks of both Minnesota and
Wisconsin is not really explored. This would be least disruptive to
any other concerns other than those of Stillwater residents. The fact
that Stillwater local traffic could be rerouted to accommodate such a
new bridge is not adequately spoken to.
( con t. )
For example, U.S. 16
original two-way str
one block away. The
of the streets and c
wanted the advantage
Stillwater ought to
traffic within its i
goes through Austin, Mn. by going one-way on its
et and back the opposite way on a parallel street
process took out beautiful trees in the widening
used the narrowing of boulevards. The community
of the highly used highway. Certainly,
e able to see an advantage to keeping some of the
fluence.
II
Stillwater has not k pt up with the times in respect to providing
adequate thoroughfar s, parking or conveniences for its thousands of
tourists. It has cr ated the problems it is now trying to find
someone else to solv. Traffic patterns can be changed to channel
traffic around conge ted areas to avoid the length of Main Street.
Neither can Stillwat r have things both ways. If it wants to keep the
old bridge to enhanc the look of the 1800s, then it has to live with
the problems that it creates. In our travels through Europe, we like
everyone else are im ressed with the constant compromises that are
made to retain the old at the expense of a new and more efficient
city. Any idea to k ep the old bridge and to use it along with an
additional bridge, i redundant and out of touch with reality. The
problems that create for travelers on land and water are obvious.
The old bridge is a andicap which has served its useful life and
ought to be moved to some other spot as a tourist attraction by a
private investor or estroyed. If it is kept, it should be in a
raised position and its care and maintenance supported by Stillwater
taxpayers.
When the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act" was passed, I had the pleasure
of being a part of a group of newspaper and other people who journeyed
on the river with th n U.S. Rep. Al Quie who had been directly
involved with the Act. He commented about the St. Croix being the
first river so desig ated and how wonderful it would be to protect the
river from future encroachments by man. Now, this may fly in the face
of interpretations today as far as "recreational" uses, but the
original intent was to save the river's scenic views and shoreline
from unsightly development. The Act has been denied in numerous ways
until now we have the prospect of a huge, massive ribbon of concrete
and steel literally looming up before us.
Having said all of this, we feel that if the powers that be still
insist on an additional bridge other than in the location of the
existing bridge but on a higher level, that the Central Corridor with
the river bridge length of 2750 feet and a projected cost of $67 - $68
Million is the leas disruptive to all concerned among the vast
majority of the public outside of Stillwater. The concerns of
Stillwater need to ake a back seat compared to the interests of the
majority for whose se and enjoyment the river is to be protected.
The Central Corrido is best because:
1. It follows existing roadways and right-of-ways to the iargest
extent thus being t e least disruptive of the environment on land and ~
on water. 2. The n mber of homes which would be displaced is equal to'"
the South Corridor, according to the figures presented, but from the
-
-
(cont.)
standpoint of adjacent properties which are affected by such a sight,
the effect will be less than any of the rest. The same can be said
for the noise factor in the Central Corridor. 3. The cost appears to
be the least in the Central Corridor since fewer changes in roadways
would be necessary, impacts would be less and adjustments of
approaches leading to extra costs would be less. 4. Boat traffic
would be least affected in the Central Corridor, according to the
figures presented. Boat traffic is already used to limited capacity
and reduced speed in this area so that changes caused by a new bridge
would not be much. 5. Damage to the ecology is no greater or lesser
in the Central Corridor, except that some damage has to exist already
in that area because it is the most heavily settled and used portion
of the river land area and because of the existence of the old bridge
having established certain ecological impacts. 6. Any loss of beauty
to the area looking across the river from Stillwater is no greater
than one expects in a developed area. Also, the angle at which most
viewers will be looking will place the line of sight below the level
of the bridge. The damage to undeveloped parkland is far-fetched
since it states a position that is impossible to support until
something is in fact done with the land. If the land is developed
after the bridge decision is made, it will be quite simple to develop
it accordingly. 7. If one must consider the Wisconsin position--and
one must-- the Central Corridor would be most simple on the Wisconsin
side because it would be least disruptive to farmland, residences,
ecology and the pristine atmosphere leading to the preponderance of
wildlife found there.
The total cost of this project has not even been adequately determined
because of the vast disturbances that would be created and then
subject to solution. The idea that the entire project should be
beefed up to such a size that the federal government will provide some
funds is reprehensible and contrary to current philosophy. Stillwater
should, we repeat, be willing to change its traffic patterns and to do
what it has not chosen to do in the past to keep up with the times.
The cost to the affected residents in the area through which the
proposed new freeway would extend is overwhelmingly expensive. The
return on investment will be realized only way down the line when the
region becomes a highly developed residential, commercial, and
industrial area. Is that what the current residents really want?
We fault the highway departments of the two states for not responding
to the semi-(truck) traffic going through Stillwater. Trucks go
through Stillwater to avoid 1-94 and its weigh stations. It cannot be
argued that semis have the right to go on any public highway. There
is much evidence to show that municipalities can control truck traffic
and direct it through certain areas. Did anyone ever hear of "Truck
Routes?" Why not have such routes in this region to control that
heavy and disruptive use?
Those who have lived in other areas of the nation where congestion has
been far greater laugh at our concern here. Especially since there is
another avenue across the river by way of 1-94. Little is done to
encourage that use. When people build in areas that make it difficult
( con t. )
to get to their work
the resulting inconv
environment and othe
want convenience, th
develop Bayport, Oak
place of employment
16.
I would like to see
family travels up Hi
area. Highway 35 on
It.s difficult to pa
have a "slow" vehicl
the bridge gets "fir
the traffic light at
I live between Somer
starts Thursday nigh
as soon as possible.
where we were going
At that time, we lef
Traffic backed up to
they do it with open eyes and have to live with
nience. They should not set about upsetting the
s to facilitate their transportation. If they
n they should move closer to their job and help
Park Heights, and Stillwater, or wherever their
II
he South Corrido\ crossing as the majority of our
hway 36 and patronizes the businesses in that
the Wisconsin side is like the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
s anyone with the traffic on this highway if you
in front of you. Also for emergency vehicles,
t choice," and about three cars get to go through
Stillwater.
et and Osceola on Highway 35, and the traffic
heading north. I'd like to see the bridge built
In 1967, I filled out big green cards asking
'for the bridge to be built." It.s long overdue.
at 9 P.M. to get to New Brighton at 11 P.M.
I anding hi 11 .
17. I believe that no ot er decision can be made about the bridge: Build a
bridge and follow a outh Corridor~ It makes the most sense. I have
lived on Highway 35/ 4 for several years and have known the traffic
congestion caused by bridge lifting firsthand. There is no doubt that
we NEED a new bridge. The South Corridor makes the most sense.
Thanks for your time.
18.
I am definitely PRO-
unequivocally AGAINS
because of negative
but absolutely again
but tend to favor th
spendthrift.
UILD. BUT, I want to stress, however, that I am
building the bridge in the North Corridor
isual impacts and historical impacts. PRO-BUILD,
t North Corridor. Uncertain about the other two,
South Corridor. The tunnels are foolish and
19. We are in favor of b ilding a new bridge across the St. Croix River at
Stillwater. This br"dge has been needed for many years and should be
built, the sooner th better. It would alleviate the crowded and
dangerous traffic ditions in downtown Stillwater at no detriment to
the town itself. think that the South Corridor would be the best
choice.
Secondly: Large truc s should be banned from using the existing bridge
over the St. Croix i mediately. With bridges available at Hudson and
at Osceola to serve he needs of truckers going to Wisconsin, there is
no need for long trucks to go through Stillwater. They often cannot
make the corner with ut going on the sidewalk or into the wrong lane
of traffic. They ti up traffic and make the corner of Main and
Chestnut dangerous f r both autos and pedestrians. The existing
bridge is old and sh uld be protected from the wear and tear that
trucks give it.
huge .
~20.
21.
22.
1. Please BUILD as soon as possible. 2. Plan access to and from Co.
Rd. E. This a major route into St. Croix Co. 3. Environmental air
pollution would be reduced by having new bridge. On a summer Sunday
afternoon, it can take up to an hour to get from Somerset to Hwy. 36.
First of all, I am of the NO-BUILD persuasion. The bridge at Hudson
is more than adequate to take care of the bulk of traffic within this
six mile radius. All that is needed is direction via large signs to
this bridge. Apart from the visible structure of the bridge and
approaches, and the physical takeover of the land and environment, a
large consideration which has not been discussed is the air pollution
that will be caused. All of the additional exhaust fumes, spills and
other debris from accidents must be considered. We have the King
Plant and the sewage plant, and that is enough. I hope the NO-BUILD
decision is made.
My hope is that a new bridge will not be built. I am a resident of
Stillwater, but also own property in St. Joseph Township in Wisconsin.
I use the present bridge frequently. There is congestion at our
present bridge at times of course, but this occurs only at relatively
few times during the summer months, and it has been increasing over
the last several years to an appreciable degree. The traffic build-up
that occurs at times does not justify the large expenditure of money,
the environmental impact, and the aesthetic damage to the St. Croix
river a new bridge would cause--either north or south of the present
bridge. I hope the NO-BUILD will prevail.
Many residents of Stillwater are opposed to a new bridge, but have not
voiced their opposition because they feel the push to build the bridge
cannot be stopped and a new bridge is inevitable. And, if it is
built, it will go south of the present bridge a figurative stones
throwaway from the present bridge.
23. We are concerned residents of Stillwater Township. Our homestead lies
directly in the path of the North Corridor. While the North Corridor
alternative would impact us directly, and thus our objection, we feel
the North Corridor is the least desirable alternative for several
reasons:
1. Greatest negative impact on the environment including wetlands,
aesthetics, noise, and archaeology. 2. Total bypass of Stillwater.
3. Longest detour taking Andersen Employees to work which is one of
the primary incentives for the new bridge.
-
One of the alternatives which would retain the heavy traffic along
hwy. 36 would appear to be the most logical. Businesses along hwy. 36
would not be negatively impacted as they would be from a total re-
routing, and traffic would be retained along a strip already
containing much commercialization. The construction of a bridge in
the vicinity of the NSP plant would have the least negative impact
aesthetically on the beautiful St. Croix Valley. Since this
transportation artery will serve the Minnesota and Wisconsin
communities for generations, cost ought not to be the major
determinant.
(cont. )
We greatly appreciate your most careful consideration in this most 411
sensitive issue.
24. Please consider this to constitute my written/oral remarks as of this
date on the draft EIS. My involvement with this bridge EIS and study
has been considerable and is well known by the Project Manager. My
remarks reflect my position and I am not to be considered a
spokesperson for the group to which I have belonged or do now belong.
I am not the officer of any Valley environmental group. My remarks
are mine, and mine alone.
"I Accuse." With th
French government, t
the Minnesota Depart
history of violence
se words, a Frenchman outlined just how the
rough tyranny, was abusing its power. I Accuse
ent of Transportation (MnDOT) of violence, a
o the St. Croix Valley which must come to an end.
I accuse MnDOT and i s antecedents of blowing up the bluff south of
Taylors Falls and cr ating what has become to be known as Blast Island
in the St. Croix. I accuse MnDOT of violently destroying the Central
Business District of my home, Marine on St. Croix. James Taylor Dunn,
in at least three of his books, documents the violence of Hwy. 95. I
accuse MnDOT of regularly flooding the basement of a house my wife and
I own. This is as a result from spring activity because of the five-
lane wide violence e pansion of Hwy. 95 which diverted a stream onto
our property.
I accuse MnDOT of ri an EIS to enhance the BUILD alternative for
a bridge that will c mmit still further violence on the valley. I use
for my evidence of r"gging, the following April 19th article which
appeared in the Stil water Courier. It is entitled "STUDY SAYS SOUTH
ALIGNMENT IS BEST." Written by Sharon Baker, a person I do not know,
she offers her perce tion of the EIS. I am attaching the article to
my statement and ask that it be included in this point of my
testimony.
"The draft Envi
Stillwater-Houl
Departments of
While a build/n
statement concl
option or combi
incorporated in
would adequate I
The other signi
is that of the
identifying pos
corridor, which
corridor, which
'Wisconsin but b
not represent "
the report conc
excluded from f
southern corrid
onmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
on bridge crossing has been completed by the two
ransportation, with MnDOT acting as lead agency.
-build decision has not been made, the draft
des that "no transportation system management
ation of options that have not previously been
o the existing system, has been identified that
address the transportation problems."
icant recommendation made in the draft document
hree possible "corridors" looked at in
ible locations for a new bridge. The northern
bypasses Stillwater to the north, and the central
uses existing approach roads in Minnesota and
passes Stillwater's central business district, do
easonable selections for further development,"
udes. River tunnels were also recommended to be ...
rther consideration. That leaves a bridge in the ...
r, which bypasses Stillwater and Houlton to the
It
( con t. ) ,
south, as a possible location should a build decision be reached.
The southern corridor includes three potential river crossing
alignments, all of which basically proceed from the existing
Minnesota Highway 36 exit at Washington County Road 23
(Beach/Paris) straight to the St. Croix River and then veer
north, south or continue essentially on the same alignment across
the river.
The south corridor alignment options range from a 4,900-foot to
6,200-foot length bridge, with cost estimates ranging from $76
million to $98 million.
In summarizing the major benefits and negative impacts of a
build/no-build decision, the draft EIS notes that traffic over
the existing lift bridge is expected to more than double between
1986 and the year 2014, and refers to the traffic backups that
now occur on both sides of the bridge during busy summer
weekends. In addition, the study area segments on both Minnesota
Highway 36 and Wisconsin Trunk Highway 35/64 have higher accident
rates than other roads of similar design. A new river crossing
is "expected to reduce these problems," the study states.
Along with improvements to the transportation systems, the EIS
refers to beneficial social, economic and environmental impacts
that would result from a build decision. Specifically, the study
states: "With a build decision and timely commitment of capital
investment funds in the regional transportation infrastructure,
the St. Croix Valley communities will be able to plan and design
their integrated futures in an informed and meaningful manner."
The draft statement notes that the selection of a build decision
is "especially important to the city of Stillwater" which has
depended on the existing highway for continued "social and
economic vitality" from the early 1900s to the late 1960s, when
increasing congesting prompted the first major study to look at a
replacement crossing.
Environmental benefits cited include: improved air quality, less
energy use, reduced traffic noise and improved water quality as a
result of new sedimentation ponds designed to filter out
pollutants before they enter the river.
The major negative impact of a build decision, in addition to the
commitment of a "large amount of public funds," includes the
social consequence of the displacement of between 30 and 60
households, depending on the corridor and final alignment
selected, as well as substantial loss of productive agricultural
land.
II
The major environmental concern is, of course, the addition of a
new bridge in the St. Croix River which is included in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers program.
( con t. )
Finally, the dr ft EIS refers to potential areas of controversy
and unresolved 'ssues regarding transportation, environmental and
historic preser ation goals. The focus of the historic
preservation go 1 is preservation of archaeological sites and
historic struct res, including the existing lift bridge which is
on the National Register of Historic Places. The study points
out that the tr nsportation agencies are not proposing to remove
the existing br dge as a part of the EIS process. The future of
existing bridge is a "separate issue that will be decided when
the structure b comes unsafe for further transportation use."
The draft state
will have varyi
that the agenci
along with a co
select a compat
design which wi
The participato
April 25 from 2
26, also from 2
The meetings wi
learn more abou
transportation
questions.
After the infor
area residents
recommendations
7 to 11 P. M., i
10, 7 to 11 P.M
30 minute slide
EIS, after whic
The public hear
testimony not s
The complete en
at the followin
Stillwater and
Stillwater, Bay
Government Cent
St. Croix Count
Boundary Area C
Mark Twain pointed 0
Ms Baker's perceptio
takes eleven paragra
of a BUILD alternati
other three give adm
hearing. Ms Baker s
taken, said nothing
she barely mentions
Because anyone readi
tI
ent goes on to say that any build alternative
g degrees of "negative riverway impacts," and
s involved have proposed mitigation measures
mitment to "initiate a participatory process to
ble and cost-effective river crossing type and
1 minimize aesthetic and recreational impacts."
y process includes public information meetings
30 to 9 P.M. at the Stillwater Armory and April
30 to 9 P.M. in the St. Joseph, Wis., Town Hall.
1 be informal opportunities for residents to
the draft EIS. There will be displays and
epartment personnel will be available to answer
ation meetings, public hearings will be held for
o voice their written and/or oral comments and
The formal public hearings will be held May 9,
the Stillwater High School auditorium and May
, in the St. Joseph Town Hall. There will be a
tape presentation which will summarize the draft
oral and written statements will be accepted.
ng will remain open through May 31 for written
bmitted at the hearing.
ironmental documents will be available for review
locations until the time of the public hearings:
ayport public libraries; the city halls of
ort and Oak Park Heights; Washington County
r; Hudson and Somerset, Wisc., public libraries;
Government Center and the Minnesota-Wisconsin
mmission office in Hudson."
t that in politics the perception is the reality.
is the reality. The article of 15 paragraphs
hs to explain the "significant recommendations"
e. One paragraph introduces the subject and the
nistrative and public information about the EIS
id nothing about traffic studies Mn/DOT has
n support of a NO-BUILD recommendation. Indeed, tit
hat such an option exists. And quite correctly.
g the EIS must conclude the same thing as Ms
It
( con t. )
Baker, i.e. STUDY SAYS SOUTH ALIGNMENT IS BEST. She, like Mndot,
emphasized how important a BUILD decision is. I quote her quoting
MnDOT:
"The draft statement notes that the selection of a build decision
is 'especially important to the city of Stillwater' which has
depended on the existing highway for continued 'social and
economic vitality....."
Stillwater is a linear city. It will always have a parking traffic
problem unless we build bridges that virtually ignore the presence of
the river. This bridge will not solve Stillwater's problem. I accuse
Mndot of holding out that promise to the City Council of Stillwater.
I quote her again. This is the way that she read the EIS:
"Environmental benefits (of the BUILD alternative) cited include:
improved air quality, less energy use, reduced traffic noise and
improved water quality...."
You have listed the US National Park Service as a Contributor and yet
you did not send them an advance copy of the section relating to "the
Wild and Scenic River Impacts," the very area of their expertise. Why
did you not send this section to the NPS? You sent every other
section. Why? I accuse Mndot of writing a biased EIS for the BUILD
alternative. I accuse Mndot of using every possible communication
technique to sell a BUILD alternative.
I have asked, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and other
groups have asked for a simple graphic representatio~ of what the
massing and scale of the bridges will look like. Such renderings cost
about $500, I am told. You have chosen to place on the MnDOT maps,
pencil-line thin lines. These lines are an insult to the DNR, to me
and to all those who have worked you on this project. AN INSULT. I
accuse you of insulting your peers and your stakeholders.
A BUILD alternative is violent to this valley. And while your studies
claim that the traffic over the bridge will more than double between
1986 and 2014, this will only be because public policy decisions will
have been made development of Western Wisconsin possible. It does not
have to be developed, but you, MnDOT will be the agent of change and
you MnDOT will lead to the violent destruction of the St. Croix River
Valley.
The next Twin City airport is scheduled to go in north of the Twin
Cities west of North Branch. Now this may be twenty-thirty years
away, but a new airport is going to be built. After MnDOT has created
this limited highway access to Western Wisconsin and development will
have occurred, the cry will be for more bridges across the St. Croix
to get to the airport and the development that will have arisen. Kiss
the St. Croix good-bye MnDOT. Your violence will have now become
terminal.
.
I am going to be outrageous. I am going to be outrageous because
MnDOT's whole position on this EIS has been outrageous. And even
though Studs Turkel was quoted last week as saying, "We Americans have
( con t. )
lost our sense of ou
gasp, or laugh, or w
of your MnDOT engine
in Munich. And this
Dachau, and MnDOT's
rage." I am going to be outrageous. You may
atever, but Mister Louis, your role and the role
rs came to me in a flash this December when I was
is God's truth. I walked into Dachau, yes
ole in the larger scale of things came into view.
41
First, Dachau is wal ing distance from the village center. And Dachau
was begun in 1933, n t 1938 when the Jews were persecuted. But here,
in a civil engineeri g masterpiece is man's best example of an
engineer's contribut"on to violence. And the engineer who designed,
and ~he engineer who oversaw the installation of those ovens and those
facilities was just 'doing his job--like a good German."
At the Information Meting in Stillwater on April 25, 1990, I
essentially went thr ugh my reasoning as to why I think this Bridge is
a violent act to Mr. Louis and went through the implications of
MnDOT's violence. A d his reaction was that if what I said would
apparently come true, it would be based upon a Quote--"mistake"
Unquote on his part. I say: Planned violence is not a mistake.
Earth First, about t e only environmental group who makes any sense
these days, says NO OMPROMISE. Your act of violence calls for NO
COMPROMISE. Your ac of violence calls for reciprocity.
Lawsuits, pouring ov r nit-picky aspects of the EIS only delay the
inevitable. MnDOT a d its Commissioner come to build bridges. This
is, in effect, what "hear" from MnDOT: "To hell with traffic
studies. No, we won't try one-way traffic. Its been done. We won't
go to Congress and g t them to change the law regarding the raising
and lowering of the t. Croix bridge. No, we won't consider 'park and
share' for Andersen indows. No, we are going to build a bridge
because that is all e understand. And we have not given a damn about
the St. Croix Valley and its inhabitants. Our history proves it. And
we will lie and do w at ever is possible to build a bridge that just
is not needed. We w'll continue our violence.
I accuse you of VIOL NCE, VIOLENCE to the St. Croix River.
say: NO COMPROMISE.
To that I
25. I have noticed on we kends that the Andiamo Riverboats that are docked
south of the bridge ake repeated trips north on the river, thus the
bridge must be raise. This causes more traffic problems. If the
boats kept their cruises south, it would cut down on a lot of traffic
tie-ups.
26. We need to get on with our (Minnesota's) decision and begin to
cooperate with Wisconsin. Let's get the act ~ogether, make a choice,
and do it! Makes the most sense to me to keep Hwy. 36 going straight,
and build a bridge in the South Corridor.
27.
Why don't people live closer to work? Is alternative transportation
factor? What if car use decreases? I would like to see less
motorized vehicular transportation, period. However, since the old
a.
It
( con t. )
bridge can't last forever, some type of BUILD option is necessary, I
believe. A better river crossing may enhance Valley unity, bring
Minnesota and Wisconsin neighbors closer together. Hopefully,
resulting in more harmonious existence together, environmentally
speaking as well. Also, the safety hazard the present Hwy. 36 strip
area has become over the years is of real concern as more fatalities
have occurred near Stillwater there recently.
I am thrilled to see the use of 'cartooning' to bring-to-life on
paper, video, etc. The threatened/endangered species that are
impacted, destroyed, even killed by "bulldozer" mentality toward
construction. A kinder, gentler approach to building of any kind, if
at all, must be maintained and enhanced. I like South Corridor/south
alignment/+0.5'l. grade option best from a transportation
standpoint...cost worth it. St. Croix/Stillwater "High Bridge" idea:
low grade, biking easier, walking easier.
28. The city of Stillwater has been an active participant in the planning
and environmental review process for a new crossing over the St. Croix
RIver. During the past three years the City has commented on special
study components of the environmental impact statement and two years
ago submitted a resolution to the Commissioner of the Department of
Transportation stating the City's support for a Southern Corridor
bridge location.
No other community agency is impacted by existing problems like
Stillwater. The problem is clear as stated in the draft EIS
discussion of roadway deficiencies/capacity and safety problems. The
existing lift bridge and approaching roadways do not provide
sufficient capacity to accommodate current traffic. The roadway is
narrow, intersections are congested and hazardous, pedestrian
movements, particularly in downtown Stillwater, conflicts with car and
truck traffic. The roads are not safe. A recent accident this Spring
between a truck and a car claimed the lives of four people. Truck
traffic on this narrow roadway is heavy. There are no truck scales on
hwy. 36. The Hwy. 36 problem is not a new problem. The City of
Stillwater has worked for the last 30 years to improve traffic flow.
Sometimes to the detriment of downtown business. Parking has been
removed between Chestnut and Myrtle, on South Chestnut and between
Main Street and the bridge to accommodate traffic. Left turns have
been banned and turn lanes added. Numerous other options have been
studied and some ideas implemented to increase flow. Yet traffic
delays and congestion increases. In 1960, traffic delays occurred
Friday night for 2 to 4 hours and on Saturday and Sunday's Today
traffic delays are experienced two to three hours Monday through
Thursday, 5 to 6 hours on Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday.
Stillwater residents and visitors continue to site traffic as a major
local concern. The traffic situation is responsible for some downtown
businesses leaving the downtown area, and traffic that should be on
the highway are increasing cutting through residential areas resulting
in neighborhood requests for stop signs.
.
The traffic problem is worse.
In 1962, 4,900 average trips per day
-
(cont.)
(ADT) passed over the lift bridge and 5,150 ADT were counted on Main
Street. By 1972, the numbers had increased to 9,100 ADT for the
bridge and 11,125 ADT on Main Street. In 1984, the numbers are
12,500 ADT (bridge) a d 14,000 on Main Street. The City is
experiencing severe congestion and safety problems under current
conditions. For the ear 2,014, according to MnDOT projection, the
ADT bridge count will be 28,200 and Main Street 36,250. This is over
twice as much traffic demand as is currently experienced. The impact
of this amount of traffic in Stillwater would be devastating.
It would be impossible for local residents or visitors to get around
downtown. Stalled cars would consume energy while polluting the
downtown with noise and exhaust. The constant vibration of trucks
would cause damage to buildings in the historic district requiring
major repair or replacement. The exhaust fumes would deteriorate the
old brick and stone facades constructed in the 1800s, 70s and 80s.
The NO-BUILD decision is clearly not acceptable and as stated in the
preliminary recommendations of the EIS. Further, no TSM option or
combination of TSM 0 tions...would adequately address the
transportation probl
It should be clear f om the report, statistics, accident reports,
citizen complaints and personal observations that a new river crossing
is needed. Of the tree crossing alternatives, the Southern Corridor,
from the view of the City of Stillwater, is the best location for a
new bridge.
The North Corridor I cation is inconsistent with existing land use
patterns, resource p otection policies, urban service capabilities and
comprehensive plans or all Minnesota local governments.
A bridge location ov
be most disruptive t
alignment would not
disrupt business alo
Oak Park Heights. T
if planned for 20 or
alternative.
A Central alternativ
Downtown Plan, an el
Plan. Better downto
location, but the co
heart of the communi y.
The Central Corridor
consist of, in effec
Hwy. 36 and downtown
River touching down
near the existing Ii
senses of a visitor
The view of an eleva
r the St. Croix at the north location would also
the scenic qualities of the river. A north
olve the downtown traffic problem and would
g the existing Hwy. 36 corridor in Stillwater and
is alternative may have been a good alternative
30 years ago, but it is no longer a viable
is also inconsistent with the recently adopted
ment of the City of Stillwater Comprehensive
n access would be provided by a Central bridge
t is too high, degradation of the downtown, the
alternative, depending on river crossing, would
, a 6,200 foot bridge starting halfway between
Stillwater and obliquely crossing the St. Croix
n Wisconsin on City owned Kolliner Park property e,
t bridge. The bridge and traffic would blast the
o the downtown or resident overlooking downtown.
ed bridge would destroy the visual quality of the
-
-
29.
(cont.)
river and Wisconsin blufflines as viewed from downtown and of the
charm of the historic downtown district with its characteristic church
steeples and pioneer Park as viewed from the river. Besides the
visual impact, the noise impact of 32,000 trips per day across the
bridge and the pollution given off by the shining new cars and
oversized trucks completes the picture.
A central bridge would destroy the future use of the City owned
riverfront property south of downtown which is planned for open-space
and river recreation use as an extension of Lowell Park. A Central
Corridor location would degrade the quality of the experience of
visiting Lowell Park enjoyed by over 1 million visitors per year. Who
would want to go to Stillwater to look at the bridge? A central
bridge location would also limit the attractiveness and value of City
owned Kolliner Park as a open-space recreation resource.
The City of Stillwater has recently designated the downtown a historic
district. There are sixty-nine buildings that contribute to that
designation in the downtown including Lowell Park. A Central Corridor
bridge would affect the downtown historic district as it would the
lift bridge. A special study should be done by the State regarding
the impact on the downtown historic district and lift bridge should a
Central Corridor be decided.
The South Corridor location is the best location. This corridor
aligns most closely with the existing highway. A well designed,
aesthetic bridge is consistent with existing uses on the Minnesota
side of the river, and a natural ravine or tunnel could be used to
minimize impacts on the Wisconsin side of the river.
With a Southern Corridor location, the City would be interested in
making sure access to existing businesses located along Hwy. 36 is
convenient through interchange design and frontage road locations, and
that access to Hwy. 95 and downtown is accessible.
As in the past, the City of Stillwater will continue to work with
Mndot to come up with the best river crossing location that serves the
interests of the community. A City Council Resolution and detailed
response to the draft Environmental Impact Statement will be submitted
in writing.
I'd rather see a NO-BUILD decision. And to relieve the truck traffic
through the downtown and Hwy. 36, ban semi-trailer trucks from Hwy. 36
east of 694/494. Force them by law and enforcement to use 1-94 and
thus the weigh scales. They seem to use 36 and the Stillwater bridge
as a way to avoid the Wisconsin and Minnesota weigh stations.
I want a NO-BUILD decision. But, if the decision goes the other way,
I prefer the South Corridor, but a route there that will disrupt the
fewest families possible. The South Corridor could be the least
visually polluting if its routed somewhat near the power plant, which
is already ugly and noisy. The Central Corridor route would ruin the
beautiful downtown view of the river.
(cont.) ~
The Central Corridor will be noisier downtown than the South Corridor. ...
The North Corridor would be a waste in that some trucks will still use
the Hwy. 36 and old ridge route, as they will use Oak Park Heights
restaurants as a place to eat, and will not want to backtrack to the
north route. The North Corridor might also displace the most farmland
and openspaces. Thank you.
30. I urge the St. Josep Board to vote for the No-BUILD on the bridge
issue. My position is supported by the following:
ENVIRONMENTAL, HISTO ICAL AND SCENIC RIVERWAY ISSUES - Although the
EIS did research the potential impact of moving existing clam beds,
the Prescott Bridge ad the same issue. Many of the endangered clam
species did not survive the transportation. Stating that the
populations (whether they are clams, fish or wildlife) will be moved
to other areas does ot preclude nor prevent the extinction of that
species. They have urvived centuries in their existing location for
a reason--it is best for them where they are.
The EIS effectively Lowell Park and Kolliner in Stillwater,
but does not even me tion the wayside park/historical marker on Hwy.
35 in Wisconsin. Th EIS appears biased towards Minnesota and
centered on maintain"ng the remaining wildlife areas there, but does
little to address si ilar interests and issues for St. Joseph Township
in Wisconsin. A Sou h Corridor bridge would affect a minimum of 75
homes directly and s veral agricultural areas in the St. Joseph
Township alone, let lone the impact on the Minnesota Side.
The cutting into and
of huge cement and s
natural springs whic
well as the St. Croi
river bluff. Since
areas, how was the a
area at County E for
required with a Sout
their own requiremen
avoid affecting.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
highway (6 at Hudson
bridge)? This is mo
lanes into downtown
suburbs, as well as
St. Paul from; Mendo
Cottage Grove, etc.
Springs, Woodbury, a
incoming lanes from
compare to the numbe
and the,powers tha~
require 12 lanes. W
While many of the
blasting away of a river bluff and the placement
eel structures will impact and possibly erode the
feed many of St. Joseph resident water wells as
River, the natural river bed and respective
he EIS is concerned about steep slopes and forest
cess/auxiliary road into the Birch Park Valley
otten or omitted? This is the road that will be
Corridor bridge. To remain within the scope of
s, this is the very area they should be trying to
Why does a six mile corridor need 12 lanes of
2 with the existing bridge, and 4 with a new
e than services downtown St. Paul. The incoming
t. Paul service commuters from Minneapolis and
aplewood, White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights, North
a Heights, South and West St. Paul, Hastings,
rom the South; and Oakdale, Stillwater, Pine
d all of Wisconsin from the east. The 12
isconsin serves several townships, but cannot
of vehicles in St. Paul. Unless MnDOT, WiscDOT
e have something else in mind for us that will
at could that possibly be? 4It
i-trailer trucks using the existing bridge may be
-
(cont.)
coming legitimately from northern Wisconsin, a significant number are
utilizing the bridge to avoid the weigh stations in Minnesota. If
there is more than one vehicle waiting to go north on 95, a semi
making either a right or left turn, exiting from the bridge, usually
takes at least one turn of the light, if not more to complete their
turn. From the east, this two-three minute turning period effectively
backs cars across the bridge and halfway up the hill. From south and
north 95, the traffic tie up can be several blocks in both directions.
For every additional semi-trailer, add another two to three minutes of
backup and what do you have?
The EIS does little, if anything, to address traffic management
alternatives such as:
* Weight restrictions.
* Time of day, peak, and weekend restrictions.
* Length of trailer restrictions.
* By signage, direct semi-trailers to proceed directly to 1-94 to
the weigh station. Then state troopers would have probable
cause to stop drivers suspected of avoiding the weigh station.
* Reduce, restrict or eliminate parking within a certain distance
of turning lanes.
* Restrict, reduce or eliminate left turns during peak and
weekend hours. It works on Lake Street and Hennepin Avenue in
Minneapolis, why not Stillwater?
* Since the existing bridge has been declared structurally
deficient (meaning with height and width restrictions, not
dilapidated as many would have you think), efforts will need
to be expended in the areas of maintenance. For what bridge,
structure, house, yard, car, etc. does not require maintenance
at least once every 5 - 20 years? Who knows, with tenderness,
care and a little maintenance, the existing bridge may last
another 50 years.
COST - Today, a MnDOT representative indicated to me that cost was not
a primary factor in deciding this bridge. How can costs be ignored?
All involved parties have indicated that funding has not yet been
secured. When asked from where these funds will come, the
representative indicated gas and usage taxes as well as motor vehicle
licenses, in addition to state and federal funding. With MN and WI
already having two of the highest gas taxes in the U.S., how can our
sagging economy support a $65+ million bridge, and the accompanying
additional $50-100 million required for the road alterations and
accesses, land acquisitions, lawsuits, etc.?
-
While I do not wish a bridge on anyone, if all constituent
recommendations to not build a bridge are ignored, the Central
Corridor can be the only logical choice. This selection is supported
by environmental groups, the MN/WI Boundary Area Commission, and by
Federal Government and Department of Natural Resources mandate of the
original intent of naming the St. Croix River a scenic waterway which
is to prevent more river crossings and mutilation of the existing
river bluffs and valleys. To do anything less violates the spirit and
intent of the Department of Natural Resources efforts over the past 30
( con t. )
years.
Over two years ago,
EIS, if they recomme
utilizes natural cor
choice. The EIS ind
affect any of Stillw
structures. The EIS
Because it is flawed
issues. Since bids
newspaper and MnDOT
St. Joseph Township,
are they moving so q
questions have been
Since MnDOT continue
can't this beautiful
already urban-develo
anyone really looked
Bridge was built, Ie
constituents the bri
The only promise the
How can one compare
and irreplaceable be
created during the I
Additional comments
convenience of commu
stations. To cut in
travesty to our duty
Environmental issues
should go back to th
objectives - to expl
supposed to be out i
decision in one mont
Traffic management -
trucks, weight restr
town. Stillwater re
Wisconsin the least,
bridge design by MnD
coming from? Why no
Corps of Engineers/C
pleasure craft.
till
he Mn/WI Boundary Area Commission charged the
ded a BUILD option~ to select the area which
idors. Again, the Central Corridor is the only
cated a bridge in the Central Corridor would not
ter's numerous historical buildings or
is remiss in not addressing all of the issues.
they need to regroup and include both state
or consultants have been requested in the
takes hav~ been placed behind the Valley House in
has the decision already been made? If not, why
ickly? Will they lose potential funding? These
sked and ignored.
to insist that bridges can be beautiful~ why
bridge be built in downtown Stillwater, an
ed area. On the issue of bridge design, has
at the High Bridge in St. Paul? When the High
islators and design engineers promised
ge would be beautiful and would be built quickly.
relatively kept was that the was built quickly.
he need of man-made structures with the natural
uty of the St. Croix River Valley, a river valley
e Age? Thank you.
rom same individual: A new bridge is for the
ers and trucks trying to avoid the weigh
o a river bluff (not a natural corridor) is a
No proposal for transportation management.
in Wisconsin not addressed. EIS is flawed and
drawingboard. EIS ignores one of the primary
re all options. Why was a study that was
January released in April, and submitted for a
instead of five?
why not review: park and ride, carpools, banning
ctions, use restrictions, route traffic away from
uses cooperation. Central Corridor disturbs
uses natural existing corridor, and a "beautiful"
T will enhance Stillwater view. Where is funding
petition the Federal Govt. to overrule the Army
ast Guard and limit the # of bridge openings for
31. I recommend that the bridge be built in the Southern Corridor. The
bridge is a necessit and the Southern Corridor provides the most
logical route.
32. I have lived in St. roix County most of my life, and a good portion
of it in St. Joseph ownship. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
on the Stillwater Br'dge DEIS. I have always valued the rural
environment that we ave in St. Joe and I am saddened to see our
II
( con t. )
county and township growing so fast as it is. Although growth and
"progress" are inevitable for us, situated as we are by the Twin
Cities, I hope there are things more important to us than speed,
convenience, and commercialism, especially as it impacts our precious
and irreplaceable natural resources of clean air and water, peace and
quiet, resources that are easy to take for granted until you no longer
have them.
We are particularly blessed to live so close to one of the very few
"wild and scenic" riverways left in the country, and it is our duty to
protect this heritage for our children and our children's children.
This duty includes limiting the number of superhighways which cross
the St. Croix. Every new structure on the river, be it a bridge or a
coal burning power plant, represents a blight on the scenic panorama
of the magnificent St. Croix Valley. I consider myself blessed to
live so close to a historic treasure, and am awed every time I descend
the Houlton hill, approaching Stillwater, framed as it is by the
river, steeples looming in the background.
As I lay outside at night in a valley just east of Stillwater,
listening to the still quiet voices of frogs, loons, owls and
crickets, I am always aware of a low, dull roar in the background,
which I have always assumed to come from Interstate 94, ten miles to
the south. I've always been glad it wasn't closer and feel sorry for
the people who have to listen to it at closer range. How fortunate we
are to have a little piece of paradise. But how long will this
continue? Will these quiet voices of nature soon have to complete
with IS-wheelers to be heard?
,/
How will building a superhighway which crosses the St. Croix and
continues on to New Richmond and points northeast affect the air
quality in our region? How many noxious emissions, how much acid rain
will be produced? How will this affect the quality of our lakes,
streams and rivers and the fish living in them? How will building a
new bridge disrupt the bald eagles and other birds nesting nearby?
Will they tolerate the dynamite blasting and havoc wreaked by the
construction crews, or will they move elsewhere? I think the answer
is obvious.
Dare I ask who exactly is going to pick up the tab for this project?
The State of Minnesota? Shrinking Federal Highway Funds? No matter
who signs the check, we will end up paying for it one way or another,
either in terms of higher gasoline taxes, property taxes, or general
revenues to which we all contribute. What will happen to property
values in St. Joe? Are property taxes going to become so high that
only the wealthy can live here?
It
Contrary to appearances, I am not an obstructionist, adverse to growth
and development. Nor do I believe that bridges and highways are fine
as long as they don't affect me. What I can't understand is why we
need to spend millions on a new bridge when there are less expensive,
less ecologically, and less aesthetically damaging alternatives.
There is little indication that light rail transit, car-pooling, or
( con t. )
other mass transit alternatives have been given serious consideration ~
as part of the solution to the traffic congestion in downtown
Stillwater.
With a five-lane fre way crossing the St. Croix just ten miles south,
is it not possible t repair the present bridge, or remove it and
rebuild a simple one in its place and re-route much of the traffic
that wouldn't have t go through Stillwater? Shouldn't semi-trailers
be routed across the Hudson bridge, by the weigh stations where they
ought to be? Couldn't traffic going north on 95 be routed somewhere
through Stillwater 0 her than on Main Street?
I'm not convinced th t the NO-BUILD alternatives have been explored
with as much enthusi sm and money as has been spent on the proposed
bridges. Building a multi-lane bridge across the St. Croix, cutting
into the pristine Ho lton bluff, should be the course of last resort,
after all other alte natives have been exhausted. We in the St. Croix
Valley cannot afford anything else, monetarily, aesthetically or
environmentally. Th nk you.
33. Build the bridge don't screw up Stillwater. There are too many
farmers (we keep pay"ng them to stay in business) so I am not worried
about putting roads hrough any agricultural land. Forest land is
much more limited in this area, and therefore more important. I
believe the people a ainst a new bridge are a minority that doesn"t
need to use the brid e.
I am embarrassed by
Wisconsin residents.
he "crowd" that showed up to speak on behalf of
They are not speaking for me.
You should take into consideration the spread of tree diseases during
construction, i.e. 0 k Wilt. Also, you should be aware that Butternut
may soon be listed a an endangered species.
The Wisconsin people against development should take care of their own
zoning and not blame a' new bridge for any unwanted development.
34.
I favor building in
travel across the St
in St. Paul. I have
and do not find traf
during the summer or
never raised there w
My study of all the
to be the least expe
the least aesthetica
impact. This route
houses as the South
he Central Corridor if a bridge is built. I
llwater bridge every day as I commute to my job
traveled daily to St. Paul for the past six years
ic congestion a problem except on nice days
on weekends. Basically if the draw bridge were
uld be no serious problem.
UILD alternatives concludes the Central Corridor
sive, the most compatible with the environment,
ly damaging and with the least agricultural
ill directly affect about the same numbers of
orridor.
Thank you for your c nsideration of my opinion.
.
35.
II
I am strongly in favor of a BUILD decision. I would prefer to see the
bridge built south of the existing location.
36. I would like to provide a statement to support the building of a
bridge in the Southern Corridor. Let me explain why: I leave for work
at 6:00 - 6:30 A.M. at the intersection of 35/64 - Anderson Scout Camp
Road. The traffic each morning is staggering and is a hazard to
safety. The same traffic problem exists in the afternoon during
Andersen Windows shift change. Traffic is a hazard also due to people
using the bridge for recreation on weekends, and because of boat
traffic. In addition, safety is a problem at 35 & 64 intersection in
Houlton.
The South Corridor is necessary to best handle traffic. The North
Corridor will not handle the Andersen Window traffic, which will
defeat the purpose of the bridge. Therefore, I support the building
of a bridge in the South Corridor. Central Corridor as second option.
37. I believe that we need a new bridge in our area, and I vote for the
Southern Corridor to make use of present Hwy. 36. I agree with the
gentleman who spoke briefly at the High School Wed. evening, when he
stated: "The longer we wait, the more expensive the bridge will be."
I think he was a retired DOT employee.
38.
-
From now until late September or October, traffic is a nightmare
around Stillwater, especially on weekends and with al~ the big boats
waiting for the bridge to raise. Its ridiculous to back up motor
traffic for miles to let a cruiser go under the bridge, then turn
around and go right back down river. I think they get their kicks
that way, making the cars line up to wait for them!
Draft EIS is biased toward Minnesota interests--scant coverage of
Wisconsin issues. Examples:
* Constant emphasis on downtown Stillwater business interests.
* Doesn't even mention our wayside park on 35, yet goes on and on
about Lowell Park and Kolliner Park.
* No analysis of how various corridors would affect local traffic
patterns in St. Joseph.
* States that they wish to avoid steep slopes and hardwood forest
areas, yet South-south and South-central corridors have the
road dropping down into the Birch Park valley at Co. Rd. E, an
area of steep slopes and hardwood forest.
* In discussing the Northern Corridor's affects in Minnesota,
they state that it would encourage businesses to locate there
and that could cause the area to lose its "present
rural/exurban visual ambiance". Not one word is said about the
same thing happening in St. Joseph. They worry about the
Northern Corridor stimulating development in Grant and
Stillwater Townships where there is no mention that this same
problem exists in St. Joseph. Then, in discussing the Northern
Corridor's effects at nearby sites on Mile Long Island, they
say, "Campers at nearby sites would be confronted by the large
physical presence of the bridge, its shadow at certain times of
the day, traffic noise, the possibility of exhaust fumes and
(cent.)
precipitation unoff, and increased light at night. The tII
overall result of these changes would be a markedly different
ambiance on th island than at present." Nowhere in the draft
EIS is this sa e concern extended to those of us who will have
to live next d or to this bridge/road!
* In discussing he Southern Corridors, they state, "...the total
number of impr ved properties directly affected will be
relatively small, probably 6 or fewer, depending on the
alignment." M ny people feel that it is far worse for the
bridge/road to go nearby than to take your property. If it
goes near you, you have to contend with noise, air pollution,
and lowered pr perty value. Therefore, the South-south and the
South-central ffects 72 homes (20 in Riverview Acres area, 7
north of the w yside, 14 along 27th and 130th, 31 off of Co.
Rd. E; this co nt excludes farms, businesses, Red Pine Trail),
not just the 6 they claim! Also, in regard to noise, they
claim that onl the Central Corridor would affect more than 4
sites!
* St. Joseph ship and St. Croix Co. are ill prepared to
handle the effects of this bridge/road on development. Neither
one has a long range or comprehensive plan in place. Part of
any mitigation effort should be funds from the State to pay for
planning.
39. YEAR 2020: BUREAU OF TOURISM PAMPHLET: Welcome to Minnesota and the
world famous scenic St. Croix River. As you approach the Minnesota
side of the river, be sure to notice the breath taking view of the
Andersen Window fact ry with its piles of lumber and large buildings:
the NSP tower with its sprawling coal piles, transmission towers and
cables, the unused d cks in the river and the railroad yard for the
unloading of coal. Iso, our rundown state prison with its drab walls
and iron fences. An ther must see on our list is the Metropolitan
Sewage Disposal plan which we are sure will be a crowd pleaser. If
you see one marina, you have seen them all, but ours has rows of
condos in the backgr und so as to cover up any natural' beauty that may
have been there. Be sure not to drive so fast that you will miss
seeing the large rus ic barges north of the marina; you don"t get to
see that many beat-u barges in one place very often. These man-made
scenic views are her for your driving and seeing pleasure --enjoy!
THE ST. CROIX RIVER
SOMETHING DECENT TO
ONE THAT WOULD BE AB
ELONGS TO EVERYONE. GIVE OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS
NJOY AND LOOK AT. THE NORTH CROSSING IS THE ONLY
TO DO THIS.
40. If a BUILD decision made and the decision is made to use one of the
Southern Corridors, would like you to consider either the central
alignment or the sou h alignment rather than the north alignment. The
north alignment is v'sually disruptive to all of the marina and the
homes which have riv r views from north of 36 to the Buckhorn sign.
Likewise, all Stillw ter residents and visitors coming and going up
and down the river 0 Hwy. 95, coming to visit Stillwater, a long .
bridge built running down the river seems a rather ugly obstacle to
the beauty of the ri er. A bridge straight across the river seems
II
( con t . )
more advantageous.
alignment.
If BUILD, South Corridor, south or central
41.
A new bridge is of grave importance due to traffic bottlenecks.
economic future of Somerset to Houlton area is at stake.
The
42. My recommendation is that of NO-BUILD. Why can't we take a few
million dollars and buyout a few businesses near the riverfront in
Stillwater, and route Wisconsin in-bound traffic on a one-way street
to the present bridge? By the same token: Run traffic coming from
Wisconsin on a one-way street. I think that this would keep traffic
moving well, providing that the bridge does not have to open every
half hour. It is ridiculous that a few people with large boats can
dictate and upset the flow of traffic. If the bridge opened three
time? in the morning, three times in the afternoon, and a couple of
times at night, it would all work.
If a bridge must be built, use the Central Corridor route. There is
already a four lane approach on the Wisconsin side. A Central
Corridor route would not have to tear up as much agricultural land and
just makes more sense.
43. The biggest problem with the Stillwater Bridge is the river traffic;
if the bridge didn't have to go up every half-hour for the pleasure
boats, the traffic wouldn't be as backed up. Why should people
playing in their boats cause all those accidents?
44. I feel that the "BUILD" people are not truly represented because they
do not realize there is a chance that the bridge may not be built.
Therefore, they aren't paying enough attention; they think the
question is where the bridge will be built, not if it will be built.
They know that there is a definite need for a bridge. I am for the
BUILD option because of the congestion and traffic that the present
bridge causes. The amount of traffic going through such a small area
is a hazard to the public health. It would be great if it wasn't
true--but it is true. It is utterly ridiculous to wait for an hour to
go a mile to get to a bridge only to have it lift so that some
joyrider can see the river in his/her boat.
45. As a resident of the Sunnyside Condominiums, I favor the bridge
location in the south alignment of the South Corridor.
At present, during the afternoon shift of Anderson Company and on
week-ends there are serious delays in getting downtown as well as
trying to go north on state highway 95. Since it may be years before
any bridge is built, I would suggest several interim solutions:
-
1.) No parking on the east side of Main Street south of the
Chestnut intersection. This would allow two-lane traffic--the
east lane as bridge traffic and the west lane for through traffic
going north on highway 95.
2.) Create a by-pass option to the downtown bridge congestion.
, con t. )
On highway 36, ark 4th St. (Osgood Ave.) as a north route. II
This would invol e a jog at 3rd St. to Myrtle to intersect with
highway 95 going north. This is a route we use when we want to
go north and can ot get through the downtown congestion.
46. I would hope that could be taken soon to relieve the
congestion.
* Keep big truck off Main Street over the bridge.
* Reduce the fre uency of bridge openings.
* Create two Ian s of traffic going north on Main Street to the
Chestnut Street "ntersection--the right lane for bridge
traffic, the lef lane for highway 95 through traffic north.
This could be do e by eliminating parking on the east side of
Main Street, sou h of Chestnut.
47. I'm making this writt n statement for the draft EIS Record, as a Real
Estate Representative of Conoco Inc., who is the fee property owner of
14529-60th St. N.-Oak Park Heights, MN ("Dairy Queen" site).
Your previous corresp ndence stated that "the purpose of this river
crossing evaluation i to identify the best overall public solution
that balances regional and local transportation need with cost, and
the social, economic, and environmental effects."
Conoco's position is that the subject river crossing evaluation does
not identify the best overall public solution because of a failure to
identi fy solutions to the array of negative economic impact. to all
commercial and retail businesses, whether existing or proposed, along
both sides of Highway 36 in the Oak Park Heights area, should a BUILD
decision be approved. Therefore, we must submit our position for the
NO-BUILD decision.
We are not so much against a new proposed bridge in the Central or
South Corridor, as we are against the reconstruction of Highway 36 to
an "Urban Section" in the primary shopping area for the whole
community, if not the region.
A proposed "Urban Se tion" reconstruction will drastically impair
accessibility, visibility, visual appeal, and consequently, will
adversely reduce the commercial and retail values of all business
properties in the ar a.
Less than two months ago, Conoco closed on the purchase of a new
development site along the South Frontage Road (60th St. N.) of
Highway 36, in Oak P rk Heights, between Oakgreen Ave. on the west and
Osgood Ave. on the e st. This closing culminated a long twelve month
process of contract egotiation, feasibility studies and proposals,
plan preparation, de elopment approvals from the City of Oak Park
Heights, and finally the closing procedures. The next step would be
construction of a ne prototype self-service gasoline and convenience
store facility with n automatic car wash. This development
represents a total i vestment for Conoco that will exceed one million ~
dollars. This whole project is now in jeopardy should the BUILD
It
( con t. )
decision be approved as proposed in either the South or Central
Corridors.
Mn/DOT says it needs to convert Highway 36 in the two-mile stretch
noted to a "Urban Section" to promote the through-movement of traffic
and to improve safety because of a projected doubling of traffic by
the year 2000. Noteworthy, is the fact the traffic counts have not
increased from 1986 to 1988, along this section of Highway 36, based
upon your counts of 21,200 vehicles per day.
As for safety, Minnesota remains one of the safest states to drive in
based upon fatalities per million miles driven. Additionally, many
metropolitan four-lane divided highways of similar design to Highway
36, in the Oak Park Heights area, adequately handle traffic counts in
excess of 20,000 vehicles per day and in some cases handle two and
three times that volume. The point is, Highway 36 was built to safely
handle traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 V.P.D., no measurable
increase in traffic has been depicted between 1986 and 1988, and
demographic trends show only modest growth of population between 1988
and 1993 in the one and two mile radius of our site. So why change
now? This reconstruction is obviously unnecessary and not cost
effective.
Earlier I said, that our primary concerns were the negative economic
impacts to businesses in the BUILD decision. I shall now elaborate on
those specific concerns. The most powerful statement that supports
our contention is contained within the special environmental studies
that were prepared on economic issues and impacts--Section 4(f)
evaluations, page 74, second paragraph:
"For outlets selling convenience or travel-related goods such as
fast-food or gasoline, virtually every passing motorist is a
prospective customer. Adverse economic impacts will result if
traffic is diverted. II
We agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
-
The negative impacts that will affect the very economic core of every
existing or proposed business are the following:
1) Our business, like others, is traffic sensitive.
2) Reconstruction of Highway 36 as proposed in the conceptual
drawings, will divert traffic away from existing businesses and
any proposed new re-developments like ours.
3) The proposed "Urban Section" redevelopment of Highway 36, in
Layman's Language, means the closure of the median cross-over at
Omaha Ave.-thus eliminating the ability to capture any west-bound
traffic on Highway 36. Additionally, it means the elimination of
the direct access from Highway 36 onto Omaha Ave.-thus
eliminating the east-bound traffic on Highway 36, which is the
primary traffic stream for us as-well as other businesses along
the south frontage road (60th St. N.).
4) The loss of accessibility in (3) above, directly impacts the
primary ingress-egress to the St. Croix Mall at Omaha Ave. This
(cont.)
mall has just ently completed an expansion p~oject fo~ ove~ 411
83,000 squa~e t.
5) T~ansient bu iness.f~om Highway 36 would be all but
eliminated. All businesses in this a~ea, especially gasoline and
fast-food use~s, depend upon this type of business fo~ economic
livelihood.
6) The "Urban S ction" also p~oposes to dep~ess o~ lowe~ the
existing Highway 36 ~oad bed at least five feet below the
existing g~ade I vel. This will impai~ the visibility fo~ all
businesses in th two-mile co~~ido~ leading to the new p~oposed
b~idge.
7) P~oposed g~a e sepa~ated inte~changes, with the elimination
of t~affic lights at (Oakg~een o~ G~eely) and at Osgood will
p~ohibit east-bo nd o~ west-bound t~affic f~om exiting o~
ente~ing Highway 36 at Osgood Ave. This will devastate local
business and cu~tail the only othe~ access to the St. C~oix Mall
along Osgood Ave.
8) Obviously, the visual appeal will, be diminished on all
businesses if t e ~oad bed is lowe~ed.
9) Dust and noise pollution du~ing an extended const~uction
pe~iod on Highway 36 will be nothing less than intole~able.
10) Last, but not least, comme~cial ~etail p~ope~ty values will
be significantly ~educed if any o~ all of the above mentioned
conditions occu. This could fo~ce existing businesses to close,
othe~s to be da aged seve~ely, and some may neve~ be able to
sell.
In conclusion, a new
~econst~uct Highway
depends upon accessi
along a two mile st~
p~ima~y shopping a~e
b~idge may someday be needed, but don't
6 at the sac~ifice of the business community that
ility and visibility fo~ su~vival. This a~ea
tch of Highway 36 on both sides ~ep~esents the
fo~ the whole community and the ~egion.
We speak fo~ Conoco Inc. and all business inte~ested pa~ties in
suppo~t of the NO-BUILD decision.
48. * Access f~om County Road E in Houlton-St. Joe Township is needed.
* P~oceed with BUILD p~ocess as quickly as possible.
* Recommend South Co ~ido~; howeve~, would p~efe~ Cent~al Co~~ido~ fo~
highway th~ough Houl on-St. Joseph Township.
49.
Please note that I s
this community that
wo~th of ove~ $10 mi
1.) The majo~i
a BUILD option,
2.) The South
diagonal is eli
36 is p~oposed-
legal and legis
3.) I pe~sonal
enfo~ceable wei
st~uctu~e and a
eak fo~ a majo~ity of my f~iends and neighbo~s in
ncompasses 36 town homes and 97 condos, with a net
lion:
y of people seem to be ve~y slightly in favo~ of
but with ~ese~vations about location.
o~~ido~ is acceptable p~oviding the no~th-east
inated and a di~ect easte~n p~ojection of Highway
any othe~ ~oute will be st~ongly contested by
ative action.
y feel a NO BUILD action is p~udent p~ovided a ~
ht ~est~iction is imposed on the p~esent ...
bridge opening schedule adopted to ease t~affic
II
50.
51.
( con t. )
problems, primarily on weekends.
I would like the idea of building a bridge to be able to cross the
river, with at least two lanes going each way BUT, instead of going
through useful and beautiful land, why not just widen the existing
highway and have the bridge issue just be getting across the river,
not how to mess up a lot of rural America. We moved over here to get
away from the noise and congestion. Traffic moves very well on the
Wisconsin side already. The Minnesota side--that is a~other world--
just trying to get through Stillwater. Please disturb the least
number of people and the least amount of wildlife and land.
After sitting on the Task Force and reviewing the EIS, I believe a
BUILD decision is in the best interest of all concerned.
I personally prefer the Central Corridor because of the lesser impact
on the agricultural land in St. Croix County. However~ if the Central
corridor is not practical on the Minnesota side, my second choice
would be the north alignment of the South Corridor. This alignment
allows the corridor in Wisconsin to follow section lines in a straight
alignment and not dissect farmsteads diagonally. As long as we have
options, I believe we should avoid impacting the Dahlke family farm
operation, and this will allow the younger generation to continue
their farming vocation.
52. Recommendation: Do not build this bridge.
Comments: By its own admission there have been no other plans to aid
"safety in transportation" in this study. I f "safety" is the issue
for building a $60 to $100 million bridge, why are there not
alternatives to chose? Example: Restrictive bridge openings at peak
traffic; no parking on Main Street in Stillwater would give two lanes
of traffic; one way alternatives through downtown. To maintain three
bridges within six miles crossing the same direction without
identifying other alternatives is to say the least political folly.
We hear statements that the bridge is budoeted but is it funded~ We
all know that this burden will pass to the taxpayer, be it a state or
federally funded program. Who will pay the cost overruns? Let's use
these funds for a real safety project not a folly!
53.
-
When can we expect an alternative plan to be brought before the public
that will give us better choices than spending $60-100 million on a
bridge? If all states were as irresponsible in their planning as
Minnesota and Wisconsin have been in this process taxpayers would
definitely have another California proposition 44 revolt.
Now that you are nearing the time for making a determination as to
whether or not a bridge will be constructed over the St. Croix River
at Stillwater I would like to state my opinion.
I am in business in Somerset, but I travel to Minnesota for work
purposes~ and must cross the St. Croix at Stillwater. The problems
that I encounter while trying to cross the bridge at Stillwater are
almost legend. The traffic tie ups that I encounter become almost
( con t. ) ~
unbearable and I see any drivers making dangerous maneuvers trying to ,..
"jockey" for position while heading for the bridge. After the bridge
is lowered the situation becomes worse as irate drivers try to "make
up lost time" heading into Wisconsin or back to Minnesota.
Please place my wife' and my name on your list of persons favoring a
new bridge at Stillwater ASAP.
54. We recommend a BUILD ecision be made for a new bridge in the South
Corridor. The north alignment of the South Corridor would be the best
location.
55. I have read the summary draft EIS and much of the supporting reports.
I have also carefully studied the MN-WI Boundary Area Commission Staff
recommendations and supporting work. My conclusions:
GOALS
A) Maximum rotection and reinforcement of scenic/recreational
river corridor (met by 1,2,4, and 5 below).
B) Maximum mobilit for MN-WI inter-state part of Minneapolis-
St. Paul Metro rea (met by number 3 below).
C) Maximum rotection for Stillwater central area historic
preservation and scenic-recreational development of riverfront
(met by number 1 below).
D) Maximum 0 rtunit for anoramic views of scenic river from
bridge (met by number 4 below).
SOLUTIONS
1) Avoid
2) Avoid
3) Build new,
approaches.
4) Desiqn brid e to accommodate pedestrians and
and to permit v'ew from autos through sidewalls.
5) Avoid tunnels.
ss) central Stillwater and Stillwater waterfront.
Corridor.
-lane bridge with new~ restricted access
bicycle traffic,
CONCLUSION
BUILD/South
option 4.
56.
BUILD in Central Cor
* Less cost.
* Would solve p
* Would be mini
to area.
57. We need to have a de ision made now to build a new bridge...The north
or central alignment of the South Corridor would be the best location
for a new bridge...
58. Houlton area residen s have been waiting for a new bridge for many
years, so a BUILD de ision should be made as soon as possible in 1990.
A South Corridor bri ge location is the preferred area as it would not~
impact as many resid nts. The north alignment of the South Corridor
-
59.
60.
(cont.)
has been considered the best location since it was studied in the
early 1970s. The central alignment of the South Corridor would also
be a suitable location.
I was born and raised in St. Joseph. Now I live in N. Hudson,
approximately 5 to 6 miles from where this bridge is supposed to be
going in our state. I feel that a new bridge of the magnitude
presented in the North and South Corridor is just out of the question.
The impact and stress it is going to put on this county is unreal.
The agricultural land that these two corridors take is uncalled for,
say nothing of the impact on the river. Why? All because of the
traffic problem in the City of Stillwater and they do not want to lose
a few old buildings. There is no way we should have to be subjected
to their problems, which we have nothing to say about. Kind of like
taxes without representation. I say and believe there can be no other
decision, but to have a NO BUILD decision. The only place a bridge
should be built is at the existing crossing.
I am one of two Bayport members on the River Crossing Task Force for
the past five years, and Les Schwalen and I have reported periodically
to the Bayport City Council regarding the bridge studies.
The Bayport City Council has passed a resolution favoring a BUILD
decision in the South Corridor.
My personal feeling is that the bridge studies have been very thorough
and comprehensive. The congestion and safety problems, in and near
Stillwater, caused by the present bridge location are long overdue for
correction.
The problems will continue to worsen as time goes by. Some have
proposed any number of so-called alternative solutions which I believe
will have little effect. Now is the time to make a BUILD decision.
61. On behalf of Andersen employees who must use the Stillwater bridge in
commuting to work, the Andersen Corporation Board of Directors has
gone on record as favoring a BUILD decision in the South Corridor.
Approximately 1500 employees use the Stillwater lift bridge commuting
to work daily, with another 60-70 employees travelling through
downtown Stillwater to homes north of the city. Andersen now owns 16
eleven-passenger commuting vans and is served by 8 privately-owned
buses on its 3-shift operation. Andersen Corporation also encourages
carpooling. While these measures were taken because of limited
parking space, they do provide some small reduction in traffic over
the lift bridge. The fact that this reduction is hardly noticeable
should indicate that these and other alternative transportation
methods would not eliminate the need for a new river crossing to
bypass downtown Stillwater for safe and un congested traffic flow.
62.
-
I am concerned with the timing of the BUILD vs. NO-BUILD decision in
the entire process.
I feel that I can not properly evaluate trade-offs between safety and
(cont.)
transportation
rural setting, agricu
options to BUILD has
evaluate specifics:
impacts, and articula
systems.
I am concerned with t
That decision should
rural impacts of the
of the proposed bridg
s concerns--on one hand--versus concerns for
tural lands, and environment until we see which
een chosen. Only then would we be able to
afety features, traffic patterns, environmental
ion with the metropolitan area mass transit
-
e process for deciding the BUILD/NO-BUILD issue.
ome after we know the specific environmental and
UILD proposal. I need to see a sand-table model
before I would decide GO or HALT~
63. If a new bridge is to be built, I would pick the South Corridor,
central alignment (through the wayside). The State already owns the
land. It is the straightest route over the river. The cost is
comparable to the north alignment of the South Corridor and much less
than the South Corrid r, south alignment. Also the grade is
comparable.
This route would not put any hardship on farmers whose buildings would
be taken. A tunnel through the bluff would also make it look better
as it would avoid a big cut in the river bluff. This route would
follow farm land that would not hurt farmers too much. Also the
Valley House Restaurant would not be taken. A new route for highway
35 north to meet hig way 64 could be achieved. I believe this route
would have the least impact on St. Joseph Township and the Village of
Houlton, as the Sout Corridor, north alignment comes too close to the
village and also the school, which is getting bigger all the time.
I think that if a ne bridge is built the people in St. Joseph
Township and the City of Stillwater will never have it as nice as they
do now. It is so ea y to get around where the present bridge and
highways now lie. A new bridge will make crossing the river faster
but it will also hav a bad influence on the way things are now for
the people living he e.
64. I concur with the su gestions and conclusions expressed in this letter
(from the Voyageurs egion National Park Association). As a member of
Voyageurs Region Nat'onal Park Association, I feel everything should
be done to save our nvironment from further deterioration.
65. We can't understand hy there is a desire to construct a highway
through a forested, illy region with ravines and ponds when open flat
land is just as avai able.
We are also concerne about the desire to construct what seems to be
the largest and most expensive bridge when there are cheaper
alternatives.
We don't favor the
We don't think the
uth Corridor. The Central Corridor seems better.
rgest bridge would be aesthetically pleasing.
-
66.
-
I am concerned by the trend in our society of unrestrained growth at
any cost and I would like to express my feelings about the proposed
bridge over the St. Croix Scenic Riverway in Stillwater. Admitting
that there may be congestion problems to be solved, my opinion is that
any new structure should simply replace the existing bridge. No
additional structures which might encourage an increase in commuters
from this area to the metro area or plunge the St. Croix River Valley
into an urbanized mode should be built.
We live in an era where we are forced by the consequences of past
human action to face the fact that unlimited human growth is no longer
in the best interest of the society or the future of our children.
Among the many reasons to discourage more bridge structures (ethical,
aesthetic, environmental protection and conservation) one simple
reason is that we all need to live near our workplace, to minimize
resources we consume and environmental effects we create by simply
going to work. Here is a chance to begin making decisions based not
on growth, comfort, or profit, but instead on an informed sensitivity
toward how our actions will shape the future.
Replace the old bridge if necessary, but use the existing site, and
simply angle it farther to the south avoiding downtown Stillwater.
67. I am in favor of a NO-BUILD decision on the Stillwater-Houlton River
Crossing. In reviewing the EIS I found that little, if any, real
importance was given to the NO-BUILD alternative! NO-BUILD must be
given attention equal to that of the BUILD alternative and its various
corridors.
If, however, a BUILD decision is made I favor the existing bridge
corridor. The present Stillwater bridge could be relocated in a
scenic park area--preserved for historical reasons, and a new, low
profile bridge could cross the St. Croix in the existing corridor.
We must preserve the St. Croix and its environment!
68. Please accept the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed Stillwater-Houlton River Crossing.
We strongly feel that the DEIS is seriously flawed in that it
emphasizes Minnesota interests while largely ignoring major
considerations on the Wisconsin side. For example:
It emphasizes Stillwater business development plans while
ignoring the effects of a bridge on development in St. Joseph
township.
It details the projected effects of a bridge on Lowell and
Kolliner parks while not even mentioning the Highway 35 wayside
park in St. Joseph which would be eliminated by one of the
proposed alignments in the South Corridor.
-
It contains no analysis at all of how a bridge and accompanying
road system would affect local traffic patterns in St. Joseph.
( con t . )
It places great
visual ambiance"
while absolutely
Joseph township.
It worries that
development in G
other services a
problem exists n
The DEIS describ
precipitation ru
experience of ca
recognize these
really preposter
island. Homeown
alue on maintaining the "present rural/exurban
in Grant and Stillwater townships in Minnesota
failing to even mention the same concern for St.
III
route in the North corridor would stimulate
ant and Stillwater townships where sewer and
e lacking and fails to consider that the same
St. Joseph township.
s the potential traffic noise, exhaust fumes,
off, and lights at night affecting the
ers on Mile Long Island while failing to
ame effects on homeowners in Wisconsin. This is
us! Campers will spend one or two nights on the
rs are there 365 days a year.
In discussing th effects of a North Corridor tunnel on Brown"s
Creek north of Stillwater, the DEIS states that it "would
dramatically alt r the rugged, forested character of this small
valley." Yet, the south and central alignments of the South
Corridor violate the Birch Park valley at County Road E in St.
Joseph. One of the stated goals of the DEIS is to avoid steep
slopes and forested areas. This is an exact description of the
Birch Park valley. This valley contains steep slopes and scenic
forests including a beautiful stand of maple trees directly in
the path of the proposed alignments. A substantial wildlife
population would be disrupted if a road were to go through this
valley.
Furthermore, the DEI
"affected" if they a
worse to have to liv
lights of a bridge/r
decreased property v
compensation. There
underestimates the a
all corridors. For
would be affected by
72 homes and 6 farms
alignments alone in
We strongly feel tha
environmental impact
feel that no corrido
properly.
St. Joseph township
and is poorly equipp
likely to result fro
BUILD decision is ma
the State to help pa
takes the position that properties are only
e taken. In fact, most people feel it is far
near the resulting noise, air pollution, and
ad than to have their homes taken. They suffer
lues and quality of life without any
ore, we believe that the DEIS grossly
fected number of properties for all alignments in
example, it claims that "6 or fewer" properties
all alignments in the South Corridor. We count
that would be impacted by the south and central
his corridor.
the DEIS has failed to adequately assess the
of the proposed river crossing on, Wisconsin.
should be selected until this job is done
We
oes not have a long range or comprehensive plan
d to deal with the development pressures that are
the proposed river crossing. If and when a
e, part of any mitigation should be funds from
for our planning.
II
1169.
70.
It
A) Under the NO-BUILD alternative the EIS discusses TSM strategies.
These strategies could be expected to really make a NO-BUILD
alternative a more feasible solution.
1) Take truck traffic out of downtown Stillwater.
2) Charge a toll for use of the Stillwater bridge as a way to
limit the traffic through town. There is the 1-94 bridge just
south with good access to the Houlton area on the Wisconsin side.
3) Work with the National Park Service to restrict the number of
boats used on the St. Croix River. The river around Stillwater
has become a "freeway" and has outlived its recreational
enjoyment potential (Wild and Scenic river designation in this
area) .
I understand that the DOT cannot accomplish these suggestions alone.
This project should not be a DOT decision alone. This issue is not
just a transportation issue; its implications are far-reaching. A
viable solution needs a joint effort with other units of government.
B) I cannot believe that any of the BUILD alternatives will improve
air quality and require less energy as you claim in your studies.
A new bridge will induce more traffic and accelerate the development
of yet another Twin City suburb, this time in Wisconsin.
C) Finally, I am saddened by the price tag this society is willing to
pay for individualized mobility--the private automobile. I can
understand why so many people try to escape our metropolitan areas.
Poor transportation planning and zoning policies have created and
still create (this project included) urban environments unfit for
human habitation. This society claims to have the highest standard of
living in the world! I think this is only true in the short run and
only for those who have the resources, and only at the cost of those
who don't have them.
The main problem with this proposal is that two decisions are being
made at once; whether to build and which corridor. Since these are
two decisions, my statement is divided into two parts.
NO-BUILD CONCERNS
I feel that the DEIS is incomplete in that a NO-BUILD option was not
examined and presented. We must look at using the existing facilities
to their peak efficiency. Anything less is a waste of money. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation constantly informs us of how
they are a leader in managing traffic instead of building bigger
highways. I see NONE of that leadership in this proposal in the DEIS.
If this bridge is to be built there will be 12 bridge lanes across the
St. Croix in a 6 mile stretch between Hudson and Stillwater. (NOTE:
The 1-94 bridge is scheduled to be expanded in 1993 or 1994). This is
as many bridge lanes as downtown St. Paul has across the Mississippi.
This area does not have anywhere near the number of workers or
businesses that downtown St. Paul has. Where are all these people to
use this new bridge going to come from?
Mn/DOT is using accident statistics as an excuse to build a new
(cont.) ~
bridge. In order to calculate an average, some areas must be above ,..
the average and some below. Mn/DOT says problems occur because
Highway 36 changes fr m an open highway to a city street. MN/DOT also
says most of the problems are caused by people unfamiliar with the
roads and do not slow down sufficiently (i.e., tourists). How is a
new bridge going to s lve this problem when tourists are still headed
into the City of Stillwater? Whenever a highway is routed through a
city, the drivers must learn to slow to city speed limits to prevent
accidents. Why does n/DOT keep telling us that this can not be done
on Highway 36? I feel that Mn/DOT wants a new bridge because this is
an option they are familiar with, and they are simply looking for all
possible excuses to build it.
Most of the traffic tieups occur during summer weekends and holidays
from June through September. Most every resort and recreation area in
the United States experiences traffic problems during peak periods and
tourist seasons. I do not believe a massive new bridge is needed to
solve some intermittent traffic problems. People will only change
their habits when forced to.
Peak traffic can be alleviated by having Andersen Window Corporation
in Bayport stagger w rk hours. Vacationers can also modify their
habits by leaving earlier on a Friday and coming back Monday morning
instead of Sunday night. People in other parts of the country
routinely do this fo weekend vacations. Changing these habits will
happen as our habits are being changed by garbage and energy crises.
If the easy alternatives are gone, people adjust very rapidly.
There has been littl effort on the part of the Department of
Transportation in trying to lobby the Federal agencies for a decreased
number of bridge openings in Stillwater during busy traffic times.
Since most of the tr ffic is recreational, on-the-water delays would
not impede commerce. From my own observations, the bridge is opened
for the convenience f the recreational boats. Most of the boats
could fit under the ridge if they would simply fold down their canvas
awnings and install ntennas that could be lowered. They have no need
to do this because t e bridge opens so often. Further, the Andiamo
tour boat out of Stillwater should be pressured into not passing under
the bridge. This to r route is simply to show passengers what a
thrill it is to pass under a lift bridge. When the tour boat is
operating the bridge is opened for an inordinately long time. This
does cause considera Ie traffic delays. Further, I have not heard any
of the proposals to 'mprove the lift mechanism, so the bridge opens
and closes faster. urrently, most of the traffic delays occur from
raising and lowering the bridge, not from the time that the boats are
passing underneath. An improved bridge mechanism could easily reduce
the time that traffi is delayed by half.
I have not seen any
Stillwater. The Cit
impede traffic flow
downtown so that on-
raffic management implemented in the City of
of Stillwater, in fact has made many efforts to
o the bridge. They have eliminated meters from
treet parking will always be used. A stoplight
-
It
( con t. )
at Nelson St. at the edge of downtown backs up traffic along Highway
36 while the bridge has little or no traffic crossing it. By
eliminating parking on Main St. a traffic lane exclusively for bridge
traffic could be established. If Stillwater is short of parking, let
them build a parking deck like other cities do when they need more
parking areas. The streets are for the public, not just to serve a
few merchants.
I have not seen any proposals to reroute truck traffic away from the
bridge and downtown Stillwater. Mn/DOT has stated that they can not
restrict trucks from a state highway without a structural reason or
they would lose Federal funds. This is not true because in the
Northeast U.S. there are many superhighways that are designated as
"parkways" which simply means that trucks are prohibited from these
highways. Many of these highways were built to Interstate standards
and some are 8 or more lanes wide. I have not seen New Jersey or New
York losing any Federal funds. The precedent exists. The truck
traffic could also be banned from the lift bridge because their
vibrations are damaging historic buildings. Mn/DOT could petition the
Federal government to ban trucks in downtown Stillwater (except local
deliveries) to preserve historic buildings. I believe that
Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco already do
this. Since the 1-94 bridge is located only a few miles downstream,
the impact of this decision on commerce would be minor.
Each of the above ideas will not solve the traffic problem by
themselves. However, when they are combined, they can provide relief
from the traffic problems. Further, all of these ideas combined would
cost only a fraction of what a new bridge would cost. On popular
weekends, there will always be traffic delays in the City of
Stillwater. Education could help a great deal. Inform the public as
to when there are traffic delays so they can plan alternative routes
(electronic signs, traffic radio). Inform visitors to the City of
Stillwater to use satellite parking lots and use the trolley busses to
ferry them into the downtown area. I want to see all this done before
building a new bridge.
Further, I take issue with the fact the DEIS was biased towards the
historic structures in Stillwater and assumes the historic bluffs are
expendable for a new bridge corridor. I ask what is more important, a
few century old man-made structures that have been so heavily
renovated so that they are just shells of what they used to be, or a
river bluff and valley that is tens of thousands of years old?
Putting a bridge in the South or North Corridors would destroy the
character of the bluffs by reducing them to human scale. As the
bluffs stand now, with just glimpses of houses and a few spindly
tracks of the lifts, they look very imposing. By putting a bridge
through the bluffs, they would seem like just another hill that was
cut away for a highway.
II
Comments on Which Corridor
I believe that when the time comes for a new bridge, only the Central
Corridor should be considered. My reason for this opinion is that
(cont.)
preserving the bluffs is more important than the ambiance of downtown 411
Stillwater. This was also the intent of the rules of the Scenic
Waterways Act. The D IS states that a bridge can be designed to
complement the surrou dings. Since a man-made structure such as a
bridge can not comple ent a natural bluff, the DEIS must mean that a
bridge can be designe to complement the other man-made structures in
the City of Stillwater. If the City of Stillwater is allowed to
sacrifice the bluffs to satisfy their own agenda, then why do we even
have any rules to govern development along the river?
I feel that the DEIS is incomplete in that no bridge designs or how
the approaches would be designed were included. All I saw were some
vague lines drawn on a blown-up aerial photograph. This is especially
true with regard to t. Joseph Township, where the DEIS treats it as a
blank piece of paper. The approaches on the Wisconsin side are
apparently at the mercy of the designer of the bridge. How are people
supposed to make an informed decision on the bridge when the
information presented is vague and incomplete? Why has St. Joseph
Township not been gi en the same detailed consideration in the DEIS
that waS given to th City of Stillwater? A bridge designed to blend
in with the City of tillwater would have a minimal impact on the
City's urban charact r and would complement the City's historic role
as a transportation ub. In contrast, a new bridge corridor will have
an immediate and dra tic impact on the rural character of St. Joseph
Township.
On the issue of appr
generalities. On th
Corridor could be de
have talked to seem
highway with medians
seen many highways a
into a very small ar
Corridor route. Thi
highway system. Rat
simply eliminate the
Thus, a bridge and a
mind (i.e., 40 to 50
and solve the traffi
On the Wisconsin sid
to make a 7 lane hig
seems wasteful and i
residents of Houlton
considered. A new d
factors: First, the
removed or turned in
for moving the bridg
been moved and put 0
to serve the highway
the traffic could be
new bridge would pas
the Highway 64 corri
aches to a new bridge, all I have seen are vague
Minnesota side the approaches for a Central
igned to hug the bluff. The Mn/DOT people that I
o only know how to design an Interstate style
and huge shoulders. Around the country we have
d bridge approaches designed to fit gracefully
This can be done on both sides of a Central
bridge does not need to be part of a 65 MPH
er, I thought the proposed bridge was meant to
stop-and-go traffic in the City of Stillwater.
proaches designed with a moderate speed limit in
MPH) would allow more latitude in highway design
problems as stated in the DEIS.
, the DOT has proposed for the Central Corridor
way through the bluffs. This extravagant design
s main purpose appears to be to scare the
into demanding that the Central Corridor not be
sign of these approaches needs to include these
ld bridge should be closed to traffic and either
o a pedestrian park. There is ample precedent
; in the Northeast U.S., covered bridges have
a new site so that a new bridge could be built
Second, if the old bridge is to remain open,
routed to County Road E. The traffic from the
over the road leading to the old bridge and use
This would eliminate the need to widen the
-
It
( con t. )
existing corridor any more than the number of lanes on the bridge. A
junction of Highways 64, 35, and County Road E could be designed to
occur just east of Houlton, thus providing a flat and open area to
build a proper intersection. This would minimize the traffic impact
in Houlton.
I feel that a properly designed bridge and approaches for the Central
Corridor would minimize the impact on the river bluffs and on the
towns on both sides of the river. Towns and cities are meant to
change. If we change the bluffs, we lose their character forever.
They are not making any more bluffs and river valleys like the scenic
St. Croix.
71. We support the Stillwater and Bayport City council statements
recommending the South Corridor for a new bridge.
The developing quantity of traffic through Stillwater and across the
river demands a new bridge as a long-term solution to the resulting
problems. Identifying the location of a new bridge will enable
communities and businesses to make plans for the future. Without such
knowledge, most planning is based on unstable foundations.
72. The non-proliferation case law per river crossings states "...choose a
pre-existing route unless there are extremely strong reasons not to do
so...minimize the impact...limiting its effects to those who are
already accustomed to living with an existing route."
This doctrine has already been upheld'in Minnesota courts three times.
It can also be tested in Wisconsin.
Please be advised, if a bridge comes into Wisconsin anywhere but on
the existing site, we're all going to court. Shades of 1-94 into St.
Paul, and 1-35E.
The NO-BUILD option has been grossly ignored. Start over--get
corridor debates out of picture--then and only then can we tell if
people truly want a bridge. The noise study is inadequate--taken from
freshman physics texts. What are peaks? True levels due to trucks
and motorcycles? What is effect of grade? Isn't a flat bridge much
better? What are effects of reverberations off bluffs and down
valley? What is the chance in noise level and air pollution and
various sites? That's the real measure of environmental impact. St.
Joe has no planning board--no vision of future--no estimate of change
in life style, impact on ago lands or environment. One of three Board
members read the DEIS. One (two entitled) Task Force member is highly
vested in Central corridor. Therefore, St. Joe's political input is
meaningless.
II
Len Levine's public statement "we are going to build a Stillwater-
Houlton bridge" has so prejudiced the process that a fair, reasoned
judgement cannot be made. Start over. Wisconsin, and St. Joe in
particular, has been under-represented and misrepresented throughout
this process. Start over. Poorly done--will lead to an expensive,
(cont.)
prolonged legal battl
73.
I object strongly to
across the St. Croix
the amount of tax pay
much better spent on
bridge project. The
the present 1-94 brid
improvements made to
reach there without g
feel that the expense
quality of life that
74.
A bridge is
the public.
mild if you consider
taken typical actions
other areas do things
interests will benefi
general public. The
because the plan is t
Wisconsin. Andersen
they choose to work t
strong a debt and the
increase. We will ma
bridge is of no use,
not to be used.
Spare me.
-
he proposal to build a new bridge at Stillwater
iver. My principal reason is that I feel that
rs' money that it is proposed to spend would be
ore humanitarian projects rather than this
resent bridge should be made a toll bridge and
e should be perhaps widened and road
he east of Hudson to enable Somerset traffic to
ing through the Stillwater area. In short, I
does not justify the small improvement in the
ill accrue to the users of the new bridge.
ing to put on the beautiful river belonging to
want one in your front yard? The traffic is
he problems in other areas. Stillwater has not
to reduce the relatively mild problem. Many
to reduce such problems. A few real estate
as will a few drivers at the expense of the
tatement of reduced gas consumption is not true
draw many people out of Minnesota into
indow workers knew this condition existed when
ere and live in Wisconsin. The nation is in too
use of gasoline must be reduced and not
e every effort to block funding until the old
specially when the old entrance to Wisconsin is
When BUILD is necessa y use present Central entrance into Wisconsin.
A functional replacem nt should be strongly defined to the public as
meaning another bridg keeping also the old one.
The taxpayers in
higher by things
75.
My husband and I live
south of Sunnyside Ma
would greatly affect
when the old bridge h
placed in the Central
n strongly object to their high taxes made
an additional waste.
on the Wisconsin bluff, across and slightly
ina. All three sites of the South Corridor
s. We wish to advise a NO-BUILD decision, and
s to be replaced, we recommend the new bridge be
Corridor where the existing cut exists.
Since we built our ho e here in 1974, our property taxes have
increased tremendous I Presently we pay $4,500.00 for a modest home
on the St. Croix. We don't have public sewers, gas, water. We have
never had a child in rea schools. We have, however, a beautiful
view, lovely rural se enity, and a naturally wild ambiance that make
the tax money worthwh'le. We moved here to enjoy that peaceful,
natural environment.
If a bridge is constr cted in front of our face, we will lose all of 4It
that serenity. We will lose the environment. The noise from the
increased traffic on the bridge, the visual pollution, the air
It
-
76.
(cont.)
pollution, the population growth, the mess of construction, the added
roads with new entrances and exits would completely destroy what we
have here in my home and in this community. Yet there is no
indication that our property taxes will be cut. in fact, with the
construction of a bridge in this corridor, our property value will
decrease and inevitably render this home unsalable. Moreover, we do
not want to live here if a bridge is constructed in the South
Corridor, It is not imperative that we in this country constantly
strive to move traffic straighter and faster at the expense of the
environment. We cannot have it back once it is destroyed.
From the beginning, alternative traffic choices should have been
advertized to re-route traffic from the Stillwater area on weekends.
Semi-trailer truck traffic should never be allowed over the Stillwater
bridge. Only one semi can get through the left-turn signal in
downtown Stillwater and traffic piles up behind. Why can't we try
alternative solutions before we irretrievably build something we
regret.
Ironically, most of the traffic which piles up in Stillwater on
weekends is headed for the Apple River where the entrepreneurs have
already raped the environment. Why not try re-routing this traffic,
allowing fewer bridge openings, eliminating truck traffic, etc. so we
can save what very few communities we have: a quaint, historical,
peaceful rivertown. We certainly don't need another interstate bridge
where a person can practically see another one six miles downstream.
As owners of over 200 acres that will very likely be affected, we
still feel the bridge ~ needed. We realize better than most
residents who spoke at the public hearings just how bad traffic is,
what the noise level already is, etc. As farmers, we realize our
years here are numbered, because of our close proximity to the metro
area. My husband feels the Central Corridor would least disturb home
owners and very little scaring would be necessary to the Wisconsin
bluff. Much of the existing Highway 35 and 64 could be used but
widened, etc. The Kolliner Park (formerly Legion Beach) is little to
be concerned with as it has been closed for years because of misuse
and frankly, it's just too small (no parking, etc.). I feel the South
Corridor with the north alignment would be very satisfactory. It
would hopefully keep the commercial development close to Houlton.
We'd like to preserve our crop land and wooded areas for as long as
possible. By following a north-south line through our farm (very
close if not through our yard) we could continue to crop farm. The 50
acres west to Houlton would be cut from our access but we prefer not
to have our operation nearly lost. This would happen by cutting us
full-length at an angle if the road should run northeasterly joining
35 and 64 east of the Scout Camp Road. We would like to think the
final details are not cut and dried. If the road will be near our
farm yard, we would really like to speak with the powers that be so we
could discuss our situation. Cutting our fields diagonally will most
likely put us out of farming sooner than we planned. We need the
bridge. Bud was born here in 1933 and he has seen the changes. He
feels too many years have been wasted on talk. To build the bridge is
( con t. )
a must. The cost kee s increasing. Build it now.
adjust to it and make plans for our future.
We'll accept it,
till
77. I am a resident of th Town of St. Joseph. I work at Andersen
Corporation, do most f my shopping and business in the Stillwater
area. I cross the ex.sting Stillwater Bridge on the average of four
times per day with ve y little problem, and strongly recommend a NO-
BUILD decision at thi time.
If you are to build a
routes which would mi
residents in the Town
flows straight throug
I have operated a far
affected by either th
represent the best in
hope your decision wi
for their own special
problems the Town Boa
relying on their reco
bridge I strongly recommend the North or Central
imize the impact on the majority of the
of St. Joseph. Since the majority of traffic
, this would take considerably less farm land.
in St. Joseph for 30 plus years and would be
Central or South route. I believe my comments
erest of the majority on the Wisconsin side and
1 not be made by a few people who have organized
interest. I also suggest that you look at the
d has created with their own zoning rules before
mendations, whatever they may be.
78. I have lived in Still ater all my life and we do need a bridge badly!
79.
I hope the bridge wil
be built on the south side.
80. My family and I recom end the southern route.
81.
I recommend that the
enhance the business
82.
The draft EIS is bias
BUILD/NO-BUILD cannot
* Wisconsin conc
as Minnesota con
ridge be built on the southern route. This will
istrict of Stillwater by reducing congestion.
d in favor of Minnesota concerns. A decision to
be made unless and until:
rns be given the same weight and consideration
erns.
* Full considera ion of TSM options be explored in relation to a
NO-BUILD option.
* Full explorati
way which utiliz
impression that
corridor is to p
unacceptable to
the only way to
closing the draw
n is made and reported on building a bridge in a
s the existing corridor--we are left with the
he only option available with the existing
t seven lanes through the bluff. This is
ocal Houlton residents. It cannot, however, be
uild a bridge in this corridor. How about
bridge to motorized traffic, etc.?
* A visual repre entation of the proposed bridge is necessary and
needs to be done before a decision can be made.
* If a bridge is
most appropriate
1.) I t has
2.) I t wou 1
to be built, the Central Corridor would be the
because:
he least impact on farmland.
make maximum use of existing roads.
-
(cont.)
.
3.) The existing bluff cut can be used.
4.) It has the least impact for wetlands and other
environmentally related issues.
* The non-proliferation of bridges must be a consideration. If a
new bridge is built, one must be removed. Why was this issue not
fully explained in the EIS?
83.
The most logical site for a new bridge and its connecting corridors
should be a site that is (1) most economical, (2) least damaging to
the natural environment, and (3) have a minimum impact on existing
residences. A bridge proceeding off the existing curve of MN Highway
36 and across to the old Buckhorn site and proceeding across the open
fields beyond to rejoin WI 64 seems the most economical route if
existing corridors can not be used.
Routing a new highway around farm boundaries and through natural
woodlands and wetlands seems rather unsensible to me, especially with
the increasing number of farms in this area being subdivided into
suburban homesteads.
A new bridge corridor is something everyone will be forced to live
with for many, many generations. Let us please make a most logical
choice.
84. On May 9 and 10, 1990 we attended the public hearings on the
Stillwater-Houlton Crossing Study DEIS. As Sunnyside residents, we
feel our best interests have not been considered in the DEIS as they
relate to increased noise and air pollution resulting from the South
Corridor Crossing--these alignments would be particularly detrimental
to the environmental concerns of the several hundred people residing
at Sunnyside, in other areas of Oak Park Heights, Bayport and possibly
those residing on the south hill of Stillwater.
We purchased our townhouse property at Sunnyside in June, 1989. We
purchased property with a magnificent view of the St. Croix River,
Wisconsin shoreline, glorious morning sunrise and quiet starlit
nights. When we purchased this property we realized we would be
located next to the Metro Waste Treatment Plant, NSP coal burning
plant, train tracks and highways 36 and 95 running behind us. Our
east exposure to the St. Croix River was worth putting up with the
previously mentioned disadvantages. We also realized there was a
possibility of a new bridge being built one day but never considered
the possibility of a super highway and noisy bridge taking the beauty
and quiet away from us, which is exactly what the South Corridor
alignments would do.
Following are concerns about the impacts of the South Corridor Bridge
locations.
-
NOISE: The north alignment would run right in front of our living
room and bedroom. We all know the constant hum of road
noise. A couple of weeks ago I was on the 14th floor of a
Sacramento hotel. When I arrived on Saturday evening there
(cont.)
we~e as few
b~idges, an
couple of d
st~essed.
as two ca~s in view on adjacent f~eeway and 411
still, the noise was constant. Afte~ the fi~st
ys I was beginning to feel ti~ed and ve~y
AIR POLLUTION: The toxic fumes f~om vehicles in f~ont in addition
to that in back of our p~ope~ty would be
intole~able. We moved f~om St. Paul to Stillwate~
at conside~able expense to us to have cleane~,
f~eshe~ ai~.
VIEW: We have a lovely view of the hillside and ~ive~--it is ou~
p~operty's att~ibute as well as ou~ peace and se~enity. In
the DEIS Summa~y, one of the ~easons fo~ not considering the
No~th Co~~ido~ is because "it would pass ove~ Mile Long
Island, a opula~ ~ec~eation site..." We a~e just as g~eat
an asset t ou~ community as visito~s to the island and have
the same ~ight not to be imposed upon.
DESTRUCTION OF TH
would do p
Wisconsin
~etu~n it
unlikely i
dest~uctio
HILLSIDE: All options of the South Co~~ido~
~manent damage to the beautiful undistu~bed
illside. Once done, the~e is no money that could
o its p~esent state--at least it would be highly
would eve~ happen. This is unacceptable
of this beautiful valley.
PROPERTY VALUE: The~ will be a time in the next few yea~s when we may
wish to sell ou~ p~ope~ty. One of us is ~etired and the
othe~ app~ aching that time in life. We a~e not in a
financial osition to affo~d to lose money at this time in
ou~ lives. The impact of the South Co~~ido~ could be
devastatin to us pe~sonally.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILIT Roads and b~idges a~e ve~y costly to us, the
taxpaye~s, and it just seems a shame to spend this kind of
money fo~ teel and conc~ete, seemingly dest~oying ou~
go~geous S . C~oix Valley. Minnesota has many people
~esiding i state institutions with insufficient facilities
and staff, as well as, many homeless and hung~y people on
ou~ st~eet. We ~ealize the safety of our t~avele~s is also
an impo~ta t issue, but they can make some choices.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTE
management
in down tow
ou~ busine
t~affic.
on weekend
Could Ande
sta~t and
they cost?
Ou~ conce~ns a~e ~ea
MANAGEMENT: The~e must be options fo~ t~affic
in the Stillwate~ A~ea. T~ucks just don't belong
Stillwate~ unless they a~e delive~ing goods to
ses. Othe~ towns figu~e out how to manage
an't we? No~mally the t~affic is not g~eat--just
and du~ing Ande~sen Window's work hou~ t~affic.
sen Window make fu~the~ adjustments in thei~
top times? What a~e the options? What would
-
and need to be conside~ed in the BUILD/NO-BUILD
.
85.
.86.
( con t. )
decision. We realize there is a transportation problem but we are not
convinced bridge construction is the answer to this problem. The
problems it could cause may far outweigh the transportation problem--
the problems being environmental (destruction to the valley, noise,
air pollution), economic (cost of the project, property values, etc.),
loss of farm land, and social (dislocation of significant numbers of
people).
Our recommendation is for a NO-BUILD decision until further
information is forthcoming. If a BUILD option is selected, THE
CENTRAL CORRIDOR IS THE ONLY OPTION ACCEPTABLE. The impact on the
community and the environment is the least--it would cause the least
destruction of all options.
We will close our comments w~th a quote made by John Geohegan,
Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency in the
State of California. I was fortunate enough to hear him speak at a
meeting of the National Association of State Information Resource
Executives on my recent visit to California. He was talking about
what they had learned from the earthquake last fall and how we can
only learn from them because we can't stage an earth quake. They
continue to learn the importance of technology planning and traffic
management strategies such as carpooling, public transportation,
flexible work schedules, tel-commuting etc. He said, "We can't deal
with our problems by building more highways and bridges." Maybe we
should be learning from others' experiences.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to respond to the DEIS.
The DEIS is highly biased towards a BUILD option and towards the
effects on Stillwater businesses. It does not adequately address the
effects of the road designs and costs in Wisconsin that would be
associated with each of the BUILD options. Without these details the
residents of St. Joseph are unable to make the most informed decision
based on how the various options will truly affect them. It was not
possible to determine how bad the traffic flow problem is from reading
the DEIS. The origin of the average daily traffic numbers are not
explained nor is it explained how they relate to the seasonal weekend
problems and to the maximum capacity of the traffic flow over the
existing bridge. It was not clear from the DEIS why a bridge crossing
at the north tunnel location was not included as an option. Since
traffic accident rates are not increasing, growth rates have slowed,
air quality standards will not be exceeded and there are enormous
costs involved, immediate action is not necessary. I recommend a NO-
BUILD option until additional information is presented. Once a bridge
is built it cannot be changed. My second choice based on the existing
information is to build in the Central Corridor with the removal of
the existing bridge. This would make use of existing roadways and
eliminate the problem of two bridges so close together.
When addressing the 1970 fall meeting of the St. Croix River
Association, David Shonk of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation told the audience, "...the Lower St. Croix River
(cont. )
needs preservation an
developments." In 19
of the river changes
beautiful in the area
I believe a bridge in
beginning of encroach
Wisconsin. The DEIS,
Lower St. Croix Valle
of beauty...A large a
Stillwater, some of w
aesthetics." (My emph
uglies together." Th
Wisconsin shore.
The doctrine of non-p
Valley. Development
areas rather than in
Mr. Edward D. Carlin,
Interior, in his Jan.
that for boaters on t
waterfront, the absen
traditional image of
physical and visual i
Riverway would rofou
Riverway was set asid
United States."
protection from encroaching adverse
o this is still true. The natural scenic beauty
s it becomes the Lower St. Croix but it is still
where "adverse developments" have not occurred.
either the North or South Corridors would be the
ng adverse developments in new areas in
p. 96, Draft Section 4F states, "In sum the
is unusual because of its well-preserved nature
ount of development has occurred south of
ich has siqnificantly eroded the river's
sis.) I resent the expression "Let's put the
s time the "ugly" reaches too far to the
.
oliferation should apply to the St. Croix
ust be encouraged and restricted to the existing
ew undisturbed locations. I strongly agree with
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Department of the
31, 1989 letter to Mike Loui.s: "It is stated
e river, as well as people looking out from the
e of the old bridge would profoundly change the
tillwater. We note that any new structural
trusion in a new location (my emphasis) into the
dl chan e the existin values for which the
for national enjoyment by the Congress of the
The NO-BUILD alternat've and TSM options must be further studied and
details made availabl to the public. (Obvious TSM controls are: no
trucks or size limita ions; eliminate more parking on Main Street; do
not allow left turns n Main Street except at Myrtle during peak
hours; do not allow b idge raisings during peak hours including for
Andiamo; allow access from parking lot next to Brick Alley to Nelson
St. to eliminate left turns entering and leaving lot; more strict
controls on bridge ra'sings.) If after further more detailed NO-BUILD
alternatives are rese rched and a BUILD option is justified, I
strongly support a ne bridge be built in the Central Corridor with
the existing bridge r moved.
Traffic and accident roblems are often cited <especially in film and
articles) as the reas ns for a new bridge. However, on p. 58 traffic
increases of 20.41.-54.71. during 1980-86 study are brought to our
attention but the nex sentences are most important: "...the high
accident rates along hese roads did not increase during this period.
In fact, in many case accident rates declined between 1980-86." This
is followed by an explanation that many "factors interact in a complex
fashion to produce a iven accident rate..." I didn't hear this in
the propaganda film presented to the public.
87.
We feel a decision to BUILD a new bridge should be made as soon as
possible this summer.
.
We also think a South Corridor would be the best location.
.88.
There definitely has been and always will be a need for a bridge
between Houlton and Stillwater. Before cars became as prevalent~ I
often walked home on my lunch hour if weather permitted; and there
still is "foot traffic" today using the bridge to get to work.
Without the bridge~ how would non-drivers get to their job?
Also, with the traffic flow as it now is, especially on Sundays coming
back to the cities and the back-up from the stop signs in Stillwater
without control of any coming from Somerset, it is almost impossible
to get onto the western half of the highway. It has been years that I
have encouraged family and friends not to come to visit on Sundays
unless they expect to stay until 9P.M. or so because of the traffic
problems.
89. NO-BUILD--There is only a traffic tie-up summer months--when weather
is qood so people can go use the Apple River! Re-route them to
highway 94 bridge in Hudson! Many other bridges in the state need up-
grading--spend our money there.
90. I am a lifetime resident of northern Wisconsin and have lived in St.
Joseph Township for 18 years. We believe the St. Croix Riverway is an
irreplaceable natural resource that must be preserved for future
generations and not given up for short-term economic benefits. We
feel that with all the studies to date the followinq_have not been
adequately addressed:
1.) The NO-BUILD alternatives have not been seriously addressed:
a.) Traffic re-routing to existing 1-94.
b.) Control of truck traffic through Stillwater.
c.) Bridge raising for pleasure boats.
d.) What is the overall transportation plan? Is it to get
people from the Twin Cities to northern Wisconsin? From
Stillwater to New Richmond? Or just across the river? Where
does a mass transit system fit in this planning?
2.) The Wisconsin river bluffs are basically in their natural state,
any cuts or tunnels will change these bluffs forever. No amount of
studying will change this basic fact.
3.) St. Josephs Township is basically a rural area with excellent
farmland. The impact on St. Joe's Township of the explosion in
population and commercial growth due to a new roadway has not been
adequately addressed.
4.) We therefore strongly support the NO-BUILD alternative; however,
if a bridge is to be built, then the Central Corridor utilizing the
existing cut in the Wisconsin bluff would have the least impact on the
St. Croix Riverway and St. Joe's Township.
91.
As a life long resident business owner and employer in the St. Croix
Valley, I have very serious reservations to the present proposals
being considered for an additional river crossing on the St. Croix
National Riverway.
.
(cont.)
Since the mid 70's wh
Wisconsin and Minneso
to preserve the envir
the St. Croix River V
good job in regulatio
valley. Wisconsin ha
of the river as it ex
that initial legislat
However, unfortunate I
commitment to preserv
Congress in 1976. It
residential and comme
bluffline. It has al
ones to expand and as
planning to defoliate
the proposed bridge c
is that on peak use w
vanishing rapidly, du
project that if deeme
with private sector m
example of developmen
newly constructed 5 s
structure can easily
n the river was designated a National Riverway,
a to varying degrees of success have attempted
nmental, scenic, and recreational qualities of
lley. During this time Wisconsin has done a
and management of their side of the river
successfully maintained the park-like character
sted in the mid 70's. This was the intent of
.
on.
, Minnesota has fallen short in its duty and
the river valley, as it was intended to do by
has allowed all types of development, both
cial, to take place between the river and
owed new marinas to be constructed, existing
of this writing, has purchased land and is
and construct an eighty boat launch ramp within
ossing area. The unbelievable irony about this
ekends the recreational quality of the river is
to over-crowding. On top of that, it is a
really necessary, could be done and maintained
ney rather than with taxpayer dollars. Another
that interferes with the scenic riverway is the
ory Washington County Government Center. That
e seen from the river.
All of this commercia expansion is totally inconsistent with the
intent of the preserv tion of the river valley for its ecological,
recreational and scen c qualities. Will it ever stop?
After reviewing the c
Impact Statement and
effort is detailed co
NO BUILD scenario. I
made to build at the
At Hudson, Wisconsin,
there are presently t
modern 3 lane structu
early 50's is a two I
replaced with a simil
haven't alternatives
our existing roadways
mplete Stillwater-Houlton Draft Environmental
elated studies, I am amazed that little or no
cerning options to deal with traffic flow in a
reads as if a final decision has already been
uckhorn site.
just 5 miles from the proposed project area,
o interstate highway river crossings. One is a
The other an older structure built in the
ne crossing which is already scheduled to be
r modern 3 lane bridge in the mid 90's. Why
een thoroughly explored to make better use of
and crossings?
For example, Washingt n County Hwy. 21 goes from Bayport, MN to
Interstate Hwy. 94 an it doesn't even have an access ramp or exit
from the Interstate. Why? Is this planning at its best or what? The
new creative electron.c informational highway signs strategically
placed could help rou e heavy traffic during peak periods.
People traveling thro gh the New Richmond area would be much better
served by new improve direct access roadways to Interstate 94. 4It
One of the paramount easons the existing Stillwater bridge was
.
(cont.)
designated a historical structure was an effort by the Central
Business District Owners to guarantee a crossing at that location.
However, the protection of the scenic riverway must take precedence
over the preservation of that structure. Remember the river and river
valley is to be protected as it is, no more, no less. That was the
intent of the legislation in the mid 70's and that intent should not
be deviated from or forgotten.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately address
and detail the present noise factors, pollution levels and wildlife
populations that exist within the project area. For example: To what
extent are the local people already exposed to coal dust and ash,
traffic and train noise late at night, toxic materials from
manufacturing, etc., this is of great concern. Over the last 10 years
at my present residence, there has been a noticeable decline in
wildlife. What are the pollution factors my family is exposed to now?
It seems this question must be dealt with before anyone can make an
intelligent prediction what environmental impacts a new crossing would
create.
Many, many people have sacrificed socially as well as economically to
preserve this river valley, it is not right nor ethical to spend $75-
100 million dollars for the convenience of commuters or vacationers or
for economic gain; and in the process encroach even further on the
river or river valley. This is especially true in these financial
times, when our government can't even balance their own budget and
fixed income households have to move away from the valley area because
they can no longer afford to pay their taxes.
If the final decision is to build other than at the existing
Stillwater bridge, very serious consideration should be made to remove
the Lower St. Croix River from the National River System. This would
allow the residents in Wisconsin to reap the benefits Minnesota has
had for the last 15 years. This would also help reduce the Federal
spending deficit and at the same time increase revenue through
development.
Minnesota must re-evaluate their priorities and commitments to the St.
Croix River and River Valley. It must accept the responsibility it
was entrusted with to protect the river and river valley and make the
same tough sacrifices the residents in Wisconsin have already done to
ensure that we will be able to pass this national beauty and treasure
on to our children and in turn their children.
92. To me, straight extension, shortest way across the river, of Highway
36 makes the most sense and excludes dangerous hill on the Wisconsin
side.
93.
Having learned that the Minnesota Department of Transportation intends
to build a new bridge over the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway near
Stillwater, MN, and Houlton, WI, I would like to express my deep
disappointment with this decision. It would once more prove that the
automobile is king--Iook what it's done to southern California--and
.
( con t. )
that the short-term i terests of a comparatively small number of
motorists would preva"l over the concept of preserving one of
Minnesota's finest sc nic resources. And tourist industry resources~
I might add, having I ng taken my out-of-state visitors to this area.
A new bridge would se erely downgrade the area.
.
How about a new bridg using part of the present river corridor? This
could be done without serious additional damage to the environment or
to downtown Stillwate .
I hope that this alte native will be thoroughly and expeditiously
explored.
94.
I have not reviewed t
and believe we need a
life and drove to wor
have known the proble
Wisconsin on the way
e reports but have attended the public meetings
new bridge. I have lived in this area all my
for 40 years across this current bridge--and
s of cars waiting in line to get to Minnesota or
ome.
I believe those peopl
life feel we need a n
like to divide it som
to be against it have
to come--our area is
(like myself) that have lived here our full
w bridge. We own large plots of land and would
time (I have 140 acres). The people that seem
moved in later and now do not want anybody else
rowing and we need this new bridge. Thank you.
95. GuidinQ Principals
- Transportation goal: to provide safe and efficient movement
between Wisconsi and Minnesota in the Stillwater-Bayport area.
- Environmental oal: to preserve the St. Croix river and its
environs as a component of the National Riverway System.
- Historical preservation goal: to preserve the larQe. unique
landsca e of Stillwater as a ma'or Minnesota Ie ac. This is of
a hi her order than most of the narrower impact considerations at
articular alternative brid e sites.
A lication of Princi les
Re South Corridor, S uth Section. (1ST PREFERENCE)
Transportation:
- The most direct route from the Twin Cities to Wisconsin.
- The most direct access to Wisconsin Hi hwa s 64 and 35
both north and south from the bridgehead for traffic
entering Wisconsin.
Environment:
- Least in rusive on the natural riverwa --farthest from the
official II cenic River" and the actual scenic parts of the
valley. N ravines leading to the river would be affected.
- Since it is near the generating station and power lines,
it would i rove the view south from Stillwater. With a
view area t the north side of the bridge in Wisconsin, it
would prov"de a place to view the Stillwater river front and.
backQround.
- Noise an air ollution effects would be least because
both the h rizontal and vertical distances from most
( con t. )
e
population and development would be greater. Would avoid
increased road noise reverberating from bluffs as a result
of highway traffic converging downward into the valley and
into the city.
Historical Sites and Structures:
- Stillwater could realize its plans to increase parkland
and public access along the river, preserve and enhance its
unique site and skyline, with accompanying benefits to
tourists.
- Houlton would also be bypassed, quieter, and more
attractive yet just as accessible to the bridge.
Re
South Corridor, Central Section (2nd PREFERENCE)
In general, this option would share many characteristics with the
South Corridor-South.
- But it would give a less impressive view of Stillwater and
environs and would be more intrusive visually from
Stillwater.
- It would also intrude more on the built-up area of
Houlton.
Re South Corridor, North option: (3rd PREFERENCE)
- More visible from Stillwater and intrude still more on
Houlton, increasing noise and air pollution in comparison to
more southerly options.
Re Central Corridor: (4th PREFERENCE)
- ConQestion, noise, and air pollution in Stillwater and
make their plans for park and recreation development alonQ
the river virtually impossible to realize.
- Imposing a major, multi-level highway along the bluff
would increase the density of development and destroy the
ambiance of the river town they are tryinQ to promote.
96. Have the people of Stillwater and Houlton who use the bridge daily
made themselves heard about what a bottleneck it is, both summer and
the rest of the year? The people of Marine, Afton--up and down the
river, rarely use this bridge, and they don't know what they are
talking about when they say "NO-BUILD."
I have lived in Stillwater since May, 1942 with the exception of 1982
to April 1983 when I remarried the late Wallace Thexton, Treasurer of
St. Croix County, Wisconsin for many years, and I moved there to his
home north of Houlton on the river.
.
In that 1982-83 period, I experienced what it was like to try to get
onto Highway 35 going west from our private road, the first left after
making the right angle turn on 35 going due east. When the lift
bridge goes up, all traffic stops and builds up from Somerset and New
Richmond, completely blocking entry on 35. The wait is not just 10
minutes--more like 20. After the bridge closes, the traffic lights at
Main and Chestnut let only about a half dozen cars through at a time.
During a couple of stop sign changes, the traffic continues to build
(cont.)
up from the east. I
turn off their igniti
the road, cussing and
heart attack or other
get them out.
If you can finally re
theater, then you can
doesn't work for thos
be an impossible deto r.
ave been there when motorists on this stretch
n, open their doors, and stand in the middle of
waving their arms. If someone in Houlton had a
medical emergency, it would take a helicopter to
e
ch the four-lane section by the drive-in
get onto 35 going south to Hudson. But this
wanting to go due west and north. Hudson would
Re-routing truck traf ic is not the answer. There are just hundreds
of passenger cars, es ecially weekends during the summer.
In 1981-82 repair wor on the bridge and one way lanes increased this
bottleneck many times over. The bridge is old and will need constant
repair--with continue blocking of traffic.
I plead for a new
without opening t
off from Highway
affected. Let's
Stillwater when a
I sincerely hope
be 80 years old t
97.
I am writing to c ari
recommendation of the
Stillwater-Houlto br
am the one member who
didn't agree that the
thought the Board sho
South Corridor should
route of the South Co
least impact of the r
of misinformation as
had to write to set t
bridoe, and prefer th
ge, bluff to bluff, where bcrats can go under
idge. I feel the South Corridor is best, taking
o matter where some people or property will be
id of that monoxide stench on Main Street in
affic stops and stays stopped.
ne will have the patience to read this. I will
ummer and now have impaired vision. Thank you.
y a position I took on the St. Joseph Town Board
South Corridor as the river crossing for the
dge. The vote on this was two yes~ one no. I
voted no. The reason I voted no was not that I
South Corridor was the right choice, but I
ld have been more specific on what route in the
have been chosen. I would prefer the north
ridor (Buckhorn site). This would have the
sidents of this Township. There has been a lot
,
o why I voted no on this recommendation, so I
e record straight. I do believe we need a new
north route of the South Corridor. Thank you.
.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BUILD/NO-BUILD PREFERENCES
e ;his map depicts the approximate spacial distribution of study area
residents who responded to the questionnaire and had a BUILD/NO-BUILD
preference. The map does not include people who reside outside the study
area, who opted not to include their address, or who did not clearly choose
between BUILD or NO-BUILD.
Of the study area residents on the map, 61 percent favored a BUILD
alternative, with 39 percent preferring NO-BUILD. Interestingly, the
BUILD/NO-BUILD percentages for people residing outside the study area was
exactly the same. The breakdown for people who expressed a preference but
didn't include their address was 67 percent BUILD and 33 percent NO-BUILD.
Perhaps the most noteworthy characteristic of the BUILD/NO-BUILD
distribution is the high concentration of NO-BUILD votes along the
Wisconsin bluff in or near the South Corridor. Exactly half of all the NO-
BUILD responses on the map came from this area, mainly from the Riverview
Acres development. It is probable that this reflects the organized support
for the NO-BUILD alternative among people residing in the Riverview Acres
area.
By contrast, there appears to be strong support for a BUILD decision in
both Stillwater and Houlton.
.
,
, ,
------'~:----------- tIf-----------------i
"" e ...
""'" .
@[!] ""
(J)
If
_i
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BUILD/NO-BUILD PREFERENCES
(From Questionnaire Respondents Who Reside in Study Area)
SCALE
o __._____ _1 / 2
r
o
,
I"l
o
MILE
STILLWATHI\
TOWNSHIP
GRANT
TOWNSHIP
.
"",...
I
,
,
~
,@
,
I
J
I
,
I
J
L_,
.
MINNESOTA .... J .
l",.
J:
l
@ f:
-'-,-,
,//
/
I
/
.
.............
,.'
....
COLII"1
1-111
ua:
wO
-,0
0....
a: a:
0.. a:
o
zu
....
Cl ...J
w...J
IDe(
.-'0 .._.._.._.....
,
~
@
@--A
ST, JOSEPH
TOWNSHIP
.
SO~WHSgT
TOWNSHIJ>
../
WISCONSIN
~
i
!
!
i
!
i
"
i:
: ,
/:
.
GRANT
TOWNSHIP
.,
;/:.. .... . ~
' ,~~ L-t I.A7
..I. I, I LoIuo
;o~) ~ '.....1Il STILLWATER
r. '-.",
A r\ j
,.
, L...._""'._.......", ,
.-;,
"
,.,~,_../'" /i
.,.."/ ,// !
, . I
,::-::.,.-.-.,-..-..-..... ::
/..- /!
,.. ..' I'
..' .
~-
~
/
'~
,
:,
"
,
:~
"
!
....'~..
-'t_,
f
f'
,
__ .J
OAK: PARK:
HEIGHTS
BAYTOWN
TOWNSHIP
BUILD=. NO-BUILD=.
(Each mark on the map represents a single qw,,'stionnairp.)
,
\
QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
--
Final Tabulation - June 18, 1990
STILLWATER-HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDY
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1. Please ide~tify which community you reside in: (check one)
(83 responses)
2 Bayport 3 Somerset Twp.
0 Bay town Twp. 18 Stillwater
0 Grant Twp. 4 Stillwater Twp.
10 Oak Park Heights 6 Other, Minn.
35 St. Joseph Twp. 5 Other, Wisc.
Other, Minn.: Lakeland, Marine on St. Croix, Seandia, May Twp.,
and Willernie.
Other, Wise.: Polk City, Glenwood City, Hudson~ and River Falls.
2. Which of the following study documents did you review? (check one or
more)
(78 responses)
9.01. None
44.91. Draft EIS Summary
16.71. Draft EIS I Section 4(f) Evaluations
29.51. Draft EIS Summary & Draft EIS/Seetion 4(f) Evaluations
3. Which of the following Special Environmental Studies did you review:
(check one or more)
.
(79 responses)
30.41. None
35.41. Agricultural Issues & Impacts
35.41. Economic Issues & Impacts
43.01. Energy, Noise, & Air Quality Impacts
30.41. Historical & Archaeological Impacts
41.81. Natural Resource Impacts: (Wetlands, Floodplains, Fisheriesl
Water Quality, & Wildlife)
30.41. North & South Tunnel Impacts
40.51. Recreational Use of the St. Croix River
30.41. Social Impacts
31.61. Threatened & Endangered Species
48.11. Visual Impacts
45.61. Wild & Scenic River Impacts
"'-
4.
Do you feel that the bove studies accurately identified the most
important environment I issues?
II
(69 responses)
55.11. Yes
20.31. No
24.61. Uncertain
If
(8
No, please explain
responses)
- Disruption of
adequately repor
- Were prelimina
impact.
- Moving clams d
Eagles?
They were wate
No alternative
Does not addre
The negative i
I was dissatis
cenic & recreational use in South Corridor not
ed.
y & didn't state which location has least
esn't ensure they will live.
What about Bald
ed down--inaccurate and useless.
other than bridge. Why?
s the environmental issues of NO-BUILD.
pacts were hidden among less important facts.
ied with noise evaluations.
5. Overall, are you sati fied with the information presented in the
studies?
(72 responses)
26.41. Very Satis ied
29.21. Satisfied
20.81. Neither Sa isfied nor Dissatisfied
9.71. Dissatisfi d
13.91. Very Dissa isfied
If dissatisfied, plea
(14 responses)
- Info. incomple
- No discussion
traffic.
- The view that
aesthetic value.
Not enough inf
- Doesn't add Wi
- Insufficient a
36.
Super marketin
Single-minded
No details for'
Very prejudice
How many peopl
- Insufficient e
Stillwater.
- The NO-BUILD 0
- Inaccurate tra
proliferation do
explain:
e without full analysis of NO-BUILD options.
f build over existing bridge & changes in
he South route has little environmental or
. on environmental concerns.
c. issues. Omits NO-BUILD research. Mn. bias.
tention to South & Central BUILD impacts on TH
considering we never saw the final product.
pproach--build a bridge or else.
NO-BUILD option~ nor designs and appraoches.
--superficial--a bridge selling job.
would want this in their front yards?
phasis on Wisc. riverbank. Too much emphasis on
tion should have been addressed.
fic numbers: inadequate NO-BUILD: ignored non- 4It
trine.
-6.
Which of the public meetings did you attend: (check one or more)
(80 responses)
11.31. None
26.31. April 25, 1990 Stillwater information meeting
48.81. April 26, 1990 St. Joseph Twp. information meeting
26.31. May 9, 1990 Stillwater Public Hearing
33.81. May 10, 1990 St. Joseph Twp. Public Hearing
other. Please specify: (6 responses)
- Ea~lie~ meeting in Hudson.
- Also the one last yea~ at St. Joseph.
- Seve~al, beginning in 1982.
- Meetings p~io~ to 1990.
- Commission Task Fo~ce; Rive~ Ass'n.
- St. C~oix Regional Com.; St. C~oix Ass'n.; LSCMC.
7. How did you hear about the above meetings: (check one or more)
(55 ~esponses)
58.21. Newspaper
01. Radio
01. TV
18.21. Mailed Notice
23.61. Other
Please specify:
- 18 Wo~d of mouth
- 12 Stillwate~ Gazette
7 Hudson Sta~ Obse~ve~
4 Stillwate~ Courie~
4 St. Paul Pionee~ P~ess
3 Some~set Sta~
3 Task Fo~ce mailing
2 St. C~oix Valley P~ess
2 St. C~oix Rive~ Ass'n
2 Sie~~a Club
1 New Richmond News
1 Scottsman newspape~
1 Homeowne~s Ass'n
8. Overall, how satisfied are you with the information presented at the
meeting(s)?
.
(72 ~esponses)
27.81. Very Satisfied
40.31. Satisfied
16.71. Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
5.61. Dissatisfied
9.71. Very Dissatisfied
If dissatisfied, plea
( 10
responses)
- Louis unable t
addressed.
- Not all docume
Terrific marke
Program center
A NO-BUILD opt
No info. on NO
A bridge is ug
Not enough inf
- Not well organ
The info. pres
9.
Overall, how
meeting(s)?
II
answer funding question. Wise. bluff issues not
on info. table at 4/25 meeting.
ing for a non-existent product.
d around "build a bridge."
on was not presented.
BUILD; glossy answers and pictures.
y and not necessary; NO-BUILD not evaluated.
. on access to bridge.
zed.
nted was a definite "sell" for BUILD.
are you with the answers you received at the
(67 responses)
23.91. Very Satis ied
32.81. Satisfied
23.91. Neither Sa isfied nor Dissatisfied
10.41. Dissatisfi d
9.01. Very Dissa isfied
If dissatisfied, plea e explain: (11 responses)
Why no compens tion when property not purchased?
- No answers giv
No discussion
I never got a
Much money spe
All I got was
Theme: "Let's
No discussion
I was happy to
Not enough in-
Didn't give re
10.
The following concern
meetings and through
are the most concerne
33.31. Access
15.41. Aesthetics
7.71. Business
43.61. Congestion
25.61. Cost
10.31. Developmen
Other: (1 response)
- Consensus
f BUILD impacts on TH 36 developments.
efinite answer to even the simplest question.
t on single-minded solution. No alternatives.
xcuses about lack of NO-BUILD alternatives.
uild a bridge."
f trucks.
hear so much opposition to the bridge.
epth info.
idents a formula for acceptable noise levels.
were the most commonly identified in previous
ritten comments. Please identify the ~ that you
about:
41.01. Environment
10.31. Home Acquisitions
24.41. Rural Lifestyle
23.11. Safety
39.71. St. Croix River
6.41. Wildlife
.
1111.
Overall, how satisfied are you that your concerns were adequately
addressed in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement?
(76 responses)
23.7% Very Satisfied
30.3% Satisfied
19.7% Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
6.6% Dissatisfied
19.7% Very Dissatisfied
If dissatisfied, please explain: (12 responses)
Attempt made to skip NO-BUILD option and focus on other issues.
What about St. Joe Twp.? We were ignored.
Little attention given to business impacts along TH 36.
A Madison Ave. presentation; typically non-informative.
- No alternatives to "a bridge."
No alternatives given. A new bridge is not the answer.
EIS failed to adequately address NO-BUILD alternatives.
No NO-BUILD & what could be done along these lines.
The nation is in severe debt--unnecessary expenditure.
Too much emphasis on Stillwater plans.
- Environmental concerns need to be strongly addressed.
- DEIS does not adequately address NO-BUILD options.
12. Recommended study conclusion: (83 responses)
.
32.5% NO-BUILD
63.9% BUILD
3.6% Uncertain
12.a.
If BUILD, please specify Corridor: (53 responses)
3.8% North
11.3% Central
84.9% South
0% Uncertain
1.
Of those who live in
percentage recommende
(36 respondents)
25.0% NO-BUILD
75.0% BUILD
1. a.
Of those wh
percentage
2.
(27 respond
3.7%
7.4%
88.9%
0%
Of those who live in
percentage recommende
BUILD?
(42 respondents)
42.9% NO-BUILD
57.1% BUILD
2.a. Of those wh
percentage
(24 respond
4.2%
16. TI.
79.2%
0%
CROSS-COMPARISONS
II
innesota and stated a preference~ what
NO-BUILD and what percentage recommended BUILD?
live in Minnesota and recommended BUILD~ what
ecommended each corridor?
nts)
orth
entral
outh
ncertain
isconsin and stated
NO-BUILD, and what
a preference, what
percentage recommended
live in Wisconsin and recommended BUILD~ what
ecommended each corridor?
3. Of those who identifi d each concern in question 10.~ what percentage
recommended NO-BUILD, and what percentage recommended BUILD?
Access
Aesthetics
Business
Congestion
Cost
Development
Environment
Home Acquisition
Rural Lifestyle
Safety
St. Croix River
Wildlife
"* Res ondents
23
10
6
32
19
8
31
8
19
18
29
5
NO-BUILD
0%
20.0%
33.3%
3.1%
63.2%
50.0%
35.5%
62.5%
63.2%
22.2%
44.8%
20.0%
BUILD
100%
80.0/.
66.7%
96.9%
36.8%
50.0%
64.5%
37.5%
36.8%
77.8%
55.2%
80.01.
.
**
Those who identified cost, rural lifestyle~ and home acquisitions
as the most important concerns were more likely to recommend NO-
BUILD.
Those who identified congestion, environment. st. Croix River,
access, safety, aesthetics, business, and wildlife as the most
important concerns were more likely to recommend BUILD.
Those identifying development as an important concern were
equally likely to recommend NO-BUILD or BUILD.
.
**
**
4. Of those who expressed satisfaction that their concerns were
adequately addressed in this draft EIS (question 11), what percentage
recommended NO-BUILD and what percentage recommended BUILD?
(40 respondents)
10.0% NO-BUILD
90.0% BUILD
5. Of those who expressed dissatisfaction that their .concerns were
adequately addressed in this draft EIS (question 11), what percentage
recommended NO-BUILD and what percentage recommended BUILD?
(19 respondents)
89.51. NO-BUILD
10.51. BUILD
.
.
",\"MESO~
~(I"I1> Minnesota
I ~ Department of Transportation
i l; Transportation Building
~J' ~e:,tP St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
OF T~~
(612) 296-3000
LEONARD W. LEVINE
COMMISSIONER
June 18, 1990
Honorable Wally Abrahamson
Mayor of Stillwater
City Hall
216 North Fourth
Stillwater, MN. 55082
Dear Mayor Abrahamson:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Stillwater-Houlton River Crossing Study. It is
important that Stillwater make its position very clear, as all of the study alternatives
have major implications for the City's future.
Your letter, along with Stillwater's resolution and comments, will become part of the
formal set of decision-making documents. Stillwater's position will be part of the
information which is considered when a final decision is made.
~gain, thank you for taking the time to summarize Stillwater's views on this important
Issue.
,~
LEONARD W. LEVINE
Commissioner
.
An Equal Opportunity Employer