HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-24 CC Packet Special Meetingwater.
September 20, 1991
M E M O
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1991, 4:30 P.M.
This memo is a reminder to Council that a Special Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday afternoon, September 24, 1991, 4:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of
the Stillwater City Hall, 216 No. Fourth St., Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss
the following:
1. Workshop with Fire Relief Association to discuss investments.
2. Any other business Council may wish to discuss.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612 439 -6121
Selections
ENCORE:
MINNESOTA STATE BAND
Pioneer Park Concert
September 25, 1991
7:00 p.m.
Stillwater, Minnesota
Hail! Minnesota
The Invincible Eagle March
The Magic of Andrew Lloyd Webber
The Marches of Mancini
Selections from the Sound of Music
Hogan's Heroes March
Operatic Favorites
A Santa Cecilia March
International Dixieland Jamboree
The Stars and Stripes Forever March
God Bless America
STILLWATER BRIDGE UPDATE
by Cindy Gustayson
On July 16,1991,'Jim Fitzpatrick, Presi-
dent of the St. Croix River Association and
Cindy Gustayson, Sierra Club MN Conser-
vation Chair, met with the state Transporta-
tion Commissioner, John Riley. He said that
most people involved in the issue agreed that
if a bridge is built, it should be built in the
southern corridor. That is not the position of
the Sierra Club. It was emphasized to him
that:
1.) Regional transportation
alternatives, emphasizing the 6
lane I94 bridge at Hudson, needed
to be addressed more fully. Jim
and Cindy handed him such a
plan in writing which his depart-
ment could elaborate on.
2.) If and when the present
bridge is deemed unsafe, it should
be replaced or upgraded in the
same corridor, as a two lane
bridge utilizing the same Wis-
consin bluff corridor and utiliz-
ing traffic management tech-
niques for downtown Stillwater,
including the prohibition of large
trucks.
Recently the mayor of Oak
Park Heights, Barb O'Neal, has
stated that "Oak Park Heights will be the big
loser, and western Wisconsin will be the big
gainer" if the bridge is implemented as
Sierra CCub
St. Croix Valley Interstate Group
planned. On Monday, August 12th, nearly
90 residents of Oak Park Heights attended
the Oak Park Heights council meeting to
voice their opposition to the proposed high-
way and bridge.
The Sierra club supports Oak Park Heights
in their opposition. We do not feel that
"western Wisconsin will be the big gainer"
however. Urban sprawl into western Wis-
consin is a gain for only a few landowners,
and a loss for the environment.
Let your state and federal legislators know
The 2 -lane Stillwater Bridge on highway 36
celebrated it's 60th birthday on July 1st
Fall 1991
by Phred White
how you feel about this issue. Money is tight
and your politicians may be looking for a
good reason to say "no" to these transporta-
tion funds ($76 million).
Sierra Club Newsletter Fall 1991 Page 2
Mark Your Calendar!
SEPTEMBER
9 Monday 6:30 pm Executive Committee Meeting
Margaret Rivers Room, Stillwater Library, 223 N 4th Street
21 Saturday 10:00 am Bike Ride: Rural Wisconsin
Two rides: —30 miles at a moderate pace; or —15 miles at a slower
pace (Ginny will walk the hills with you). Please bring a bag lunch.
Meet at Wayne Federer Ginny Gaynor's house (See map on next
page). Call if you need more directions ...Wayne (h) 715.246 -2746
or (w) 612.736 -3190.
OCTOBER
12 Saturday 10:00 am Hike Crex Meadows outside Grantsburg, Wisconsin
Ted Schmidt, birdwatcher Crex Meadows volunteer will be our
guide. Observe waterfowl at this major migratory stopover. Bring
a bag lunch. Meet at Crex Meadows or carpool...
...from River Falls call Peter 715.425 -2370
...from Stillwater call Cindy 612.430 -1541
...from New Richmond call Joyce 715.246 -2009
20 Sunday 1:00 pm Emily Nature Hike in the Kinnickinnic State Park
This hike will be about two miles over some rugged terrain; but it
is suitable for both children and senior citizens. Meet at Parking Lot
north of the bridge over the Kinnickinnic River on County Road F
about 10 miles south of Hudson. For more information call Peter
Muto 715.425 -2370
NOVEMBER
2 Saturday 11:00 am Minnesota Raptor Center Tour 1920 Fitch Avenue, St. Paul
Campus, U of M $1.00 children, $2.00 adult donation. Meet in
Front lobby of the Raptor Center. For more information call Mark
Schaeffer- 715.386 -6875
11 Monday 6:30 pm :xecutive Committee Meeting
Margaret Rivers Room, Stillwater Library, 223 N 4th Street
More information will follow about an outing in January, snow shoeing in February, and spring hikes
for fossils and glacial moraine. An:' member who would like to lead an outing or suggest a program,
please contact Mark at 715.386 -6875 or Cindy at 612.430 -1541.
Meetings are held the 2nd Mond iy of September, November, January, March, May and July at 6:30
pm at the Stillwater Library. Memt ers and guests are welcome.
Minnesota School District 834 (Stillwater
area) has a rare oppurtunity to preserve a 40 acre
site on the grounds of its new Senior High
School (to be built by fall 1993) which would
become an outdoor Environmental Learning
Center (ELC). This beautiful site contains two
ponds, a pine stand, a hardwood forest, and
prairies as well as numerous examples of wild-
flowers and wildlife. District 834's ELC com-
mittee, chaired by Cindy Gustayson, has already
prepared a mission and philosophy paper, as
well as a discussion paper about the project.
They will be presenting their findings and sug-
gestions in November to the school board.
The St. Croix Valley Sierra Club is an offi-
cial interstate group of the national Sierra Club.
Its members reside in Minnesota and Wisconsin
communities near the St. Croix River. Group
SCALE IN MILES
Stillwater
MlyrtleIt st
38
0
m
0
ad
Houlton
•Snowcrest
Ski Area
T j
Big
School
Bass Lake
Cheese Factory
Valley View Rd
1 4 6. 4{,) 3 airs
:4
At
h
115th Av
G
State
Park
160th
MPH
4
North Ba
53rd
0
Rd
140th l i t
Av 1
132nd
AV
1
A
N
Bayport
FROM THE CHAIR
ST. CROIX VALLEY
SIERRA CLUB (SCVSC)
f Someiiset
Sierra Club Newsletter Fall 1991 Page 3
THEY NEED YOUR HELP!
1) If you know a school board member, call them
and enthusiastically endorse these efforts.
2) They need written testimony from all aged
community members those with school and
preschool aged children and senior citizens
too about the importance of such a learning
center at the Senior High School site.
3) If you could provide a written statement call
Cindy at 430 -1541. She will send you infor-
mation and take anyone interested on a tour of
the site.
This is our rare opportunity to work on a
positive environmental issue- to say "yes" to the
land, the wildlife, the children and the commu-
nity!
members also belong to a Sierra Club state
chapter the North Star Chapter (Minnesota
residents) or the John Muir Chapter (Wisconsin
residents).
Av V
Mass 150th
L
Bo rd
Burkhardt
Wisconsin Bike Ride Map (see calendar Saturday, September 21)
Sierra Club Newsletter Fall 1991 Page 4
Grassroots Action! ��s
WISCONSIN GROUP OP OSES
RIVIERA AIRPORT
by Audrey Halverson
A loosely knit group in Wiscon sin has been
seeking relief from the disruption c aused in the
St. Croix River Valley by air traffic from the
Riviera Airport. The Riviera Airpc rt is located
in Clifton Township, Pierce County Wisconsin.
The airport is about halfway betw -en Hudson
and Prescott, is directly across a St. Croix
River from the Minnesota Afton St to Park and
500 feet north of the Kinnickinnic State Park.
Almost half of the airstrip and the t venty seven
surrounding lots are located in the Pi erce County
St. Croix River District.
Mr. Besadny, Wisconsin D.N. Secretary,
in a letter dated July 26, 1991 an written in
response to letters from the grow) that ques-
tioned the legality of the airstrip st: tted that the
information sent "was helping the .N.R. take
a position on the matter This s a shift in
position as the D.N.R. up to this p int has said
that they believe the airport was andfathered
in and its expansion was legal.
On May 22, 1991 the Lower St. Croix Man-
agement Commission passed a re lution that
"...appropriate authorities in Pie ce County,
Wisconsin, be advised that the irstrip has
negative impacts on the Lower St. Cr )ix National
Scenic Riverway, Afton State Park nd the Kin
nickinnic State Park and that app opriate au-
thorities in Pierce County, Wiscon in be urged
to take all appropriate measures wit in the law to
minimize those negative impacts."
The Minnesota North Star Chapter of the Si-
erra Club along with others, is tat ing Riviera
Airport Incorporated to court. If this court case is
won it would force airplanes to fly at I n altitude of
2000 feet above sea level over the Mi nnesota part
of the St. Croix River District, the Aft(c State Park
and the Carpenter Nature Center. It WI )uld not shut
down the airport and would probably increase the
air traffic in Wisconsin.
The St. Croix Valley Group of the Sierra
Club has passed the following resolution re-
questing that the Wisconsin John Muir Chapter
of the Siena Club: "...determine the legality of
the Riviera Airport as defined by the Pierce
County Zoning Ordinance including the NR 118
portion, and pursue ending this illegal activity
by considering legal action in Pierce County or
by other means such as the State Department of
Justice, the Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary
Commission or the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resource."
The Wisconsin group has started a pledge
drive in Wisconsin to defray the John Muir
Chapter Sierra Club expenses (if the Sierra Club
decides to act on this matter). Several pledges
have already been received.
For questions or comments, please call
Audrey Halverson at 715- 425 -5807.
RIVIERA AIRPORT LAWSUIT
Northstar Chapter
A lawsuit has been initiated by the North Star
Sierra Club against RivieraAirParkin Clifton,
Wisconsin. It concerns low flying flights
over the St. Croix River, Afton State Park and
Carpenter Nature Center. The runway and
flight paths also greatly impact Kinnickinnic
State Park in Wisconsin. At the present time
our local Sierra Club is working to bring a
lawsuit in the state of Wisconsin concerning
zoning laws for the airport.
If anyone knows of a pro -bono lawyer, li-
censed in Wisconsin, who would take on such
a case, please contact Cindy Gustayson at
(612) 430 -1541.
OSCEOLA LANDFILL
by Cindy Gustayson
A proposal was made to the Osceola Landfill
to accept waste from the Hennepin County In-
cinerator. At the public meeting, held in Osceola,
the room was filled to overflowing with con-
cerned citizens who opposed such an arrange-
ment. Our club was represented by Jim Johnson
of Marine on St. Croix, who spoke out against
the plan. At the July 8, 1991 meeting of the St.
Croix Valley Sierra Club, a resolution was
passed to send a letter of opposition to the
Wisconsin DNR, Bureau of Environmental En-
forcement. The statement was sent urging the
DNR not to enlarge the Osceola Landfill to
accommodate Hennepin County incinerator ash.
GLOVER PARK PROJECT
by Peter Muto
Jan DeCraene, Chairperson of the Town of
Troy Park Commission (in St. Croix County,
Wisconsin) appeared before our group Execu-
tive Committee to request our morale support
for a proposal she was submitting to Wisconsin
DNR for a grant from the Stewardship Fund.
The proposal asked for about $58,000 to be
matched by local funds, for these purposes:
1) to build a road into the 40 -acre plot owned by
the town. (The present access is a one -way trail
on the roadbed of the late C +NW Railway
(1880 -1965) which has hazardous exits.)
2) access for handicapped persons to the current
restrooms.
3) (a minor part) preparation of trails for hiking,
biking and cross country skiing into the park.
In spite of our enthused endorsement; the
project was not funded. However the town is
resolved to try again. Meanwhile, Jan has re-
quested our group's assistance in planning the
trails for the park. Our Ted Schmidt will lead
this effort.
If you wish to participate in the recon-
naissance and planning; please call Ted at
(715)248 -3947!
Historical Note: Long ago, Glover Station
was a railroad depot on the late C +NW Railroad
between Hudson and River Falls.
Sierra Club Newsletter Fall 1991 Page 5
WILLOW RIVER DAM
by Peter Muto
Back in May, Ted Macmiller, and Earl and
Arliss Balzer appeared at our Executive Com-
mittee Meeting to alert us of a problem with the
Falls Dam in the River Willow State (WI).
Governor Thompson allocated $4,000,000 in
the budget for the removal of the old dam (at
about $1,000,000) and its replacement (at about
$4,500,000). Of these funds, local agencies and
benefactors were expected to raise $1,500,000
whereas $2,000,000 of the state funds were to be
drawn from the "Stewardship Fund
Meanwhile, Superintendent Kubler of the
Willow River St. Park was less than enthused;
The Willow River Owls (an organization of
volunteers who serve in the park) were adamantly
opposed to the dam replacement plans, and the
WI -DNR were not even involved in the govenor's
decision. The Group Conservation Committee
of Ted Schmidt and Peter Muto met with Ted
Macmiller, Earl Balzer and Earl (Roger) Fair-
banks to discuss this matter. The Group Chair-
person, Ed Gustayson, sent a letter to Spencer
Black, the Chairperson of the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee who "blew the whistle"
on this misuse of Stewardship Funds. The leg-
islature subsequently removed the dam con-
struction from the budget.
EDITORIAL
FROM THE WISCONSIN
CONSERVATION CHAIR
By Peter Muto
Ted Schmidt reports that about 90% of the
proposals for Stewardship Funds were denied
because of lack of money. In addition to
denial of Troy Townships proposal of
$58,000, the Willow River Owls were denied
a request for $12,000 for a trail (with natural
history stations) in the state park. From these
denials we can see, that if $2,000,000 re
quested by the governor had been granted, a
multitude of local projects of great environ-
mental benefit would fail to receive a portion
of the $25,000,000 allocated from the Ste-
wardship Fund each year.
Sierra Club Newsletter Fall 1991 Fag( 6
St. Croix Valley Sierra Club
Group Directory
Chair;
Ed Gustayson*
1007 Pine Tree Trail
Stillwater, MN 55082
612.430 -1541 (H)
Treasurer:
Joyce Hinz
Westwood Lane #1D
359 Odanah Avenue
New Richmond,W1 54017
715.246 -2009 (H)
Membership Chair;
Newsletter Editor:
Julie Metcalf
675 Quality Avenue No.
Lakeland, MN 55043
612.436 -1558 (H)
612.736 -9665 (W)
Conservation Chair;
Stillwater Bridge:
Cindy Gustayson
1007 Pine Tree Trail
Stillwater, MN 55082
612.430 -1541 (H)
Fund raising Chair:
Mary McNellis*
1309 53rd Street
Hudson, WI 54016
715349 -6172 (H)
612.439 -0063 (W)
WI Political Chair:
George Hayducsko
1514 Pinewood Lane
Hudson, WI 54016
Excom:
Wayne Federer*
Rte. 4, Box 223
New Richmond, WI 54017
715.246 -2746 (H)
612.736 -3190 (W)
MN Lobbyist:
Judy Bellairs
North Star Sierra Club
1313 5th St. SE, #323
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612.824 -8181 (H)
612.379 -3855 (W)
Executive Committee
(EXCOM) Member
Vice- Chair;
Dale Ande rson*
17319 Olit ida Trail
Marine, MMN}� 54047
612.433 -347 (H)
612.439 -3 50 (W)
Secretary;
Volunteer Coordinator:
Karen Brit}on*
8236 113t1 Street
Cottage GI ove, MN 55106
612.459 -9: .02 (H)
612.726-6::77 (W)
Outings Clair:
Mark Sch ffer
357 Miller Road
Hudson, V 54016
715.386-605 (H)
612.736 -9: X29 (W)
Conservati m Chair;
JMC Deleg Ate:
Peter Muu l*
322 W Ch alone
River Fall: WI 54022
715.425 -2 370 (H)
River Falls Satellite
Coordinator:
Alice Pem ble
RFD 3
River Fall o, WI 54022
715.425 -5157 (H)
Environme ntal
Education:
Carol Hauer
1140 37th Street
Hudson, V ri 54016
WI Lobby': t:
Caryl Ten ell
JMC Siena Club
111 King itreet
Madison, WI 53703
608.833-8328 (H)
608.256 -0565 (W)
EcoFacts:
Packaging makes
up about one third of
our household waste
by weight and about
50% by volume. Every
30 or 40 days, we
discard our own
weight in packaging. You can reduce
packaging waste and save money by
selecting products that have the least
amount of packaging.
Two things you can do now to
save the planet Recycle and join
the Sierra Club! It's time to protect
our precious environment. And stop
exhausting our planet's resources.
You can make a difference Join
today!
OUR NEWSLETTER
The newsletter of the St. Croix Valley
Sierra Club is published four times each
year. If you have suggestions or contribu-
tions, please write or call Cindy Gustayson
or Julie Metcalf.
Contributions or gifts to the Sierra Club
are not tax deductible. Donations to help
defray the cost of the newsletter and our
Group's activities can be made out to "St.
Croix Valley Sierra Club" and sent to our
treasurer.
New Member Name
Address
City /State
Address
City /State
REGULAR
SUPPORTING
CONTRIBUTING
LIFE
SENIOR
STUDENT
Dept. H -113
P.O. Box 7959
San Francisco, CA
94120 -7959
Sierra Club
Yes,' want to give a gift membership. I want to
help safeguard our nation's precious natural heritage.
My check is enclosed.
Gift please complete the information below.
We will forward a gift announcement card for your use.
Donor Name
MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES
INDIVIDUAL JOINT
$35
$50
$loo
5750
$Is
E. $15
ZIP
ZIP
543
558
5108
51000
$23
523
Annual dues include subscription to Sierra ($7.50) and chapter publication ($1).
Dues are not tax- deductible.
Enclose check and mail to:
W
FRIP No.
1
Sierra Club Newsletter Fall 1991 Page 7
NEW MEMBERS
Welcome to the members who joined our
group from February June 1991.
Minnesota
Cottage Grove
Rod Hale
Mr. Mrs. Terence Nichols
Forest Lake
T. Wallace
Harris
Mr. David Christianson
Hastings
Tom Teuber
Lake Elmo
Richard M. Ann M. Butala
Roxanne Choulock
Mrs. Will C.Turmbladh
Lindstrom
Ms. Dorothy I. Zabel
Marine
James W. Laura Johnson
Pine City
Beverly Becker
Stillwater
Mr. Gene H. Nelson
Sally E. Stout
Gary Foss
Emil Brandt
Jane Paulisich
Mr. George H. Boggess
Jean M. Hamm
Liz Kelly
WISCONSIN
Amery
Brad Holter
Sue Medenwald
Trish Seehafer
Hudson
Mr. Neil Fredericks
Mr. Daniel Greenwald
Mrs. C. C. Stout
Mr. Elmer Splinter
John Anne Collins
Richard Sinn
New Richmond
Mrs. Jane M .Rasmussen
River Fails
Tyler Boles
Dana J. Anderson
T. M .Stedfeld
Grantsburg
Ms. Kay Kingston
Julie Metcalf, Newsletter Editor
Liz Kelly (acting editor)
St. Croix Valley Sierra Club
675 Quality Avenue North
Lakeland, MN 55043
recycled paper
I side thi issue...
•Stillwate Bridge Update
•Riviera Airport Opposed
•Incinerator Ash Looms Over Osceola Landfill
•Troy To 1 y Again on Glover Park
•Willow River and the Taxpayers Spared
P
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 510
STILLWATER, MN
ibl
as
September 17, 1991
Mayor and City Council
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
ing azt &m a# His#azira1 $iicifg
P. 0. Box 161
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Your Honor and Council Members:
On behalf of the Board of the Washington County Historical
Society and Joan Daniels, I would like to thank you
and the Johnson Brothers Corporation for all the
cooperation you have given us during the construction
work this summer. We would especially like to thank
Mr. Harold Topp, Utility Superintendent of the Johnson
Brothers Corporation for all the extra help he gave us.
We appreciate your help in keeping The Warden's House
Museum open for tours during this difficult time.
We would appreciate it if you could give a copy of this
letter to the Johnson Brothers Corporation also.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
I 1')
-t- vc-cc K L
Donna L. Reynolds
Corresponding Secretary
arben's muse c iflustum
602 N. Main Street
Stillwater, MN
439 -5655
cc: Johnson Brothers Corporation
Johannes +'ricksnn Tug Cabin
pu Take $clionl c filuseum
Co. Rd. 3 Old Marine Trail
Scandia, MN
433-2762
nutfnel! (ltenteterg
Boutwell Road Near Co. Rd. 15
Stillwater, MN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Commissioner of Transportation
has appointed a State Aid Variance Committee who will conduct a
meeting on Wednesday, October 2, 1991, at 10:00 a.m. in room 300
South, in the State Office Building, 100 Constitution Avenue,
St. Paul, MN 55155.
This notice is given pursuant to Minnesota Statute 47k.705.
The purpose of this open meeting is to investigate and determine
recommendations for variances from minimum State Aid roadway
standards and administrative procedures as governed by Minnesota
Rules for State Aid Operations 8820.3400 adopted pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 161 and 162.
The agenda will be limited to these questions:
1. Petition of the City of South St. Paul for a variance from
minimum standards as they apply to MSAS 105 (3rd Street North)
between 15th Avenue and 17th Avenue to allow a street width of
36 feet with parking on both sides, on Sunday mornings between
7:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., instead of the required minimum of 38
feet with parking on both sides.
2. Petition of the County of Brown for a variance from minimum
standards as they apply to a reconstruction project on CSAH 26,
the Flandrau State Park Access Road so as to permit a one foot
clearance from the face of curb to a stone portal instead of the
required minimum of two feet on SAP 08- 626 -02.
3. Petition of the County of Mower for a variance from minimum
standards as they apply to a proposed reconstruction project on
CSAH 5, 0.1 mile east of Trunk Highway 105 so as to permit a
24.1 foot wide bridge (Bridge No. 7016); instead of the required
minimum of 28 feet; to remain in place.
4. Petition of the Township of Fall Lake in Lake County for a
variance from minimum standards as they apply to a proposed
reconstruction project on Fall Lake Road #60 so as to permit a
design speed of 20 miles per hour; instead of the required
minimum of 30 miles per hour for one curve.
5. Petition of the County of Lake for a variance from minimum
standards as they apply to a proposed reconstruction project on
CSAH 16 so as to permit a design speed of 35 miles per hour
instead of the required minimum of 40 miles per hour.
6. Petition of the City of Stillwater for a variance from rule
on a reconstruction project on MSAS 104 (Myrtle Street) between
North 3rd Street and Main Street so as to permit a right of way
width of 50 feet instead of the required minimum of 60 feet.
The city, township and counties previously listed are requested
to follow the following time schedule when appearing before the
Variance Committee:
10:00 a.m. City of S•iuth St. Paul
10:20 a.m. County of Brown
10:40 a.m. County of Mower
11:00 a.m. Township of Fall Lake
11:30 a.m. County of Lake
11:45 a.m. City of Stillwater
Dated: September 12, 1991
E. H. Cohoon
Acting Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Transportation
1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Petition of the County of Lake for a variance from minimum State
Aid standards for DESIGN SPEED.
Notice is hereby given that the County Board of the County of
Lake has made written request to the Commissioner of Transportation
pursuant to Minnesota Rules 8820.3300 for a variance from rules as
they apply to a proposed reconstruction project on CSAH 16 in Bear
Island Township.
The request is for a variance from Minnesota Rules for State
Aid Operations 8820.9910 adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 161 and 162, so as to permit a design speed of 35 miles per
hour for one crest vertical and two sag vertical curves; instead of
the required minimum of 40 miles per hour.
Any person may file a written objection to the variance
request with the Commissioner of Transportation, Transportation
Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.
If a written objection is received within 20 days from the
date of this notice in the State Register, the variance can be
granted only after a contested case hearing has been held on the
request.
Dated: September 12, 1991.
E. H. Cohoon
Acting Commissioner
DATE: September 13, 1991
TO: Stillwater Houlton River Crossing Task Force
FROM: Mike Louis, Project Manager
Mn/DOT #612 779 -1208
SUBJECT: Next Meeting Notification (All members are invited to
attend this catch -up, review, and status meeting).
Minutes from March 21, 1991 Task Force Meeting.
Bridge Type Survey Results /Agency Meeting Notes
Origin/Destination Study Results (For your info)
NOTE CHANGE
NEXT TASK FORCE MEETING
Thursday, September 26, 1991
7:00 P.M.
Stillwater Public Library
Margaret Rivers Room
223 North 4th Street
Well, here we are again. Its definitely time to catch up on what
been happening over the summer. We have been busy developing
design alternatives along T.H. 36. It is proving to be a
challenge.
Note the enclosed interchange modification at T.H. 95, which is
our most recent attempt at dealing with the elevation changes
between the river and the top of bluff at Osgood. If you
remember, the Task Force recommended an interchange which was
folded to the west of T.H. 95. We couldn't make it work well
enough to handle the anticipated traffic movements, and the ramp
grades were too steep. That's why were evaluating a standard
diamond interchange design. We will discuss at the meeting.
We will also discuss developments at the T.H. 36/ T.H. 5 -Co. 5
interchange, which is being advanced as a separate project. We
are trying to develop a design that will be compatible with the
new High School, and anticipated development in Oak Park Heights
south of T.H. 36, and Stillwater north of T.H. 36.
We are also preparing new interchange and frontage road pictures
between T.H. 95 and T.H. 5. We are getting close to narrowing
down the alternatives, and will be meeting again with the
business community in a couple of weeks. I will provide a
update.
I will bring sketches of the bridge type alternatives that are
being advanced for further design development. Note the enclosed
survey results from our public meetings last May, and the agency
S discussion notes. I will also bring the six bridge viewing point
photographs that will used in the computer simulation process.
The computer simulations should be ready for our review in about
one month.
STILLWATER- HOULTON TASK FORCE MEETING
MINUTES
March 21, 1991
Attending: Kevin Coghlan, Stillwater Township; Terry Pederson,
Wisc/DOT; Mike Louis, Mn/DOT; Bob Winter, Mn/DOT; Sally Evert,
Washington County; Hugh A. Luckey, Houlton; Howard LaVenture,
Houlton; Wally Abrahamson, Stillwater; John L Jewell, Stillwater;
Ben George, St_Joseph Township; Doug Schwartz, Grant Township;
Joseph Carufel, Oak Park Heights; Jeff Erickson, Mn/DOT; Beverly
Schultz, Bayport; Steve Russell, Stillwater Community Development
Director; others in audience_
Chair Sally Evert called the meeting to order_ Mike Louis was
asked to begin by reviewing project status_ Louis said the
location phase of study process ended with selection of north
alignment of south corridor; DOTs are now in design phase. The
design phase consists of two separate elements bridge type and
design, and interchange location and design_ Both phases will
require public involvement_
According to Louis, the next public discussion of interchange
issues in Minnesota will be at a meeting with local businesses on
Thursday, March 28. The first public meetings on bridge type and
design will be on Wednesday, April 24 at the Stillwater High
School Auditorium, and on Thursday, April 25 at the St. Joseph
Town Hall. Both bridge meetings will begin at 7:00 P.M., and
will be identical in content.
Ben George asked Louis about potential road blocks in the
process. Louis reviewed the main environmental issues at stake
in the process disposition of existing bridge, NO- BUILD/TSM,
urban sprawl, and decision making authority. Louis said the DOTS
felt comfortable with their position, but could still face legal
challenges_
Wally Abrahamson asked Louis about the possibility that some
people would attend the meeting to lobby for a NO -BUILD decision.
Louis said the DOTs would make it clear that the focus of the
meetings would be on design issues; the approach at the meetings
will be if a bridge is built, what should it look like.
Louis briefly reviewed the EIS process and how it related to the
bridge type /design and interchange studies_ The planning process
has been used to convert values into need identification. The
principal needs identified for a new river crossing include
minimizing the number of shore and river piers, aesthetic
compatibility with the river valley, and cost_ The bridge
selection process will involve three main phases, each
increasingly more specific: general bridge type selection, design
1
development, and design detail development. Public involvement
will occur at each phase in the process.
Bob Winter reviewed how recent development proposals have led the
DOTs to consider separating the TH 5 interchange improvements
from the main TH 36 /river crossing studies_ The new high school
scheduled to open in 1993 (in the southeast quadrant of the TH
5/TH 36 interchange) has been a principal reason why this part of
the project should possibly be accelerated_ Winter noted that
the county is planning on reconstructing a section of highway 5
north of TH 36 into a four lane facility_ The DOTs would
maintain four lanes over the bridge, carrying them a short
distance south on their section of highway 5_
Mike Louis reviewed the status of Minnesota interchange studies.
He noted that locations of TH 36/TH 95 and TH 36/TH 5
interchanges are set, but that studies are underway to determine
if third interchange should be at Osgood, Greeley, or some
combination of the two_ So far, Mn/DOT has had one information
meeting with business owners on interchange issues.
Briefly, the interchange alternatives which Louis explained are
as follows_ Some of these have disadvantages (e.g., interchange
spacing, weaving problem, steep grades, drainage pond impacts)
which are serious enough to eliminate them from additional study:
Diamond interchange at Greeley_
Diamond interchange at Osgood.
Folded diamond at Osgood_
Diamonds at both Greeley and Osgood.
Folded diamonds at Greeley and Osgood-
Split diamonds at Osgood and Greeley-
Collector distributer system from TH 36 to Greeley_
Steve Russell suggested that an additional type of interchange
system be studied; this would include a half diamond at Greeley,
and a folded diamond at Osgood_ Louis said this alternative
would be added as a study alternative.
Louis noted that the TH 36/Highway 15 intersection had also been
detached from the river crossing study and will be a candidate
for the 1996 -7 program_ This alternative was originally included
in the draft EIS primarily because it was needed for the North
Corridor, which has been eliminated. A golf course development
is being planned for the apple orchard in the northwest quadrant
of this intersection_
Terry Pederson provided an overview of Wisc/DOTs interchange
planning to date. He said that Wisc/DOT was primarily working
directly with the local governments on interchange issues_ Three
potential interchange locations have been identified in St_
Joseph Township: at STH 35 (near Buckhorn site), at County E, and
2
between the two. The latter alternative would require new right
of -way between existing STH 35 and county E. Only one of the
three interchange locations would be chosen.
Howard LaVenture stated that the school district was purchasing
ten additional acres east of existing Houlton School location.
He expressed concern about the prospect of having County E
interchange located adjacent to school property. Pederson agreed
to forward this concern to the Wisc/DOT design team.
Louis promised to mail initial bridge type handout materials to
task force in advance of first public meetings. Jeff Erickson
suggested that task force members think about expressing their
initial bridge type preferences at next meeting, in order to keep
pace with public involvement schedule.
Louis and Evert discussed possible dates for next meeting. A
tentative date was set for Thursday, May 16 at 7:00 P.M.
�1 0 1 i,�
I
8 o
r
O 1_
0 0
o
a 0 M
�La
0
0
rrodc
8
a
PRE.LkW
vtHOUT 1\10'T ‘CE
�Np r1G
SUB _SECT jq i3
oR
1!
a 0 9 9 9
o a TTT a
o o
ti �»u c
i�
0
STILLWATER HOULTON RIVER CROSSING
WEEKDAY ORIGIN /DESTINATION
AM /PM TRIP DISTRIBUTION
ET. PAIR,
MNNEAPOUE OANOALE
SOUTH
METRO
SOURCE METROPOUTAN COUNCIL
TRAVEL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY
500 VEHICLE SURVEY SAMPLE
7/25/90
STI
MILLTOWN
CENPURIA
ROBERTS
H I�.
LUCK
BALSAM LAKE
E6H.
46
WEBSTER
SIREN
SPOONER
SHELL LAKE
am
26 I
TURTLE LAKE 4 BARRON
CLAYTON 20%
•JRI DGELAND
NORSVILLE
HMOND
WIN
WILSON
VOODV
131?;IENOMONIE
SPRING VALLEY 13%
•BOYCEVILLE
RICE LAKE
CHETAK
HAYWARD
5%
arm.
BLOOMER
STILLWATKR- HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDIES
I. Trip Purpose (512 Surveys):
A. Returning Home
B. Shopping
34%
II. Trip Destinations:
1. Andersen Windows
2. Cub Foods
Destinations
Travel Behavior Inventory Survey
July 25, 1990
47%
C. Work 19%
3. Shopping Malls (Total)
Maplewood Mall 13
Rosedale Mali 10
St. Croix Mall 6
Sunray Mall 1
Oakdale Mall 1
34
21
31
4. Health Facilities 16
5. Airport 6
6. Washington Co. Govt. Ctr. 5
7. 3M 4
8. K Mart 3
9. Menards 3
10. MacDonaid's 2
11. Coop Grocery 2
12. Routson Motors 2
13. Stillwater Motors 2
14. Stillwater Ford 2
15. U of M 2
16. Joseph's Restaurant
17. Sunnyside Marine
18. Stockyards
2
:2
One Trip:
Estelles, Como Zoo, Science Museum, Keeler Steel, Ace
Hardware, Oasis Cafe, Action Rental, Cordell Retirement
Home, Target, Honda Shop, Country Kitchen, Pateras Fitness,
Stillwater Golf Course, Powell- McGee, Minnesota Zoo, Dahl's
Chain Saw Service, Health Food Store, Sears, Dock Cafe,
Mpls. Impound Lot, Megs Restaurant, Allstate Peterbuilt,
North Star Steel, NW Publications, Johnson Housemovers,
Newport Bldg., Fred's Tires, Wizard Computers, Transport
America, NFC Bldg., Just For Me, Tarten Park, Neill
Antiques, Burger King, International Market Square, Martins,
Valley Fair, Oak Park Plaza, Sawmill Golf Course, Armory,
Family Service, Western Life Insurance Bldg., Wm. O'Brien
State Park, Lakewood Com. College, IDS Tower, Cenex,
Wholesale Club, Knox, Bryon Rock, Lilly Lake School, Lahl
Publishing Co., Soo Line RR, Fox Ridge Housing Dev., Crown,
Bethel Seminary, Metrodome, Big Marine Lake, Williams
Pipeline, Midas Muffler, Legion Club, Oak Glen Golf Course,
Mid America Bank, Library, Paperhouse, Firstar Bank,
Goodwill, Midway Country Club, King Plant, St. Catherine's
College, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Madcappers, Acura, Myster's
Bar and Grill, North Star Potato, Sunny Brake, National
Sports Complex, Esteban's, Vanhoven Co., YMCA Camp,
Herberger's, Savage Campgrounds.
STILLWATER- HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDY
Phase I Bridge Type Opinion Survey
Final Results Tabulation
and
Analysis
June, 1991
1. "Please give us your opinions regarding how important each
of the following concerns are in relation to each other_ If
you feel that two or more concerns are equally important,
circle the same number for each
a. WHAT THE BRIDGE LOOKS LIKE. (29 Responses)
1) Very Important
2) Important
3) Neutral
4) Unimportant
5) Very Unimportant
Sinn ry Important 87%
Unimportant 6%
b. WISCONSIN BLUFF IMPACTS.._ (28 Responses)
1) Very Important 39% (11)
2) Important 29% (8)
3) Neutral 18% (5)
4) Unimportant 14% (4)
5) Very Unimportant 0%
Summary: Important 68%
Unimportant 14%
c_ MINNESOTA SHORELAND IMPACTS... (29 Responses)
1) Very Important 34% (10)
2) Important 34% (10)
3) Neutral 31% (9)
4) Unimportant 0%
5) Very Unimportant 0%
Summary: Important 68%
Unimportant 0%
59% (17)
28% (8)
7% (2)
3% (1)
3% (1)
d_ WISCONSIN SHORELAND IMPACTS...
1) Very Important
2) Important
3) Neutral
4) Unimportant
5) Very Unimportant
Summary: Important 64%
Unimportant 4%
e. RECREATIONAL RIVER IMPACTS...
1) Very Important
2) Important
3) Neutral
4) Unimportant
5) Very Unimportant
ammary: Important 49%
Unimportant 14%
f. BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION COSTS._.
1) Very Important
2) Important
3) Neutral
4) Unimportant
5) Very Unimportant
,$may: Important 76%
Unimportant 7%
g An Additional Concern?
1) Very important
2) Important
3) Neutral
4) Unimportant
5) Very Unimportant
Summary: Important 100%
Unimportant 0%
(28 Responses)
32%
32%
32%
4%
0%
(9)
(9)
(9)
(1)
(29 Responses)
28%
21%
38%
7%
7%
45%
31%
17%
0%
7%
75%
25%
0%
0%
0%
(8)
(6)
(11)
(2)
(2)
(29 Responses)
(13)
(9)
(5)
(2)
(12 Responses)
(9)
(3)
Very Important Additional Concerns:
Visual Impact of crossing location-
Safety.
Project /planning costs.
Maintenance costs
Noise, smell, and wind.
Sunnyside impacts.
Noise and bridge location_
Value of residents and view_
How fits in with natural environment.
Important Additional Concerns_
Bridge not detract from Stillwater
historical atmosphere_
Noise generation.
Maintenance costs.
2_ "Considering the information presented, what are the most
appropriate general bridge types, in your opinion, that best
provide a balance of appearance, impacts, and costs, and
should be considered for further study
LOW VISIBILITY CATEGORY:
Bridge Type #1 Girder Types 42% (8)
Bridge Type #2 Box Types 74% (14)
MEDIUM VISIBILITY CATEGORY:
Bridge Type #3 Truss Types 21% (4)
Bridge Type #4 Arch Types 37% (7)
HIGH VISIBILITY CATEGORY:
Bridge Type #5 Cable Stayed Types 11% (2)
Bridge Type #6 Suspension Types 5% (1)
Summary (36 Total Responses)
Low Visibility Category 61% (22)
Medium Visibility Category 31% (11)
High Visibility Category 8% (3)
COMMENTS:
(19 Respondents)
1. "I would like to see computer modeling before answering
this."
2. "It will make no difference what the people think. This
whole thing is unacceptable."
counteract the intention of the Scenic Wild Rivers
legislation_
The project is planned largely because the city of
Stillwater has not done its best to handle its own traffic
problems through the redirection of traffic, use of one ways
and control of truck traffic. This fault extends to the
State of Minnesota_ Then, because of its preponderance of
votes in the political system, Stillwater is deciding where
the bridge will go_ MnDOT has used a wildly incomplete set
of figures to arrive at costs which do not include
peripheral damage to property; that is, homes, land,
businesses outside of the immediate construction area. Nor
do the figures completely assess the attendant costs of
reworking all traffic systems feeding into the new bridge
system_
Further, the stated bridge location does not fully consider
the damages mentioned above_ Nor have the environmental
concerns been fully explained away. I travelled with the
then Congressman Al Quie on the river in an observance of
the passing of the Wild and Scenic Rivers bill while he was
in Congress_ We travelled right along the route in
question_ Cong. Quie commented that henceforth the view
from the river would remain protected_ That has not
obviously been the result as infringement after infringement
has occurred with this last assault being by far the worst
and certainly the longest lasting.
I have covered government as a reporter for over 40 years.
I have served on more "citizen committees" than I care to
remember. I know that MnDOT has a perfectly good idea and
had that idea from the beginning of its public posturing
just about where the bridge would be and what it would like
to have it look like. The steps it is now going through
only serve the purpose of the impact studies as required by
law and only give us enough information to cause us to
approve what they are seeking.
At the meeting last night in Stillwater, 15 May, we were
again spoon -fed a bit of information that was intended to
draw out from us an opinion about the concerns we have in
regard to the appearance of the bridge. Wisconsin bluff
impact, Minnesota and Wisconsin shoreland impact,
recreational river impact, bridge construction costs and
other concerns. Questions did not develop satisfactory
answers on questions of noise pollution from all levels,
smell pollution from exhausts and wind problems created
along the surface of the water by the obstructions of piers
and deck.
The man in charge of the hearing last night, Mike Lewis, we
believe, appeared quite arrogant as is typical of many
bureaucrats when the problems of lost property values
because of aesthetics, the addition of various forms of
pollution and because most of us in attendance wanted more
visual evidence of what the various bridges would look like
and what those bridges would look like in the middle route
or central route. His attitude was one of complete
indifference to our concerns.
We suggested very strongly that MnDOT provide either
computer or physical models of the various bridges as they
cross both the northern line of the southern route and the
central route. Without that step it is next to impossible
to make an intelligent decision on the question. Some
concern was expressed by Lewis for the costs involved. What
is the cost compared with the millions and millions of
dollars to be spent?
I informed the bureaucrats assembled that the 300 residents
of Sunnyside I and II and the several hundred owners and
users of Sunnyside Marina were very concerned that their
problems were not adequately addressed_ There is a strong
possibility that a class action suit will follow any attempt
to go beyond the planning stage_ With the millions of
dollars of property involved and the influence of those who
hold that property, there is a good chance that construction
could be held up for years.
I urgently request from anyone in authority who will listen
that steps be taken immediately to take another look at
location and design of the bridge with the public having the
opportunity to see in three dimension models what they are
getting, or could get_ In a few words, the damage to
Minnesotans is far greater than that to Wisconsinites. And
shouldn't we listen to the concerns of the federal
government as well as the residents along the river
14. "I prefer the box type because of the river traffic under
the bridge. It is neat and enclosed when looking up. I
also like style from one end to the other."
15. "Box girder and box types can be used for curved portion of
bridge. These two types are least expensive. I really
enjoy viewing the arch type bridge, but this type can't be
used on curves and span must be equal or piers have to be
adjusted. It would be complicated and expensive_
I enjoyed hearing about the types of bridges and the clear
diagrams with all the important information on the chart.
After discussing all of them, it would seem prudent to tell
the audience which you experts prefer and why. The
information given makes it obvious which choices will be
made. Too bad we didn't have the simulations of how the
bridge would look.
Is the reason the bridge curves and goes in front of
Sunnyside to achieve a more gradual rise to the Wisconsin
bluff? With 500 people in Sunnyside, it is too bad the
noise may affect them.
Mr. Lewis did a good job of keeping his cool when a couple
Sunnyside people got rather sarcastic and rude. This is
quite a procedure. Good luck."
16_ "I need further information such as a computer or visual
model of the different bridges and the location_ I do not
feel the location of the north of the South Corridor is
suitable due to the fact of the bridge is almost one mile
long and running up the middle of the river_ That is
destroying too much of the river_"
17_ "We feel that the Minnesota side of the river in this area
is already badly messed up (sad to say), and that we don't
want to see the same thing happen in Wisconsin. Development
simply cannot continue to be done at the expense of the
environment. We cannot have it all, and we opt for more
environmental concern even though we do feel the need for a
new bridge_"
18 "Nothing high, no suspension bridge; mars the view_ All
presented options are not very presentable; looks too
cheap_"
19. "Please don't build a freeway bridge lake at Hudson_ I
think this bridge should be a special, landmark bridge_ The
old Stillwater Bridge is special. It has character and we
identify with it. The new bridge should do the same. I'd
rather suffer the inconvenience of no bridge at all, rather
than live with one that is uninspiring."
20 "This bridge is a boondoggle. It should be stopped now.
There is no tax base to support this project considering the
latest in revenues and taxes_ This bridge meets none of the
standards and designs and environmental impact programs that
should be completed before talking about how it should look.
This bridge should be placed exactly where the old bridge
presently rests. This will be a 100 million dollar mistake
and we as taxpayers will end up paying the bill."
21 "Cable Stayed and suspension are too expensive and have too
high of a visibility impact. Truss bridges look too busy;
need simpler design_ Arch also too busy, but could be
simplified by using delta box design_ This design opens up
arch. If concrete, it would reduce maintenance costs. Also
would allow longer spans, thus fewer pilings in the river.
I would like to see a picture of what it would look like at
next information meeting."
22. (comment letter)
"I respond to your need for public opinion response on
bridge types and design for the above. One type of bridge
that was not mentioned in the information I received was the
cantilevered type structure_ I know this structure has been
used successfully outside of San Diego in California for at
least 15 years and I am sure by now has been used elsewhere
in the United States. That type of construction made for a
very handsome bridge with extremely smooth lines_"
23_ "Having resided in Stillwater for over 50 years, and
occupying the same house overlooking the river vista for
almost 45 years, my wife and I find it difficult to
understand the choice for the north alignment of the South
Corridor_ To us, the south alignment of the South Corridor
would be most plausible both aesthetically and
environmentally_ Such choice would serve to contain the
project in the business and industrial neighborhood adjacent
to the Alan King plant where it belongs_"
24_ This process needs more design input from professionals.
Can't expect the public to provide the process with that -as
was commented at the meeting. Looks as though from the
current process a minimal (cost) type bridge will be
constructed, which represents to me a lost opportunity. The
St. Croix is an unique setting and deserves an unique
bridge_"
25. (comment letter)
"On May 15, 1991, a bridge -type meeting was held in the
Stillwater Senior High School. At that meeting, MnDOTs
staff and the project engineers presented bridge -type
options and selected impact information on various types of
bridges being considered for the St. Croix_
This letter is written to indicate the City of Stillwater's
preference for a medium or high visibility landmark bridge,
rather than a minimal girder bridge (Hudson type bridge).
From the information presented at the meeting, it sounded as
if the girder type bridge may be the only practical option
available based on the curve of the selected corridor
alignment. If this is the case, and a medium visibility or
high visibility structure is not feasible, then
consideration should be given to other South Corridor
locations so that a more aesthetic bridge can be
constructed.
The design of the 95/36 /Osgood interchange will have to be
coordinated with the type selection and although it was not
stated at the meeting, that consideration also seems to have
helped dictate, along with the corridor location, the type
of bridge with the most potential for future consideration.
MnDOT has the capacity to design and build outstanding
bridges as they have in other metropolitan crossings of the
Mississippi, such as the First Avenue bridge, and the City
of Stillwater would like to see a similar effort here on a
National Wild and Scenic River next to the birthplace of
Minnesota_
The City of Stillwater feels any new crossing of the St.
Croix River should be an outstanding unique example of how
nature and bridge design can be made compatible_
The greatest fear is that a minimal low freeway bridge will
be selected for the crossing which will add to the visual
clutter and visual degradation of that section of the river_
As one member of the community said, This is an opportunity
to create a structure that will contribute to the visual
quality and be a design statement for Stillwater, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota_' He suggested building a Charles Lindberg
bridge because of his significance to Minnesota."
MINUTES
RIVERWAY AGENCY BRIDGE TYPE MEETING
Stillwater Public Library
April 15, 1991
ATTENDING: John Sawl, NPS; Henry Hughlett, NPS; Tom Lovejoy,
WI/DNR; Steve Johnson, MN/DNR; Molly Shodeen, MN/DNR; Cheryl Heide,
MN/DNR; Dan McGuinness, MN WI Boundary Area Commission; Jim
Harrison, MN WI Boundary Area Commission; Terry Pederson, WI/DOT;
Mike Louis, MN /DOT; Jeff Erickson, MN/DOT; Craig Churchyard,
MN/DOT; Dick Elasky, MN/DOT; John Steenberg, SEH; Bill Dowd, HDR
Dan McGuinness made introductory remarks and turned floor over to
Mike Louis. Louis provided an overview of type and design process
and the criteria used in the evaluation.
Tom Lovejoy stated that, from the Riverway agency perspective,
there were still a number of unresolved issues such as TSM/NO -BUILD
and the disposition of the existing bridge. Louis responded that
the DOTS understood that these concerns existed. He explained that
the process to determine the future disposition of the existing
bridge would begin when the structure becomes unsafe for further
transportation use.
Both Cheryl Heide and John Bowl reiterated Lovejoy's concerns.
Sowl added that he thought a preliminary design meeting at this
point was premature because of the outstanding unresolved issues.
Heide added that by entering the design phase on a possible new
bridge so early, the final decision could be prejudiced. She said
that postponing a decision on the existing bridge would preclude
the possibility of incorporating its truss elements into any new
structure.
Jim Harrison reviewed the main points in a letter the Lower St.
Croix Management Commission Bent Mn /DOT regarding unresolved
issues. Sowl indicated that whatever comments he made at the
meeting, the National Park Service still reserved the right for
further comment.
Craig Churchyard gave a presentation on "how humans span apace."
According to Churchyard, all bridges can be categorized into three
major groups -post and beam, arch, and tension structures.
John Steenberg made a slide presentation on the six major bridge
types, followed by Bill Dowd's talk on the pros and cons of each
type in the preferred location.
Steve Johnson noted that a through truss would mimic the existing
bridge. Lovejoy asked if there was any chance a new bridge would
be converted to a six -lane facility. Dowd indicated that a through
truss could not be widened. Louis indicated there were no plans to
eventually widen a new structure to six lanes. Steenberg indicated
that it night be possible to repaint lanes and use shoulders to
convert to six -lane facility, but that it would likely not meet
standards.
Lovejoy asked if there was a precedent for working truss elements
onto a girder bridge (in order to mimic existing structure).
Steenberg indicated that the section of the old Broadway Avenue
truss bridge relocated to Nicollet Island relied on girders for its
support. Steenberg explained that truss structures tend to have
high maintenance costs. Dowd stated that sometimes it is more
economical to tear down and replace an old truss structure than
repaint (e.g., 1 -94 at Hudson). The non -lead paints being used
today are more environmentally benign than old lead paints, but
must be applied more frequently.
Dowd explained the need for good foundations with arch bridges, and
how tying the arch to the deck can help provide additional support
in locations where this structure type might otherwise be difficult
to construct. He noted that there had been some safety concerns
with this type of bridge due to lack of structural redundancy, but
that there were ways of addressing this problem (e.g., Smith Ave.
High Bridge design).
Dowd also explained how cable stayed and suspension bridges are
generally used for much longer spans than the other bridge types,
typically over shipping channels. He noted that the towers on a
suspension bridge probably wouldn't need to be as high as depicted
in the line drawing- -the structures would actually be about 260
feet above the deck and 400 feet above the water, with some
variability.
Steenberg noted that the bridge approach on the Wisconsin side of
the river would pass approximately 22 feet under STH 35. Terry
Pederson said that interchange locations on the Wisconsin side of
the river were being studied and that no decision had been made.
Lovejoy asked Dowd if there were any bridge types he didn't feel
were feasible. Dowd said he thought suspension bridges were
questionable for the location. He said that the first five types
would be appropriate from an engineering standpoint.
Sowl asked Dowd about the design criteria the consultants were
given by Mn/DOT. Dowd answered that they were given a relatively
"free hand," with fairly standard geometric parameters.
Sowl also asked about Coast Guard requirements. Louis noted that
60 feet was standard, but that the Coast Guard had agreed to relax
the requirement to 45 feet in the Central Corridor. Steenberg
stated that meeting Coast Guard vertical clearance requirements
would not be a problem at the preferred location.
Sowl asked about the possibility of rehabilitating and expanding
the existing bridge. Steenberg said that a through truss could not
be expanded. Louis noted that rehabilitating the existing bridge
would not address the transportation problem.
Sowl asked about the predicted life of the old bridge. Louis said
that at the time of the DBIS, the lifespan was estimated to be 5 to
15 years until major rehabilitation work would be necessary. Dowd
noted that predicting the lifespan of a bridge was difficult, the
most subjective part of a structural evaluation. Scowl again
inquired about the possibility of integrating elements of the old
structure into a new bridge. Dowd said that this probably would
not be a good idea.
Lovejoy asked Steenberg how much the consultants contract Mss
worth. Steenberg stated it was about $450,000. Lovejoy then asked
Louis about the cost of doing a Section 106 report on the old
bridge. Louis replied that time and cost requirements were
variable.
Lovejoy again reiterated some of the issues the Riverway agencies
felt were unresolved. He claimed that the current design phase was
putting the "cart before the horse," and that the BIS must study
the both the old and new bridge. He stated that agency concerns
had been repeatedly ignored.
Louis said he understood the agency concerns, and agreed there was
disagreement.
Heide asked Louis if he felt the DOTS had been in compliance with
environmental process rules. She asked why the design phase was
beginning so soon. Louis replied that he felt the DOTe were in
compliance with environmental process rules. He also noted that
the Riverway agencies had been asking for more detailed visual
information at much earlier stages in the process.
Lovejoy asked what type of graphics could be expected at future
stages in the process, and whether or not the agencies could see
simulations which had the old bridge both in and out of the
picture. Louis stated that the old bridge would be in the future
graphics work.
Johnson asked whether all the bridge types would be capable of
carrying high voltage electrical lines over the river. Louis
stated that all types would have this capability, although some
would handle the lines better than others.
Johnson asked about the highway design process, which Louis
explained. Johnson noted that there did not appear to be any
conflict between the bridge approach and the new DKR boat launch
area on the Minnesota shore.
Sowl reiterated NPS concerns about the process. He noted the Park
Service might consider this project a candidate for referral to the
President's Council on Environmental Quality.
Johnson said there was no point in continuing to beat on Louis
about the unresolved issues (he noted that both Louis and himself
still had hair when they started process). He said that from the
MN/DNEb perspective, the bridge types with high towers (cable
stayed /suspension) were undesirable. He noted that there was no
way a new bridge could be made to disappear into the landscape and
that it would be pointless to try. The best solution would be to
design a bridge that looked like it had been on the site a long
time. Heide reiterated the MN/DNRs desire for a new structure with
a strong historical flavor to it. Johnson added that he thought a
truss or arch bridge would probably best capture the historical
flavor of the area.
Lovejoy indicated that from the WI/DNR "s perspective, historical
concerns were not so important; the bridge would be some distance
from historical downtown Stillwater. He indicated that tension
bridges would not be a good choice. According to Lovejoy, box and
girder bridge types were preferable, as they had the most potential
for being visually unobtrusive.
Sowi stated that his preliminary position w&a that the box and arch
bridge types were preferable. He amplified Johnson's feeling that
a new bridge should look like it had been in place a long time. He
suggested using native stone veneer on the piers.
MEMO
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY LIQUOR LICENSE
The Business and Professional Women's organization in Stillwater is planning a
luncheon for Saturday, October 26, 1991 and would like to serve a glass of
champagne with the luncheon. According to Liquor Control, since the group is
selling tickets to the luncheon, they need a Temporary License to serve this
glass of champagne.
Please advise your approval /disapproval of this request.
PS- 09079 -01 (8/85)
PHONE 612 296 -6159
NAME OF PERSON MAKING APPLICATION
LEE JOHNSON
DATES LIQUOR WILL BE SOLD? (1 TO 3 DAYS)
SERVED NOT SOLD OCT. 26,1'91
ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME
LEE JOHNSON PRESIDENT
ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME
CLAUDIA MICHAELIS, PRES. ELECT
ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME
PEGGY FRANSEN, VICE PRESIDENT
CITY OF
CITY FEE AMOUNT
DATE FEE PAID
NOTE:
NO
SIGNATURE CITY CLERK
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
LI UOR CONTROL DIVISION
333 SIBLEY ST. PAUL, MN 55101
Location where license will be used. If an outdoor area, describe.
APPLICATION AND PERMIT
FOR A 1 to Z DAY TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION
NAME OF ORGANIZATION DATE ORGANIZED
STILLWATER BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL WOMEN 1924
STREET ADDRESS CITY
RIVER HEIGHTS PLAZA
Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor services? If so, give the name and address of the Liquor licensee providing
the services.
NO WE ARE SERVING ONE GLASS WITH LUNCH (e% (cNq,peLe
Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance? If so, the carrier's name and amount of coverage.
(Note: Insurance is not mandatory)
BUSINESS PHONE
612 430 -1972
DOES ORGANIZATION HAVE A CHARTER GENERAL PURPOSE OF ORGANIZATION
X Yes No 9 T E I A My,ATE THE STANDAM.DS
ADDRESS
914 SO 2ndST STILLWATER
ADDRESS
3451 CHURCHILL DR. WOODBURY, MN 5512
ADDRESS
217 W MOORE ST STILLWATER
APPROVAL
DATE APPROVED
LICENSE DATES
NO. OF MEMBERS
89
APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR
Do not separate these two parts, stand both parts to the address above and the original signed by this division
will be returned as the license. Subinit to the City Clerk at least 30 days before the event.
TAX EXEMPT NUMBER
STATE ZIP CODE
HOME PHONE
612 439 -2843
ENGIN ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC.
September 24, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Attn: Nile Kriesel
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490 -2000
RE: STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
LOWELL INN /RIVERTOWN COMMONS
AND N. MAIN STREET
PARKING LOTS
L.I. 257 AND 259
SEH FILE NO: 89255 90019
As requested, we have contacted the low bidder for the above
referenced project about delaying the construction on the N. Main
Street parking lot until next year. The Contractor is agreeable
to delaying this work, however, he requests additional compen-
sation for remobilization (moving crews into the site a second
time) and anticipated labor and material increases. The
additional amount requested is $5,000. This amount is not
unreasonable and I would recommend that the Council approve this
change order amount and award the contract to Tower Asphalt.
Attached is a change order for your approval.
BCP /cih
Enclosure
cc: Mike Lever, Tower Asphalt
ST PAUL,
MINNESOTA
Sincerely,
Barry C. Peters, P.E.
CHI PPEWA FALLS,
WISCONSIN
5EH
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 612 490 -2000
City of Stillwater September 24, 1991
OWNER
DATE
L.I. 257 259 1
OWNER'S PROJECT NO. CHANGE ORDER NO.
N. Main St. and Lowell Inn /Rivertown Dommons Parking Lots 89255 90019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEH FILE NO.
The following changes shall be made to the contract documents
Description:
Revise Contract Amount and Completion Date.
Purpose of Change Order:
Revise Contract Amount and Contract Completion Time due to Council a request
to delay the construction of the North Main Street Parking Lot until nest spring.
Remobilization $3,500.00
Material and Labor increases 1,500.00
Basis of cost nActual
Attachments (list supporting documents)
See attached.
CONTRACT STATUS
Recommended for Approval SIIORT— ELLIOTT— I3ENDRICKSON, INC.
Barry C. Peters P.E.
Agreed to by Contractor: Approved for Owner:
By
TITLE
Distribution
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENDRICKSON INC.
ri Estimated
Time Cost
Original Contract November 15, 1991 $132,588.15
Net Change Prior C.O.'s
Change this C.O. 5,000.00
Revised Contract June 15, 1992 $137,588.15
By
By
Contractor 2 Owner Project Representative 1 SEH Office 1
ST PAUL,
MINNESOTA
CHANGE ORDER
CHIPPEWA FALLS,
WISCONSIN
TAFF REQU ST ITEM
L y /i4K-�
�EYARTMENT 1ft'K� MEETING DATE
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Briefly outline what the request is)
e)
c Jz ,'v /-D/A 5 7 Ze-
fJtS/ .Jj2 1� �5'' J u`I/'e; L (4
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED YES NO
xi' 1 12
FINANCIAL IMPACT (Briefly outline the casts, if any, that are
associated with this request and the proposed source of the funds
needed to fund the request)
ALL COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK A
MINIMUM OF FIVE W/ DAYS P IOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
COUNCIL MEETING I s7 TO B 'L ED IN THE COUNCIL MATE.IA PACKET.
SUBMITTED BY 6 �1_46Y47 DATE 1
THE WASHLXGTON COL\TY
BOARD OF CO_vLVIISSIONERS
INVITES YOU TO A
roue 3TEETING
City Date Place Time
Forest Lake October 3 City Hall 7:00 p.m
Stillwater October 10 Government 7:00 p.m
Center
Woodbury October 17 City Hall 7:00 p.m
Oakdale October 21 City Hall 7:00 p.m
Cottage Grove October 22 City Hall 7:00 p.m
The purpose of these town meetings is to inform County residents about County services
and to gather citizen input on the proposed 1992 Washington County budget. Anyone
wishing to ask questions or comment on the budget is urged to do so. If you would like
to make written comment, please send in the insert included with this newsletter, or bring
it with you to the town meeting in your area.
The County Board will use this input in shaping the 1992 budget to be presented at a Truth
in Taxation public hearing to be held on November 18 at the Washington County
Government Center in Stillwater.
WA HINGTON COUNTY
O FILE OF ADMINISTRATION
PLAN 1NG AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION
GOVERNMENT CENTER
14900 61ST ST IEET NORTH. P.O. BOX 6 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-0006
Office: 612/430-3003 FAX: 612/430 -6017
TO: Washington County Communities
rNINK
FROM: Jeff Hanson, 7ublic Information Coordinator
DATE: September 19, 1991
RE: Washington County Town Meetings
During the month of Oc the Washington County Board will be
conducting five town iu etings. The purpose of the meetings is to
get input from county :-esidents on the proposed 1992 budget.
In an attempt to make county residents aware of the meetings, we
need your help.
Please post the enclosed poster in a visible location.
If you have any questions, please call me at 430 -6010.
/sb
Attachment
Robert J. Lockyear
Director
Jeff Hanson
Intergovernmental Relauc;
Jane Harper
Physical Development
Lois Yellowthunder
Human Services
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: PUBLIC WORK-,S DIRECTOR
RE: RECOMMENDATION FOR FULL
TIME LABORER /it INT WKR.
DA: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991
PER COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION A JOB OPENING FOR A FULL TIME LABORER /MAINT.
WORKER WAS POSTED FOR FIVE 5) WORKING DAYS ON ALL CITY BULLETIN BOARDS.
I T WAS THE INTENTION OF THE CITY TO EMPLOYEE SOMEONE FROM THE EXISTING
PUBLIC WORKS PART-TIME WORK FORCE OR IN OTHER WORDS INCREASE THE HOUR'S
OF ONE OF OUR PART -TIME PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES. THEREFORE, THE CITY DID
NOT ADVERTIZE FOR THIS POSITION OUTSIDE OF THE WORK FORCE AND ACCORD-
ING TO THE CITY COORDINATOR WE DID NOT HAVE TO BECAUSE THE PART -TIME EM-
PLOYEES WERE HIRED THRU THE ADVERTIZING PROCESS. EVEN THOUGH WE DID NOT
ADVERTIZE THIS POSITION WE RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO
IS NOT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED BY THE CITY IN ANY CAPACITY AND WE RECEIVED
APPLICATIONS FROM TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AS PARTTIME
FIERFIGHTERS. WE ALSO RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FROM TWO INDIVIDUAL'S WHO ARE
PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AS PART -TIME LABORER /MAINT. WORKERS AND WHO I BELEIVE
ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE POSITION.
BASED ON PAST WORK EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FULL -TIME EMPLOYMENT OF KENNETH KRESS FOR
THE LABORERIMAINT. WORKER POSITION. KEN HAS BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE CITY IN
THAT CAPACITY FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, HAS A CLASS SD SEWER MAINTAIN
PNCE LICENSE, A CLASS B COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENCE, AS WELL AS A SECOND
CLASS B BOILERS LICENSE. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELEIVE THAT THE COUNCIL IS
OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS 1 THINK KEN WOULD
STILL BE THE MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE.
PETER RACCHINI AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
GETTY BUILDING 2150 THIRD ST. WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55110
TELEPHONE 612 429 -5376
Nile Kreisel, City Coordinator
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Kreisel:
As per our telephone conversation, we will perform the
necessary professional services for the above project for an
estimated fee of $1,800.00.
Our services will include:
Drawings and specifications to advertise for bids
Taking of bids
Writing construction contract
On -site construction observations as necessary
Very truly yours,
PETER RACCHINI AND ASSOCIATES
Peter L. Racchini
PLR:vr
Sept. 20, 1991
Re: Fire Station
Ventilating System
D