Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090615 - VIII-C-5MEMORANDUM TO: honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Osberg, City Administrator DATE: June 11, 2009 SUBJECT: Resolution-Comments on Highway 61 Hastings Bridge Project EA RECOMIV~ENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hastings Offering Comments on the Highway 61 Hastings Bridge Project Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(~ Evaluation. " BACKGROUND Staff reported to the City Council at the June 1, 2009 meeting on the need to comment on the Environmental Assessment prior to the June 17, 2009. Adoption of this Resolution autiines the comments and concerns of the City regarding the pending Highway 61 bridge project. Throughout the last month, Staff has conducted three internal meetings to review and comment on the significant document, which was released about two months ago by MnDOT. Each Staff member involved in the project was tasked with reading the document and preparing notes for consideration to include in the attached Resolution. Staff assisting in the preparation of the Resolution included Police Chief Mike McMenomy, Fire Chief Mike Schutt, EDRA Director John Grossman, Planning Director John Hinzman, City Engineer Nick Egger, Public Works Director Tom Montgomery, and Parks and Recreation Director Barry Bernstein. As the City Council will note, there are numerous topics in which comments were offered in the Resolution. It is also Staff's intent to continue meeting with MnDOT Staff throughout the balance of the project, offering comments and suggestions on the entire depth of the project, as our bi-weekly meetings with MnDOT Staff have been very beneficial maintaining. the needed dialogue on such a significant project. The City Council is encouraged to review closely the major points outlined in the Resolution to assure the most signif cant topics are included in this official Resolution that is intended to offer the City's officials comments on the EA and Draft Section 4{f) Evaluation. Recognize the additional opportunities which will remain for the City Council and City Staff to engage in discussions with MnDOT throughout the course of the entire Highway 61 Hastings Bridge Project. Should there be comments or suggestions during the course of the meeting on Monday June 15, 2009, those can be incorporated in the final Resolution prior to the submittal deadline of Wednesday June 17, 2009. David M. Osberg City Administrate RESOLUTION # Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hastings Offering Comments on the Highway 61 Hastings Bridge Project Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT} has indentified the Highway 61 Hastings Bridge as not having structural redundancy nor the functional capability for current or future projected traffic; thereby creating a need for replacement of said Bridge; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has determined the project will consist of a replacement of the existing Highway 61 Bridge over the Mississippi River in the City of Hastings with one four-lane bridge or two two-lane bridges; and WHEREAS, The project will also include the construction of a ring road on the north side of the river for safer vehicle access to Highway 61 and safer pedestrian crossing of the highway; and WHEREAS, The Environmental Assessment (EA) provides background information on the need for the proposed improvements, alternatives, environmental impacts and mitigation, and agency coordination and public involvement for the proposed bridge replacement project and road construction project on Highway 61; and WHEREAS, The EA is also used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement or that a 1~inding Of No Significant Impact is appropriate; and WHEREAS, Written comments on the EA will be received until June 17, 2009 and will be included in the official record, and the comments received will be considered in deciding whether there is the potential for this project to result in significant impacts to the environment and whether an EIS is needed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS, THIS 15~ DAY OF JUNE, 2009 AS FOLLOWS: A.) Mississippi River Trail. Considerable effort must be made by MnDOT to recognize the importance of the Mississippi River Trail and the fact it is of national significance, with benefits that expand beyond the City of Hastings. Further reference in the EA and other supporting documents should properly characterize the trail as the Mississippi River Trail and eliminate its reference as the Hastings Loop Trail. The importance of the connection needed from the Highway 61 Bridge project to the existing trail under the bridge should be more significantly emphasized in the EA document. Furthermore, any adverse impacts to the trail located behind the Hudson facility adjacent to the Mississippi River must be properly mitigated. B.} Anti-Icing Facility. The City of Hastings opposes locating any anti-icing facility on the south side of the bridge in the- vicinity of Downtown Hastings, a National Register Historic District. The entire footprint of the anti-icing facility must be kept to a minimum, thus assuring a reasonably positive visual quality on the north side of the bridge. Furthermore, should MnDOT be unable construct the anti-icing facility under the bridge, it should be constructed in the confines of the embankment. C.) Bird Strikes. The EA includes contradictory information regarding prevalence of migratory bird strikes and mitigation measures. Page #47 of the EA states the "Hastings Bridge is located in a developed area and not within an area of extensive natural riverine habitat that would attract concentrations of migratory birds." Although the EA does not predict an extensive quantity of migratory birds, a number of mitigation measures have been outlined to limit the impact of bird strikes. The mitigation measures restrict bridge height and lighting and are not necessary if migratory birds are not present. D.) Staging Area. Future reference to the staging area in the vicinity of Jaycee Park must properly reflect the fact it is owned by the City of Hastings. Restoration to its existing condition, at no expense to the City of Hastings is of extreme importance to the City of Hastings and must remain a priority to MnDOT. With the proposed staging azea near Lake Rebecca, this will create a large volume of trafl=lc, specifically at the intersection of West 2na Street and Spring Street. Proper monitoring of traffic management will be important, at this area, and also during rush hour due to the large volume of traffic that travels Highway 55 by way of Spring Lake Park, through town to the 3ra Street bridge access area. E.} Social & Economic Impacts. The proposed 3-4 year construction time frame will impact travel and business to downtown Hastings. The EA recognizes vehicular access, noise, and dust will be detrimental to downtown business owners during bridge construction. Limiting impact to downtown businesses must remain a priority during bridge construction Any use of explosives during construction must include a mitigation plan that includes removal and delivery on a daily basis, with no overnight storage. . F.) Preference of Bridge Type. The City of Hastings is strongly in support of MnDOT constructing a Cable Stayed Bridge. Throughout its 152 year history, Hastings has been at the forefront of landmark bridges, being the first and only City to have a Spiral Bridge, and the first City in Minnesota to have a Steel Tied Arch Continuous Truss Bridge. As a significant river City, it is imperative another legacy bridge is constructed in Hastings and a Cable Stayed Bridge would continue that legacy as the first of its kind in the State of Minnesota built to carry vehicular traffic. The City is opposed to a box girder bridge, in particular due to the deeper structure required to carry the load carrying members at or below deck level, because this type of bridge would take an additional year to huild compared to the other alternatives, and because this type of bridge has risen to ubiquity in the State of Minnesota, thereby impairing its ability to be distinctive or groundbreaking. G.) Recreational Boating. It is imperative that MnDOT understand the importance of recreational boating in this area of the Mississippi River, both during and after construction, and that all efforts are undertaken to assure such opportunities. Closure of the navigation channel during the course of construction must be kept to a minimum. H.) Traffic Calming. All efforts should be made to assure extensive traffic calming measures are properly implemented throughout the entire stretch of the bridge project limits. I.) Physical Sensitivity of Historic Districts. MnDOT must be especially sensitive to the needs of the historical buildings in the area near downtown, and in particular the City Hall building as it relates to vibration, blasting and any construction activities that would have an impact on the facilities. As noted on Page # 14, all efforts must include a commitment to recognize that "the downtown district is one of the essential elements that sets Hastings apart from other cities. The proposed project needs to be consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods." While the City understands "the location and magnitude of construction vibrations cannot be fully assessed until the final design phase of the project, it is imperative that timely and thorough communication with property owners who may effected by vibration be a primary mission of MnDOT. J.) Tree Mitigation. MnDOT must comply with and is encouraged to exceed the tree mitigation policy of the City of Hastings, in particular in the area near the bridge construction and downtown areas, and also the staging area. Compliance with MnDOT's recommended replacement guidelines must be matched by compliance with the City's tree mitigation policy. K.) Visual Impact of East Lattice Tower. The City ofHastings expresses its extreme concern that only one of the twin lattice towers flanking the bridge is scheduled for replacement. Leaving the eastern lattice tower while replacing its twin on the west side of the bridge with a shorter, monopole tower will create a detrimental visual impact to the primary gateway to the City of Hastings. The EA sections on nearby resources, scenic resources, infrastructure and historic impacts do not mention or address the visual impact of the tower east of the bridge. Should the lattice tower remain, it will have a negative impact upon the views to and from the bridge and the Second Street Historic Districts and the Historic City Hall (former Dakota County Courthouse). -The existing towers, despite their dated appearance, are symmetrical. Replacement by monopoles on each side of the bridge approach would also be synunetrical. if not replaced, the east lattice tower will stand out dramatically compared to the contemporary monopole and the new bridge. Therefore the City strongly encourages the replacement of the east lattice tower with a monopole as a mitigation of a visual impact, funded by the bridge project budget. L.) Future Trail Connection. MnDOT has committed to allow a future trail connection to the bridge, thus allowing the opportunity for the City to continue the discussion and research on the possibility of connecting a "spiral bridge" trail to the new bridge. The City is in support of this commitment by MnDOT. M.) Storm Water Treatme~-t Facilities. The storm water management plan should not include any above ground storm water treatment or ponding basins on the south end of the project near the downtown area of the City. N.) 4t~ Street Intersection. To preserve the current on-street parking capabilities on 4'h Street near its intersection with Highway 61, and because it was determined that asplit-phase signal configuration is not feasible at this intersection, the City prefers no overall physical layout changes to the 4th Street legs of the intersection. O.) North Project Limit. The extent of the project limits on the north end of the project should be expanded to more accurately depict and explore options for improving the traffic safety. The EA should include adescription/discussion of why the north project limits are not extended, as it relates to the access point at King's Cove, and the left hand turning movement. The City contends the EA is inadequate as the Project termini do not extend beyond the bridge over the CP Railway. P.) Flood Management Plan. The EA is incomplete as there is not enough information to conclude that MnDOT has adequately addressed a flood management plan, in particular for the area near and at the staging area. Past experience would suggest the likelihood for flooding in that area, along with others near. the Mississippi River would require alternative staging areas during the course of the construction project. Flooding potential bears significant consideration for contingency planning. Q.) Solid Waste Removal. The EA is incomplete as there appears to be inadequate information illustrating the demolition and other solid waste removal plan during the construction project, and in particular a traffic management plan for waste removal vehicles. Ail haulers involved in solid waste removal must be properly licensed by the City of Hastings. R.) Materials from Existing Bridge. Demolition of the existing bridge, as described on Page #33 should include an opportunity for the City to retain sections of the bridge to allow for a monument or artwork of some sort. S.) Emergency Management. Emergency management during the course of any emergency at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant in Red Wing will be imperative. 'The Cottage Grove National Guard armory is a decontamination site for the public and Highway 61 and the Bridge serve as the primary evacuation route to this facility. If there is a bridge closure, extensive coordination between Nuclear Management Company and the Minnesota Department of Homeland Security should take place. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hastings, this 15te Day of June, 2009. Ayes: Nays: Paul J. Hicks Mayor Melanie Mesko Lee City Clerk