03-20-90 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TKDA l .EERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS March 7, 1990 David R. Jessup., Public Works Director Woodbury City Hall 8301 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 Re: I-494 Access Improvement Study Woodbury, Minnesota Dear Mr. Jessup: TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL. ANOERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED 2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 612 2�w FAX 61=124063 On March 6, 1990, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the I-494 Access Improvement Study. The purpose of this letter is to transmit those comments to you in accordance with the Notice of Public Hearing. The following are Lake Ehno's comments: 1. Lake Elmo finds there is no envirorunental impact on Lake Elmo from the proposed unproved access to I-494. 2. Lake Ehno finds there is a negative economic impact on Lake Elmo because Federal, State and County monies are proposed to be used on the improvements which will provide a benefit only to Woodbury. Although not part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the I-494 Access Study did propose an extension of Bielenberg Drive north on its present alignment over I- 94 and into Lake Elmo. Please be advised that the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan has not made provisions'for this extension. If Woodbury wishes to continue to show this extension on its planing documents, a better location may be farther to the east. Your proposed aligmment lines tip with an existing commercial building, a wetland shown to be utilized on Lake Elmo's drainage plan, and an existing petroleum pipeline. 4. The I-494 Access Improvement Area is generally within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. The southwest comer of Lake Elmo is also within this District. In 1986, we reviewed the water management plan for Lake EImo and found that the plan limited Lake Elmo's discharge to 5 cfs even though under present undeveloped conditions the discharge is 20 cfs. The Watershed's engineers told us that Lake Elmo's discharge must be limited to 5 cfs because of Woodbury's 922 cfs discharge from Pond C7A (see attached map). It seemed to us that 922 cfs was an incorrect number. At that time, we talked with Joe Andera and found that Woodbury's drainage plan had no such large discharge for that area. We also know of no existing structure under 1-494 to pass that kind of flow. We wrote to the Watershed's engineer pointing out what we felt was an error and received no response.