Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/08/2011

Home

CC Work Session Date: 02/08/2011 By: Tim Himmer Engineering/Public Works Information Item #: 2. 2. Title: Discuss design considerations for City project 11 -21; intersection signalization at Armstrong and Bunker Lake Boulevards, and associated infrastructure improvements to serve the Legacy Christian Academy development Background: The Legacy Christian Academy (LCA) project, and associated feasibility study for infrastructure improvements to serve the development, were approved by Council on December 14, 2010. The final scope of improvements from the feasibility study included the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain, the westerly extension of Bunker Lake Boulevard to Puma Street (as a reduced /temporary section) with storm sewer and a bituminous trail, a paved Puma Street with a bituminous trail, and a bituminous trail along Armstrong Boulevard from Bunker Lake Boulevard to Alpine Drive. This final scope was added to the existing Armstrong /Bunker Lake Boulevard signalization project plan set, and an engineering services contract was awarded to WSB & Associates on January 11, 2011 to prepare final construction documents and provide bidding and construction administration services for the project. Observations: During review of preliminary designs and advancement of final construction documents a few issues have been identified that staff is requesting Council input on prior to proceeding with portions of the project. One item is the feasibility and timing of constructing the trail segment along Armstrong Boulevard. There is limited space in a few locations to fit this trail within the existing right -of -way, which would require the purchase of additional land and /or easements. Anoka County is currently working to extend the temporary construction easements for the project, and one of them would need to be converted to a permanent easement and /or fee ownership to allow construction of the trail across the vacant property directly south of the fire station. The property owner has stated in the past that they are not supportive of selling small pieces of their property over time, but would rather prefer selling it all. Staff has contacted them to discuss whether they would be open to converting the existing temporary easement, and we intend to meet with them in the near future. If the property owner is unwilling to negotiate the purchase of such a trail easement the cross section through this area would not allow for construction of the trail, as there would only exist approximately 6' from the proposed back of curb to the property line. There are other issues associated with this trail segment as well; including wetland impacts (additional mitigation), grades, property impacts (tree loss and potential retaining walls), drainage, and future alignment when the ultimate expansion to the roadway is constructed. Anoka County has stated that they would be supportive of this trail segment in their right -of -way provided that the City secure any additional easements or right -of -way needed to accommodate it, ditch capacity can be maintained, and it would not interfere with the future 4 -lane expansion of the roadway. They have stated that they would like an agreement in place which makes the City responsible to cover the cost to reconstruct this trail if it cannot be incorporated into the future design of the roadway expansion. Staff is looking for direction from Council on this trail segment as it relates to easement acquisitions and a future funding agreement with Anoka County. A few options to consider include: • Advance acquisition of easements through condemnation if the property owner is an unwilling seller. This would require an extended timeline and result in a stand -alone trail project in the future (not constructed with this improvement project). • Forego construction of the trail segment at this time until easements can be secured through negotiations or a development proposal on the property, which would require the property owner to construct it. • Consider relocating the trail to the east side of Armstrong, which would result in similar issues on that side of the road (property impacts, easements, utility conflicts, etc.). This option just transfers the concerns and