Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/25/2014

Home

CC Work Session 2. 1. Meeting Date: 02/25/2014 Information Title: Consider Visual Quality Design Options for Armstrong Boulevard Interchange Purpose/Background: The purpose of this case is to review general policy direction to assist the Anoka County Highway Department, through SRF Consulting Group, complete final design of the Armstrong Interchange as it relates to the final aesthetics and finishes of the improvement project design. Please note, the attached figures are for comparison purposes only. The intent of this case is to provide general direction so more detailed final design can be completed. As staff balances aesthetics with cost implications, staff did not want to lose the opportunity to add design elements that may be of importance to the City Council. It is perfectly acceptable to choose the base design (no additional cost to the City) if that is the policy direction of the City Council. Generally speaking, Staff is seeking direction on the level of desired aesthetic treatment of bridge wall sections, retaining walls, fencing/railings, landscaping, and street and pathway lighting. These design choices will have an impact on the City's cost contribution to this important improvement project, which will serve as a gateway to the COR and will likely set a precedent for the design of future interchanges throughout this section of the highway 10 corridor. Staff has been attempting to balance the design of this gateway improvement with realistic cost assumptions and as such asked SRF to prepare three aesthetic design options for City review purposes. Specific details of each option are contained within the attached presentation. 1. Option 1 (or Level 1) is the base design for which all costs would be covered by Anoka County. 2. Option 2 (or Level 2) is a 'mid -level' design option with partial aesthetic enhancements. The base design costs as noted above would be covered by Anoka County, but the increased cost differential would be the responsibility of the City. 3. Option 3 (or Level 3) is the 'high-level' design option with the greatest amount of aesthetic enhancements throughout the project. The funding split would be the same as Option 2 above but the City's total contribution would increase significantly with the added aesthetics. This item was discussed very briefly during the last Council work session. At that time, Council did provide general direction to staff to work with SRF to develop a design containing aesthetic enhancements that fell somewhere between the base design option (Level 1) and the mid -level design option (Level 2). However, since this direction was provided, SRF has indicated that they require some more specific direction on several items. Staff is therefore requesting additional Council direction this evening through consensus on the following items. Bridges 1. Does Council support brick pilasters above the decking and at bridge corners using a thin brick veneer? This item impacts the structural design of the bridge. Staff does not recommend this option as there is evidence that the brick veneer could cause maintenance issues in the future. 2. Does Council support ornamental steel "picket" style railing (6" picket spacing) vs. chain link fencing? Staff recommends supporting this option due to the significant aesthetic benefits versus the relatively low cost increase over chain link fencing. Retaining Walls 1. Does Council support brick pilasters using a form -liner with multi -color finish? Staff recommends that Council allow Staff to explore this option during final design. 2. Does Council support ornamental steel "picket" style railing (6" picket spacing) vs. chain link fencing on Wall G? As with the bridge, staff recommends supporting this option due to the positive benefit -cost ratio. Streetscape