Agenda - Council Work Session - 02/25/2014

Home

1. Does Council support providing underground conduit to center medians with green areas to accommodate irrigation for future landscaping? Staff recommends supporting the installation of underground conduit to allow for future irrigation of green/landscaped median areas due to the low cost to install conduit with the project. 2. Does Council desire intersection lighting only vs. continuous lighting along Armstrong Boulevard? Staff recommends that Council allow Staff to explore the use of continuous lighting during final design, as well as estimating costs to install underground conduit in the boulevards to allow for future lighting along the corridor if continuous lighting is not supported at this time. Again, Staff is very cognizant of the cost implications of these choices and the current funding approvals and funding requests. With that in mind, Staff will respond to questions raised by SRF during final design per Council's previous direction to work with SRF to develop a design containing aesthetic enhancements that fall somewhere between the base design option (Level 1) and the mid -level design option (Level 2). The City will still have additional opportunities to influence detailed, final design at future key dates, provided that the design choices do not impact structural design components. Anoka County tentatively plans to submit final plans to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) by March 28, 2014, meaning many of these visual design choices need to be made in the coming weeks. Timeframe: 15 minutes. Funding Source: Potential funding sources include Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (rail station construction contingency surplus) or Tax Increment Financing District No. 14 (an internal loan for an interim period of time would be required as there is not currently increment available in TIF District No. 14). Responsible Party(ies): Development Services Manager City Engineer Outcome: The desired outcome of this case is to obtain Council direction on those items listed herein to allow SRF to continue working towards final design completion for the Armstrong Interchange. There are still some unknowns in the design and funding that prevent detailed design review from being a productive discussion at this time. Attachments Aesthetic Level Options Wall Treatment Costs Streetscape Costs Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Tim Gladhill Tim Gladhill 02/20/2014 11:59 AM Kurt Ulrich Kurt Ulrich 02/20/2014 03:15 PM Form Started By: Bruce Westby Started On: 02/18/2014 11:25 AM Final Approval Date: 02/20/2014