Consider Visual Quality Options for Design Options of the Future Armstrong Interchange

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 if that is the policy direction of the City Council.

Generally speaking, Staff is seeking direction on the level of desire aesthetic treatment of bridge sections, retaining walls, landscaping, and lighting. These design choices will have an impact on the City's contribution to the improvement project and staff has been attempting to balance the design of this gateway with realistic cost assumptions. SRF has prepared three options for review. Specific details of each option are contained within the attached presentation.

1. Option 1 is the basic design, which costs would be covered by Anoka County.
2. Option 2 is a 'mid-level' option with partial enhancement. The basic design costs of above would be covered by Anoka County, with the increase/cost differential being the responsibility of the City.
3. Option 3 is the 'high-level' design throughout the project. The funding split would be the same as Option 2 above; however the City's total contribution would increase, as the cost of the project would increase with the added aesthetics.

Staff is recommending that the City Council, by consensus, direct Staff to focus efforts on a final visual design of the Armstrong Interchange somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2. Staff is very cognizant of the cost implications of these choices and the current funding approvals and funding requests. With that in mind, Staff is in need of general policy direction to respond to questions raised by SRF in design. The City will 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 (Mn/DOT) by March 28, 2014, meaning many of these visual design choices need to be made in the coming weeks.

15 minutes, if available.

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).

Development Services Manager
City Engineer

The desired outcome of this topic report is to obtain general policy direction to focus Staff's efforts in assisting in the final visual design choices for the Armstrong Interchange. It is not the intent of this case to seek detailed design choices. There are still a number of unknowns in the design and funding that prevent detailed design review from being a productive discussion.