Consider Authorization for Public Workshop to Evaluate Frontage Road Alternative on Highway 10 at Tungsten Street

The purpose of this case is to consider authorization to schedule a public meeting for property owners near the Tungsten Street access point on the south side of Highway 10.

As the City Council is aware, a seven (7) lot single-family on Rivlyn Avenue was previously granted approval, but the project was canceled due to discovered construction debris in sub-grade soil conditions. Taking a step back from that approval, the City Council took action to select a Preferred Alternative for a future frontage road part of the Highway 10 Access Planning Study that indicated a lack of support for the alternative that would have conflicted with Village Bank's development proposal.

Notification not required for the requested action.

Staff recently met with representatives from Village Bank, Lano Equipment, and Dahlheimer Beverage. All three (3) stakeholders are directly impacted with alternatives for a planned frontage road resulting from the Highway 10 Access Planning Study. In updating the stakeholders on the status of Ridgepoint, the group discussed re-evaluating the 'backage road' concept that was previously rejected by the City. Given the current information (cancelation of Village Bank's planned development), it made sense to re-evaluate this alternative, or some variation thereof. No official action is technically required to keep the backage road as a potential alternative; it still exists in the Study. However, the City did adopt a resolution objecting to the backage road. The City Council should adopt a new resolution if it so desires.

Other scenarios beyond Village Bank's development plan have changed since accepting the Highway 10 Access Planning Study. Most notably, a project is under construction in the City of Anoka that will require further refinement of the backage road concept. Additionally, one of the stakeholders has suggested an alternative that would directly impact existing single-family homes on the north side of Rivlyn Avenue.

Given the complexity of the request made by these stakeholders, Staff believes additional time is necessary beyond simply adoption a resolution of support. Staff particularly wants to review this scenario with the surrounding residential neighborhoods before taking any future steps. This neighborhood has been an active participate in the Highway 10 Study as well as previous land use/Comprehensive Plan processes that included elements of this discussion.

Alternative 1: Begin the process of evaluating the alternative approach as outlined above.

Alternative 2: Simply adopt a resolution of support for this alternative at this time without further engagement.

Alternative 3: Do not consider the backage road concept further. There are certainly challenges to overcome with this approach. Ultimately, consider a revision to this backage road concept will require the engagement of a traffic engineer/civil engineer due to the current and changing tight, physical conditions of the site(s).

This case is being handled as part of normal Staff duties.

Staff recommends the City Council direct Staff to host a public meeting to review the potential to add the Tungsten Area Backage Road as an acceptable alternative. Staff would then bring the results of that meeting as well as a potential resolution of support following this step. It may be necessary to bring an interim case forward between these two (2) steps in order to engage the services of a civil engineer for feasibility.

Motion to direct Staff to host a public meeting to review the potential to add the Tungsten Area Backage Road as an acceptable alternative.