Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - C.R. 12 Project Report MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT APRIL 3,2006 10A STEVE ALBRECHT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT ON COUNTY ROAD 12 PROJECT Introduction At the March 6, 2006, City Council meeting staff was directed to update the Council on the status of the CR 12 project. Historv On August 16, 2004, the City Council passed a resolution formally approving the CR 12 layout and design from TH 13 to CR 17. This project incorporated an extensive public involvement process that included three open houses, three target-group-area meetings and a public hearing that extended over 2 City Council meetings with several hours of testimony by the public. Residents, namely those in 3rd phase of the project did not support the approved design that incorporated two sidewalks along CR 12 from Sunset Trail to the realignment segment. After the City Council completed a detailed review of the safety and ROW implications of the two-sidewalk design, which is 90-95% complete, the design was approved by the City Council. Upon passage of the City Council resolution, the County Board approved the project and the County began project design late in 2004. Originally, the project was expected to begin construction in 2006. However, in the fall of 2004, the County revised the Transportation Implementation Plan and the balance of the project with the exception of the realignment section (phase 1) and CR 12/TH13 intersection (phase 2) was moved to 2010 due to budget constraints. The County Road 12 project is being constructed in phases based on the plans approved in 2004 by the City and County. Construction of the realignment segment (phase 1) including Spring Lake Regional Park is well under way. The CR12/TH13 intersection or phase 2 is scheduled for reconstruction in 2007. Phase 3 of the project which includes the remaining segments from Elm Avenue west to the realignment segment and from east of Shoreline Lane to CR 17 are scheduled for 2010. The County has expended more than $650,000 on project development and design to date based on the approval received from the City of Prior Lake in 2004. Current Circumstances At the March 6, 2006, City Council meeting Jim Weninger of 2591 Spring Lake Road, Prior Lake, requested that the City Council evaluate the status of the project and reconvene an advisory committee to evaluate and potentially redesign certain segments of the project, specifically from Sunset Trail to the realignment segment. Mr. Weninger also expressed concerns related to the www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 wildlife crossings and overhead power. Staff was directed by the Council to provide a status report on the project. City Staff contacted Leslie Vermillion (County Public Works Director), Mitch Rasmussen (County Engineer) and Chris Chromy (Project Engineer - Bolton & Menk) to verify the project status. The following is based on those discussions and correspondence. Under County Staff direction, the County's consultant is 90-95% complete with the plan design for the corridor. Additionally the County will begin the parcel acquisition process for the balance of the project later this year based on legal parcel documents that have been completed by the County's consultant. As previously mentioned the County has expended more than $650,000 to date on this project. City Staff estimates that more than $200,000 of that money has been spent on the design from Sunset Trail to the realignment segment of the project where the two-sidewalk issue has been raised by Mr. Weninger. City Staff discussed redesign of the corridor with the County and has the following comments: 1) The City of Prior Lake previously approved the project as designed based on safety considerations given traffic counts and projections. Nothing has suggested that the traffic counts or projections are in error or will change. A detailed analysis of all the sidewalk alternatives was conducted and considered prior to the decision. 2) Given that the City's position is not arbitrary but based upon analysis and considerable discussion, the County would not consider a redesign at this time. 3) Considerable time and money has been spent by the County based on the design approved by the City of Prior Lake. 4) No other approvals are required at this time from the City to proceed with the project other than the final Cooperative Agreement. The Cooperative Agreement is a document that establishes the cost sharing and responsibilities for construction. In response to Mr. Weninger's other concerns staff offers the following clarifications: 1) Considerable time and effort was spent accommodating wildlife in the corridor. The Project Team decided that the numerous driveway aprons, which have a 2+-inch rise versus the four-inch rise in surmountable curb, would sufficiently accommodate turtles and other wildlife crossings in the residential area. As for the realignment section, safety considerations on the curves dictated that most of the segment has barrier type curb. However, several 100 feet at the east end of the segment near the large wetland have been proposed as surmountable curb to accommodate wildlife. 2) Mr. Weninger stated that there were only four or so overhead services at this time that would need to be buried. A field review by staff shows there are more than 40 services that would need to be buried east of the Spring Lake Regional Park. The City will be contacting residents later this spring to discuss burial of power in the corridor as discussed at our February 6,2006 meeting. As for the City Councils previous decision to relocate the overhead power in the realignment segment, this decision does not prevent future burial of that section. At this time however it is neither practical nor does the City have the funds available to complete the burial based on reasons discussed at the February 6 meeting. ISSUES: The County does not intend to revisit the aforementioned design considerations. The County has expended more than $650,000 on this project in reliance on the 2004 City Council approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: When the project proceeds as currently designed, the costs detailed in the Capital Improvement Program for CR 12 should be relatively accurate. The County has indicated that they will not entertain redesign requests. Were they to change their mind in the future, I would anticipate the County seeking reimbursement for funds spent on the design beyond the normal Cooperative Agreement apportionment and the redesign costs. Depending on the level of redesign this could cost anywhere from $50,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. As noted above the County has spent more than $650,000 to date on this project of which a substantial portion has been dedicated to the segment from Sunset Trail to the realignment segment. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Receive and file the report. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends alternative number 1. "., , , B les, City Manager