Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous~I~~'Tl ~i17~r-f~-~-~-~I?~~`~C/ C RIO GRANDE BL ~~ 1~on 700 R= I~} ______ S /~oa ~-Z <------ ~~ y?W Q Y ~'1'°i • T~~s SCHAFFER REZONING Traffic Considerations Three Options for Collector Traffic 1. CONNECT NEIGHBORHOODS. Design streets to make it quicker and more convenient for traffic in R-2 portion to use Graham and Victoria. PROS. o Optimal Fire/Ambulance Response_ o Improved Access to Park for Edelweiss/area to west. o Improved Access to Hospital for Edelweiss/area to west. CONS o Higher traffic volumes on Edelweiss residential streets. o Concerns for child safety due to increased traffic. 2. DO NOT CONNECT NEIGHBORHOODS PROS o Lower traffic volumes in Edelweiss.. o> Lessened concern for child safety. CONS o Less than optimal fire/ambulance response. o Higher cost to provide sanitation services. o Lessened accessibility to park and hospital. 3. ARNOLD ROAD AS COLLECTOR PROS Collector traffic where: it less impacts Neighborhoods. Street in place to serve park, hospital,. school traffic. CONS Already spent $'s on bike path design. Uy~nbudgeted, fun~jds woul,/d~ have to be found. D1 Ci~A.6ayQ 0~ fSP ~fa. ®t iv'° N~~y~,~t p~~d~~~ ~t,.~-t`~~-L~ ' ;~j/X,G~~.. dt.-y Go-G•~~,'t~`Y ~~F'~..Ctw. gr~.Yy 9~ `~r 2-dv~ "~) ter ~~.~(!~'- . ~/~J~y~~ Qf ~ `" 1 J !' ~f.C.~ ~ aGf~jyU~-„~',,._..~ZG~~f'Gi-7rlC,~ ~-/ ~f/"~..- ~... ~1 'lU RiC ~l/VI~ !'W~!~ ~-d7?'' /"~1 /~~•.. - iD~ J /-L'LV ~l~ I /i~ V l ~l~l ~C- r ~! / ~ '~. , ~'sa-n ` 1K7 G"a~[~v~ p~;~ZRJ ~ `m' K ~4~a j Zi /~ l.t~~e^~r~l 'C~~z~uc.e~-'v~°~- ~d-l ~1 L (`.a~'~-~'~ 5' rr ~- ~Y~--/'~i~ c~'~~~ v .,___ ~~ ~/ f`ey' c~ e>~s ~.~'~.vrti vt~--, ~~ arj~-r 1 sir e~i r~¢9-..e,~.~ I G ~ J 4' e- ~~, G~~.~.. ~'_ '€~- ,, ,car ~~A(~. ~~~.. ~ e~l~ 4s'~.., r ~~ ~ JzG ~~ ~: ,' / ~ 6' Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - I (From Victoria Avenue to Schaffer Road - 1.457 Feetl Item Description Unit Quantity.. Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control t_.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare .Right-of-Way AC. 1.70. 2,500.00 4,250.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) ' EA. 2.00 105.00 210.00 Remove .Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 68.00 10.00 680.00 Remove Concrete-C&G L.F. 297.00 8.00 2,376.00 Roadway: Earthwork C.Y. 2,.799.00 3.00 8,397.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°~ Lime) S.Y. 6,460.00 3.00 19,380.00 8" Flexible Base. S.Y. 5,830.00 5.00 29,150.00 2" HMAC (Ty D- S.Y.. 5,515.00 .. 5.00 27,575.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 2,944.00 10.00 29,440.00 6' Concrete' Sidewalk S.Y. 1,867:00 23.00 42,941.00 Concrete .Street. Approach S.Y. 225.00 38.00 8,550.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 6.00 500.00 3,000.00 18" RCP - L.F. 80.00 '99.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F. 954.00 45.00 42,930.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000..00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert t.F. 503.00 300.00 150,900.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 2,818:00 0.20 563.60 Overhead Lighting L.F. 1,457.00 '20.00 29,140.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7.,000.00 Furnish & 'Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 1,406.00 0.40 562.40 Seeding S.Y. 1,406.00 0.10 140.60 Landscaping (Photinia){10' O.C.) EA. 27.6.00 95.00 26,220.00 Traffic Signs EA. 9.00 115.00 1,035.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°k of Construction) 44,796.06 Contingency (20% of Construction) 89,592.9 2 Design and Construction Cost 582,348.78 ESTIMATED COST: 5583,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - II (From Schaffer Road to a Point 946 Feet East of Schaffer Road - 946 Feet) Item .Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-V1/ay AC. 1.30 2,500.00 3,250.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 1,868.00 3.00 5,604.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°~ Lime) S.Y. 4,310.00 3.00 12,930.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 3,890.00 5.00 . 19,450.00 2" HMAC (Ty D) S.Y, 3,679.00 5.00 18,395.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,889.00 10.00 18,890.00 6' Concrete Sidevvalk S'.Y. 1,254.00 23.00 28,842.00 Concrete Street'Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp. EA. 2.00 500..00 1,000.00 18" RCP LF. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F. 946.00 45.00 42,570.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 4.00 '2,000.00 8,000.00 4" White. Pavement`Marking LF. 1,847.00 0.20 369.40 Overhead Lighting L.F. ' 946.00 20.00 18,920.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 ..7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil 14") S:Y. 895.00 ' 0.40 358.00 Seeding S.Y. 895.00 0.10 89.50 Landscaping. (Photinial(10' O.C.) EA". 89.00 95.00 8,455.00 Traffic Signs EA. ' 3.00 1' 15.00 345.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°~ of Construction) ' 20,283.79 Contingency (20°~ of Construction) 40,567.58 Design and Construction Cost 263,689.27 ESTIMATED COST:. 5264,000.00 r° Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT -111 (From 946 Feet East of Schaffer Rd_ to the East Corner of USC - 2_n?_R Fppt Item Description Unit Quantity. Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way` AC. 2.80 2,500.00 7,000.00 Remove Old Structures. (Pipe) EA. 1.00 105.00 . 105.00 Remove & Relocate Chairrt Link Fence LF. 856..00 15.00 12,840.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 4,000.00 3.00 12,000.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°~ Lime) S.Y. 9,230.00 3.00 27,690.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 8,330.00 5.00 41,650.00 2" HMAC ITy D) S.Y. 7,879.00 5.00 39,395.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 4,031.00 10.00 40,310.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. '.2,622.00 23.00 60,306.00 Concrete Street. Approach S.Y. 249.00 38.00 9,462.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. $.00 500.00 4,000.00 18" RCP LF. 160.00 19.00 3,040.00 36" RCP - L.F. 2,:026.00 45.00 91,170.00 48" .RCP L.F. 51.00 63.00 3,213.00 5` Recessed Inlet EA. 8.00 2.,000.00 16,000.00 Headvvall for 48" RCP EA. 2.00 1.,000.00 2,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 4,046.00 0.20 809.20 Overhead Lighting L.F. 2,026.00 20.00 40,520.00 Traffic .Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 1,'984.00 0.40 793.60 Seedir-9 S.Y. 1',984.00 0.10 198.40 Landscaping (Photinia1110' O.C.) EA. 136.00 95.00 12,.920.00 Traffic Signs. EA. 8.00 115.00 920.00 Right-of-Way S.F. 34,700.00 1.00 34,200.00 Estimated Design Cost (10% of Construction) 43,834.22 Contingency (20% of Construction) 87,668.44 Design and Construction Cost 604,544.86 ESTIMATED COST' 5605,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - IV (From the East Corner of USC to Rock Prairie Road - 760 Feet1 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 .. $4,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 1.00 2,500.00 .2,500.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 34.00 10.00 340.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 99.00 8.00 792.00 Roadway Earthvvork C.Y. 1.,501.00 3.00 4,503.00 6" Lime Stab.. Subgr. (5°~ Lime) S.Y. 3,463.00 3.00 10,389.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 3,125.00 5.00 15,625.00 2" NMAC (Ty D) S.Y. .2,956.00 5.00 14,780.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,556.00 10.00 15,560.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y: 1,002.00 '23.00 23,046.00 Concrete Street.Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" RCP LF. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L,F. 760.00 45.00 34,200.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 1,511.00 0.20 302.20 Overhead Lighting L.F. 760.00 20.00 1.5,200.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S:Y. 754.00 0.40 301.60 Seeding. S.Y. 754.00 0.10 ' 75.40 Landscaping (Photina)(10''O.C.) EA. 97.00 ..:95.00 9,215.00 Traffic Signs ' fA. 6.00 115.00 690.00 Right-of-V1/aY >S.F. 31,:980.00 1.00 ' 31,980.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°~ of Construction) 17,1$8.92 Contingency .120% of Construction) ' 34,377.84 Design and Construction Cost 255,435:.96 ESTIMATED COST: 5256,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - V {From the East. Corner of USC to Birminaham Drive - 726 Feetl Item Description. Unit Quantity Unit-Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 1.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link Fence L.F. 726.00 .15.00 10,890.00 Roadway Earthvvork C.Y. 1,434.00 3.00 4,302.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. 15% Lime) S.Y. 3,308.00 3.00 9,924.00 8" Flexible .Base S.Y. 2,985.00 5.00 14,925.00 2" HMAC 1Ty D) S.Y. 2,824..00 5.00 14,120.00 Concrete C&G LF; 1,488:00 10.00 14,880.00 6' Concrete Sidevvalk S.Y. 956.00 23.00 21,988.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36".RCP L.F. 726.00 45.00 32,670.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 4" White Pavement: Marking L.F. 1,443.00 0.20 288.60 Overhead-Lighting ' L.F. 726.00 20.00 14,520.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 ..7.,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish'& Place .Top Soil 14") S.Y. 698.00 0.40 279.20 Seeding S:Y. 698.00 0.10 69.80 Landscaping (Photinia)(,10' O.C.1 EA. 140.00 95:00 13,300.00 Traffic Signs. 'EA. 4.00 1 15.00 460.00 Estimated Design Cost'110% of Construction) ` 17,948.66 Contingency (20°~6 of Construction) ,35,897.32 Design and Construction Cost 233,332.58 ESTIMATED COST: $234,000.00 Estimate. #or Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - VI (From Birmingham Drive to Graham Road - 1,080 Feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost. Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Obliterate Concrete Pavement S.Y. 1,734.00 15.00 26,010.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 572.00 3.00 1,716.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°r6 Lime1 S.Y.: 1,320.00 3.00 3,960.00 Concrete C&G. LE 2,184.00 10.00 21,840.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 948.00 23.00 21,804.00 Concrete Pavement S.Y. 2,325.00 38.00 88,350.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 4.00 500.00 2,000.00 4" White Pavement-Marking L.F. .2,112.00 -0.20 422.40 Overhead Lighting LF. 1,080.00 20'.00 21.,600.00 Traffic Control LS. T.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. ,1,065.00 0.40 426.00 Seeding S.Y. 1,065.00 0.10 106.50 Landscaping (Photinia)(10' O.C.) EA. 100.00 95.00 9,500.00 Traffic Signs EA. 6.00 115.00 690.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°~ of Construction) 20,942.49 Contingency-(20°k of Construction) 41,884.98 Design and Construction Cost 272,252.37 ESTIMATED COST: $273,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT = I (From Victoria Avenue to Schaffer Road - 1,457 Feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. ~ 1.70 2,500.00 4,250.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) - EA. 2.00 105.00 210.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 68.00 10.00 680.00 Remove Concrete`C&G L.f. 297.00 8.00 2,376.00 Roadway Earthvvork C.Y. 2,799.00 3.00 8,397.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°~ Limey S.Y. 6,460.00 3.00 19,380.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 5,830.00 5.00 29,150.00 2" HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 5,515.00 5.00 27,575.00 Concrete C&G t. F. 2,944.00 10.00 29,440.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 1..,867.00 23.00 42,941.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 225.00 38.00 8,550.00 Wheelchair-Ramp EA. 6.00 500.00 3,000.00 18" RCP - L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F. 9.54.00 45.00 42,930.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert L.F. 503.00 300.00 150,900.00 4" White Pavement Marking' L.F. 2,818.00 0.20 563.60 Overhead Lighting L.F. 1,457.00 20.00 29,.140.00 Traffic Control LS. '' 1.00 7,000..00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4"1 S.Y. 1,406.00 0.40 562.40 'Seeding S.Y. 1,406.00 -0.10 140.60 Landscaping (Photinia-!10' O.C.) EA. 276.00 95.00 26,220.00 .Traffic Signs EA. 9.00 1'.1..5.00 1,035.00 Estimated Design .Cost (10% of Construction) 44,796.06 Contingency 120°~ of Construction) 89,592.12 Design and Construction Cost 582,348.78 ESTIMATED COST: 5583,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - 11 {From Schaffer Road to a Point 946 Feet East of Schaffer Road - 946 Feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit.Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 1.30 2,500.0.0 3,250.00 Roadway Earthvvork C.Y. 1,868.00 : 3.00 . 5,604.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. 15% Lime) S.Y. 4,310.00 3.00 12,930.00 8" Flexible Base.. S.Y. 3,890.00 5.00 19,450.00 2" HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 3,679.00 5.00 18,395.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,889.00 10.00 18,890.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 1,254.00 23.00 28,842.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00. 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA.' 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" .RCP. L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP LF. 946.00 45.00 42,570.00 5' Recessed inlet EA. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking - L.F. 1,847.00 0.20 369.40 Overhead Lighting L.f. 946.00 20.00 18,920.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish &, Place Top' Soit (4") ' S.Y. 895.00 0.40 358.00 Seeding S.Y. 895.00 0.10 89.50 .Landscaping (Photina1110' O.C.) EA. - 89.00 '.95.00 8,455.00 Traffic. Signs EA. 3.00 1'15.00 345.00 Estimated Design Cost (10% of Construction) 20,283.79 Contingency (20°~ of Construction- 40,567.58 .Design and Construction Cost 263,689.27 ESTIMATED COST: $264,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT -III (From 946 Feet .East of Schaffer Rd. to the East-Corner of USC - .2,026 Feet Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 2.80 2,500.00 7,000.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) EA. 1.00 105.00 105.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link.Fence L.F. 856.00 15.00 1.2,.840.00 Roadvvay Earthvvork C.Y. ' 4,000.00 3.00 12,000.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. {5% Lime) S.Y. 9,230.00 3.00 27,690.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 8,330.00 5.00 41,650.00 2" 'HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 7,879.00 5..00 39,395.00 Concrete C&G L.F.. 4,031.00 10.00 40,310.00 6' Concrete Sidevvalk S.Y'. 2,622.00 23.00 60,3:06.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y, 249.00 38.00 . 9,462.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 8.00 500.00 4,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 160:00 19.00 3,040.00 36" RCP - L.F. 2,026.00 45.00 91,170.00 48" RCP L.F. 51.00 63.00 3,213.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 8.00 2,:000.00 16,000.00 Headvvall for 48" RCP fA. 2.00 .1,000.00 2,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 4,046.00 0.20 809.20 Overhead Lighting L.F. 2,026.00 20.00 40,520.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1..00 7,.000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil 14") S.Y. 1,984.00 0.40 793.60 Seeding S.Y. 1,984.00 0:10 198.40 Landscaping (Photin,ia)(10' O.C.) EA. 136.00 95.00 12,920.00 Traffic Signs. EA. 8.00 1' 15.00 920.00 Right-of-Way S.F. 34,700.00 1.00 34,700.00 Estimated Design Cost (1'0°k of Construction) 43,834.22 Contingency (20°~ of Construction) 87,668.44 Design and Construction' Cost $04,544.86 ESTIMATED COST:' 5605,000.00 Estimate folr Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT. - IV (From the East Corner of USC to Rock Prairie Road - 760 Feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 $4,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way' AC. 1.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Remove Concrete Sidevvalk S.Y.. 34.00 10:00 340.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 99.00 8.00 792.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 1,.501.00 3.00 4,503.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°~ time) S.Y. 3,463.00 3.00 .: 10,389.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 3,125.00 5.00 15,625.00 2^ HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 2,956.00 5.00 14,780.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,556.00 1.0.00 15,560.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S:Y. 1,002:00 23.00 23,046.00 Concrete"Street Approach S:Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 2.00 500..00 1,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 80.00 19'.00 1,520.00 36" RCP - L.F. 760.00 45.00 34,200.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 4.00 .2,000.00 8,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 1,511.00 0.20 302.20 Overhead Lighting L.F. 760.00 20.00 15,200.00 Traffic Control ' L:S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place'Top Soil, (4") S.Y. 754.00 0.40 301.60 Seeding S.Y. 754.00 0.10 75.40 Landscaping (Photinia)(10` A.C.) EA. 97.00 95.00 9,215.00 Traffic Signs ' EA. 6.00 115.00 690.00 Right-of-Way S:F. 31,980.00 1.00 31,980.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°~ of Construction) 17,188.92 Contingency (20°~ of .:Construction) 34,377.84 Design and Construction Cost 255,435.96 ESTIMATED COST: 5256,000.00 Estimate for Arnold. Road Construction SEGMENT - V It=rnm the East Corner. of USC t® Birmingham Drive - 726 Feet) :Item Description. Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 $4,000.00 Prepare'Right-of-Way AG 1.00 2,500..00 2,500.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link`Fence L.F. 726.00 15.00 10,890.00 Roadway Earthvvork C.Y. 1,434.00 3.00 4,302.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5% Lime) ~ S.Y. ' 3,308.00 3.00 .9,924.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 2;985.00 5.00 14,925.00 2" HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 2,824.00 5.00 . 14,120.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,488.00 . 10.00 14,880.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk:. S.Y. 956.00 23.00 21,988.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair. Ramp EA. 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F. 726.00 45.00 32,670.00 5' Recessed Inlet - EA. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 4" White-..Pavement Marking L.F. 1,443.00 0.20 288.60 Overhead Lighting L.F. 726.00 20.00 14,520.00 Traffic. Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top :Soil (4") ' S.Y. 698.00 0.40 279.20 Seeding S.Y. 698.00 0.10 69.80 Landscaping (Photinia)(10' O.C.,) EA. 140.00 95.00 13,300.00 Traffic Signs EA. 4.00 115.00 460.00 Estimated Design Cost (10% of Construction) 17,948.66 .Contingency (20°~ of Construction) 35,897.32 Design and Construction Cost 233,332:58 ESTIMATED COST: '5234,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SF(;MFNT - VI IFrnm Birmingham Drive to Graham Road - 1,080 feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00. 54,000.00 Obliterate Concrete Pavement S.Y.. 1,734.00 15.00 26,010.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y.: 572.00 3.00 .1,716.00 6".Lime Stab. Subgr. (5°k Lime) S.Y. 1,320.00 3.00 3,960.00 Concrete C&G L.F, 2,184.00 10.00 21,840.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 948.00 23.00 21,804.00 Concrete Pavement S.Y. 2,325.00 38.00 88,350.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 4.00 500:00 ' 2,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.f. 2,112.00 0.20 422.40 Overhead Lighting L.F._ 1,080.00 20.00 21,600.00 Traffic Control " t.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil 14") S.Y. 1,065.00 0.40 426.00 Seeding, S.Y. 1,065.00 0.10 106.50 Landscaping (Photinia)(10' O.C.) -EA. 100.00 95:00 9,500.00 Traffic Signs EA. 6.00 115.00 690.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°~ of Construction) 20,942.49 Contingency (20°~6 of Construction) 41,884.98 Design -and Construction Cost 272,252.37 ESTIMATED :COST: 5273,000.00 ~ ~ ~ n ZC ~d l/~_ J ~.ti~~ ~~~ ~~.~.. c~ Viz. ~~-- ~'-~c>~7 ~~~.- _ - ~~c~E:l,c..~ 1 f; c % ~1%y--~ y '~i_i'7s,~~-~` C~sS ~ti~--7j cF_ ~(~ ~-~ LL.S e o~ Gi s ~tl~" <-/Y~ ;~, / ~ r ~ r~ ~~ ~ ~r I / ~~ j/_/`~ IJ ct i'1 ~t-s-- //~~ ~`J ~y~=z1'~j ~v~a~ f.~ t~`i.~ ~ ~/. Ct-~'~"~ ~`-~- ~ L-~ G[ °S~~l C~- ~ f~2~t-~ `',y (~Lr,~.~ -, ~~ /~ 1 ~r~Z'I.Lb~ ~ G~ ~~ ,S ~ rig-~_-t. / //; t /~ / /r ~~, C~~.*a%r'~rJ .~r~c- (<1 ,~~ d1V Gc'7~i-~~ -?~~tl~-' G_~~ j~Cd,~}' ~ ,I-~~j's CG GZ-yC.~ - /iJ1'~~L ~,~~~-~~(~ /~-raJT. C~r~.r~-~'~Y':a~~_ %~l,l c~5_ y<c-~.~~ ~o ~~-~- ~'~ -~-~~~ ~ j ~ .,.. ~ ~ ~' i'~~ti-~u ra ~-Y ~~~~ ~j ~~~'.-~,t~ a~~r~+zC..~ ~X~'t'~-l~~u / / / / ,~ / 1 t ~_L c"~ •i.C..l'., ~''~C E_ ,s2-.. n {~,~ ~.: ~iEQ f- ``~~ ~ ~ G~~<--,Q.-.~.t ,:'-- t. ~Fr i Y`~_i~_ G.~ (.i.-y ,i.S~=".t+'. 4 ~ { ~ "2'Y .:~ ~ _~c 4~cS- ~ '~~ .~- Gy#' ~y'~'s?~ ~'-° J ~J~`-L G` Z, ~-",~ `mil f' ct f +~ y. L~ `--'Wt/L.. ~~!(//`,... .~-_: , ~. .f..- .~~:`. _... Y_,~F~!'L'~-. . .. ,'{. ~Z..~Z~-1~~s "`-t, , .o`.."?.cam°~_v'..-..° .._. _..... Gf'/_ .... _...' _..._. ____..,..... c r / A /`~ _. ~ ~ .. ~ ~~- .. ~__.. ,~s:~s~. __ .,..~ _ 1 ~~~- . ~~ f-- ~-ve.. _ :fit a ~~ _ ~ .__ _ _ ~_ .. . ~.L ~ - S ~ _ ~' _. ___..... t f ~"i t ilir~ / (( d( ~~~~ J / ~C9 a __,- S! (! 11 F~ t ! ~. ,_ __, ~. e.~ .. ,m._ .._.. ~~ af J j ~ f r ~^ X11 ~~ ~ n~? ~~ ~ ~ ~~. .~ e ~ ~ f _ .~ . ~„ l / to _. z.__ .. ~. _~.. ~,.._ ~ .. u. , _ __ _ ~~._.~~~_ j~ ~ _ ~ .. ~. 37©yD ~...... _. _. ~. r ~:_ . .~ _ __ _ ..:., ~ _J ~ _~ ~~ %F~ ~.. tN f,2,~ /O o~ `~ ff~`< ~~ ____ //5c~ ~~ ~r 3z,7~. ~a2 /~ ~~ ~~s i ~ ~ l '1 ~ 9 4'1 ~ I ~ ~ 'J « " I ~~ 7 io _ ~ a~ ~~ r~ __ I. ~, l~~ 1 ~; ~ fl41N IXt 1 -~. ~~ ~, ~~~ ~~~ 12 ~+ 7R.aFr z!Du~lefs /v .~ .. ~~ i ° -~ 1 f SCHKTEq RD 3 ~ `~ ~~~ ,~ ~'' ~, ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~- i~ ~ ~~,~n) ~.1 ~ .~h;~-.. .~- ~~ ___~ • 10pQ`~ ne `~~ ~~ ~~ OR _v ~~~ a~ ~ _ ._ ~T T _~ ~- -__ ' ~_ ~. .. ~~ ,<< _~ ___ ~~~ ,,~ _ _~, ;~ y s / ~. ~. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ /"~, S ,jam -. ---- ---. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ --- ~ ~ -- ~- ~~ - -..'T-_._------____-._-- I ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~! SCHAFFER REZONING Traffic -Ed's Notes. 2/6/96 Staff has developed two estimates of the future traffic volumes on Hasselt and Aster if the neighborhoods are connected. One estimates is for the development of the area'being proposed for rezoning and includes only two traffic outlets: A second estimate is for full buildout of this area and includes a third outlet for the neighborhoods o the east. Future traffic estimateswere developed using.practical densities of each zoning district and then applying an ITE trip generation rate. The amount of trips estimated for both developed and undeveloped parcels in this area are shown in Figure. In order to estimate the fixture amount of traffic on Hasselt and Aster streets, .assumptions had to be made on how traffic would "distribute" itself among the 2 or 3 outlets into and out of these neighborhoods. The assumptions. assume the following.: o The majority of R-lA and R-2 traffic will use Graham/Wellborn for trips to town/campus. o The majority of R-2 will students and non families with no school age children. Thusthe majority of R-2 traffic willuse GrahamlWellborn. o The layout of streets in the R-2 section is such. that it is more convenient for this traffic to use Graham Road: o If the connected, the majority of traffic will use Hasselt over Aster. o If 2 outlets, about half of the traffic generated from the R-lA will use Hasselt/Aster and .about a third of the R-2 traffic will use Hasselt/Aster. o If 3 outlets,. Routes 1 and 2 will carry about 35% each of total traffic while Route 3 to the east -will carry about 30%. Existing traffic Volumes_ Hasselt - 350 vpd, N. Graham - 450 vpd, Victoria between N. Graham and Rock Prairie = 4050. Perception. of traffic volumes. distorted, 1000 vpd = :about. l vehicle per minute. Current traffic volumes on Hasselt estimated. to about triple`? .Conditions as part of recommendation .for .connection: 1. Undeveloped.33 acres to east of subject rezoning should be developed as R-I or lower and ilot developed until third outlet is provided. 2. Street of subject. site should be such that it is more convenient for R-2 traffic to use Graham Road. --- - --- -...pp ., _ ~i ---_.._. ~/f~N~ s+~t- z-6-q6 L~io~ g82 ao~c' ~;~ ~"g "fib ~c f~;c F ~~ s-~t- z-6- 9~ ~ 3Z ~~~"ti's""`-~ L6L Ro? ~~ ~ --~., a fi~'La~c,t~rz.o S~r+' ~-tz-`t~ ~~~ zz.l~ (l0'7 AST t, f ',~ ~~1 f~~ // t~~ ~d~w~TR~~ s~~" Z-6 -`rb S~ 1;! = ~~-~ Z-lZ-9C I~` sip Z-8-96 ~s~p z-t~k-gb l;A ~.'E 2-IZ-~tl ~~, sip z-~- r.r, s~ z - tit- 9 ~ (~ f onn ~ r~.,~, 5~~-- z - g - 9 b `779. s ~,A,,.-t- 2 - l z - qb ...-_= s~ Z--l`E-9.C /(~ (7Q~Ff~i~-r 4 '~~ ~ ~ U tL'h1 ~3~~ s~~` z -g - 9b ~ l~q 1 S 2 SS'7 ~wt~ ~ A D-r ~P ~-~~-~~' Try s~ 1-3t-q~~ 3zr~~wt~ ~, AST /d~sscz-T ~ E~~ ~ l~ k _ - ~aa-1- 1-31-- `~~ t ~ 5~ z--'7~`~b ~ 1~ 5~ ~'°~ ~ _ ... ~- 60 ~ i p,ut `7 39 ~p'C ~ s7lw~ SOT LI r~ ( ' °` •~ •~ ~! W ~~ v J ~P P ~1~G~o¢ -,=, C '~ O~ v>i~,~` do, ~J ~ O~ ~~~ ^^W y~ 0 ~O~ ti v ~ c~9ti /~~o V~~ ~y f;. ~q ~, O,A ~'o > ~~- A~ 9~~F ~o ,'` ` d ~~~ r• W of % rp G, F+ ~"+ P W ~, l~ ~~. ~', r, ~~ -~ ---_ ~{- n + i ~ ~ _ y~j ~ ~ f® P Ih ` ~.~ 6 / --~-- , ~~ _ ~_~ ~ ., ,7 ~~ L U 1. CC ~ _~ p ~, ~ ~ ~ ~6~ 3~ ~ ~ `~S m ~~ S I ~ k ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ t s ~% Jg^g_ s ~ ( ~ i e+y~ ~ p' ~ ~l ~ ~- ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ii ~~ ~ ~' ' ~.~ ~-~ G ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ :E , ~¢ ~/fig '` ~ ~ ~~ ~', l ~--q / P. 3 .~ ~v ~, s . _ ~, ~~~ ~~~ ~~ 0 `, r~~i ~,; ~& ~~~` - -- -- ,~ (0~~~1~) m~_~ ,~arn~~n ado ~a~l)n.~Vl~~ L~~ __ ~~O Q:, C/W~f/ d ZONING DISTRICT INFORMATION SUMMARY Case #96-105 From A-0 to R-2 Existing A-O Agricultural Open Zoning District: PURPOSE: This district includes lands within the corporate limits of the Ciry which are not subdivided and are relatively undeveloped. It may also include .those areas mentioned in Section 5 above.. This district. is designed to promote orderly, timely, economical growth and to recognize current :conditions. It is a reserved area in which the future growth of the City can occur.. PERMITTED USES: Single family dwellings... Banff, stable for. keeping private animal stock. Country club (publicly or privately owned).. Crop production. Farm. Truck garden (including. greenhouse for commercial purposes). Golf course. Home occupations. Pasturage. Poultry production (non-commercial). Riding academy (private).. Proposed R-2 Duplex Residential District: PURPOSE: This district contains land which has been subdivided for single family residential purposes and associated uses as well as larger parcels of property which lend themselves to duplex dwellings. This district is at moderate density. It may be utilized as a transitional zone between low density and other residential uses. PERMITTED USES: Duplex dwelling units. Single family dwellings, built under the restrictions of District R-1A. Home occupations. +;\ STAFF MEETING Schaffer & Graham Road Rezoning Staff attending: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Natalie Thomas, Hard. & Sabine Kuenzel. (Kent Laza attended the meeting for the first few minutes.) Staff mete on Thursday,. September 28, 1995 to discuss the possible rezoning request and development proposal for. the property located on the northeast corner of the Graham and Schaffer Road intersection by Joe Courtney.- In determining staffs recommendation. for. future platting and rezoning requests, the following issues were identified: MONETARY ISSUES: ,- The City's abandonment of Schaffer Road to allow the developer to re-align this roadway in orderto incorporate it into the overall development. /-- City's participation in the construction or improvement of Schaffer Road. ,~ Dedication of the .right-of--way for Arnold Road. 7 -- Construction of Arnold Road. ~- City's reconstruction of Graham Road through a C.LP. bond program. OVERALL CONCERNS: _ The first questions that must be answered in order to make any recommendations or meet further with the developer are where did the right-of--way for Arnold and Schaffer Road come from? Before the 'City :can begin to negotiate the re-alignment of Schaffer Road, we must determine if it was originally dedicated from this ract or from..the adjacent property. We must also determine if Arnold Road is a dedicated .public right-of--way, does the County have any information on this road and did. they... maintain it when it was. outside the city limits? Shirley will contact Joe Courtney to`let him know that we need the right-of-way .information on Arnold and Schaffer Roads before we continue. any further. (Done 9/29/95; Joe Courtney's checking on this.) _ Arnold Road must be dedicated and built with this development because it is on the Thoroughfare Plan.. The only question is possible alignment issues and the possibility of the City participating in the cost of constructing this road. _ Ed expressed concern with the alignment of Schaffer Road and its connection to Arnold Road. There are other possibilities such as extending Hasselt to connect to Arnold Road or placing a curve in Schaffer Road to connect with Arnold to have a continuous collector street .with the minimum radius requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. (Schaffer & Arnold Roads should be a 60' .right-of-way) The engineering department could put estimates together on the cost of these roadways to determine how much the City would be required to contribute toward the construction of these roads if the City decides to participate in Arnold Road. s ,,r Schaffer & Graham Rezoning Staff Meeting 9-28-95 Page 2 of 2 _ Hasselt or Arnold has to be a collector. If we still have the right-of--way of Arnold Road, we could .construct thaf; portion of the .street and require the developer to extend it through his. property. With this scenario. or not, there may still be the possibility of participating in the construction of Arnold Road based on the recommendations in'the impact studies. _ If the re' alignment of.Schaffer is not acceptable to the Edelweiss Estates (Steve Arden), an alternative is for them to participate in the construction of Schaffer in its present location. _ Staff agreed that in the last predevelopment meeting with the potential developer, staff committed to recommend approval of participating in the construction of Schaffer Road. _ The entire property owned by Mr. Schaffer (not. just the two tracts which have'. been identified) must be included in the rezoning request or staff cannot recommend approval of the request. (The entire property must also be included in the preliminary plat in accordance with. the Subdivision Regulations.) _ Determine what the intentions of the drainage right-of--way area that. runs parallel with Schaffer Road. in the re-alignment plan next to the existing. homes. in Edelweiss. Staff is not sure if it will be allowed. there depending on what it is for and what if will look like. _ Staff is concerned with lots fronting on Graham .Road and the parking it will encourage along the roadway. The street that runs parallel to Graham Road should be realigned. so that there are double frontage lots. that will backup to Graham Road and delete the proposed alley. _ Regardless of the location of Schaffer Road,. it should be constructed. in its entirety and not in phases as -this property develops. Staff is open to the possibility of phasing the development and delaying the construction of Schaffer Road until a future phase in the development. A development agreement seems inevitable. concerning the development of this property. _ Once staff has additional information on the rights-of--way of Schaffer and Arnold Road, another staff meeting. will be scheduled to include Veronica and Kent to determine what. staffs recommendations will be on the rezoning and platting of the property. i i I~ j ~J ;. t i ~. ~- -. , ~ -_~ 111 ~~ / t I 3r lR\ \ \~ ~7 A `V ~ V f' ~f„. N June 27, 1996 City Council Memeber, '6~Ie are in opposition of R-2 zoning of 32.72 acres located on the northeast corner of the Scharer and Graham Road. intersection. Please consider denying the R-2 request. ~~ , , ~ R®bert and Elizabeth Tabor , , J ,f~ ~ %1ti, 604 Aster ~ ~.~ ~ Jf--~ `= College Station, TX 694m 1747 ~.,~ 71.9 Hasselt St. College Station, TX 77845 June 27, 1996 To: College Station City Council RE: Case Number 96-105 Rezoning Concerning the proposed rezoning from A-O to R~2 (Duplexes). It is our opinion that since Mr. Horace Schaffer has arrived later to the development arena in this area, he should be obliged to conform to the already established development in this area.(i.e. R-1 and M-2). Tt is entirely deflating, having moved here to College Station to settle and invest in what was generally accepted as a "nice, safe family neighbourhood," only to have it jeopardized by the encroachment of high-density housing into our residential area. We firmly believe that high-density housing, such as duplexes, ,belong closer to the university and existing supportive facilities (i.e, stores,, etc.). We therefore encourage all members of City Council to ensure a sensible future growth pattern here in College Station: which is not to the unilateral detriment of existing, invested families. It is our request. to City Council that the proposed rezoning be denied for the aforementioned reasons. Sincerely, i ~/ ~~~. ~~~ ~~ June 27, 1996 City Council Memeber, `i/e .are in opposition of R-2 zoning of 32.72 acres located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham Road intersection. Please consider denying the R-2 request. Robert and Elizabeth Tabor ~ i`~,/'l `Z-.~ 604 Aster -~~ College Station, TX 694 1747 719 Hasselt St. College Station, TX 77845 June 27, 1996 To: College Station City Council RE: Case Number 96-105 Rezoning Concerning the .proposed :rezoning from A-O to R-2 (Duplexes). Tt is .our opinion that since Mr. Horace Schaffer has arrived later to the development arena in this area, he should be obliged to conform to the already established development in this area (i.e. R-1 and M-2). It is entirely .deflating, having moved here to College Station to settle and invest in what was generally accepted as a "nice, safe family neighbourhood," only to have it jeopardized by the encroachment of high-density housing into our residential area. We firmly believe that high-density housing, such as duplexes, belong closer to the university and existing supportive facilities (i.e. stores, etc.). We therefore encourage all members'of City Council to ensure a sensible future'.. growth pattern here in College Station: which is not to the unilateral detriment of exis ing, invested fam,i ies. It is our request to City Council that .the proposed rezoning be denied for the aforementioned reasons. Sincerely,. i%'~ %~a~. ~~ June 27, 1996 City Council Memeber, L~Ie are in opposition of R-2 zoning of 32.72 acres located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham Road intersection. Please consider denying the R-2 request. ~~~ `. Robert and Elizabeth Tabor ,L~~~- 604 Aster College Station, TX 694-1747 719 Hasselt St. College Station, TX 77845 June 27, 1996 To: College Station City Council RE: Case Number 96-105 Rezoning Concerning the proposed rezoning from A-0 to R-2 (Duplexes). It is our opinion that since Mr. Horace Schaffer has arrived later to the development arena in this area, he should be obliged,to conform to the already established development in this area (i.e. R-1 and M-2). It is entirely deflating, having moved here to College Station to settle and invest in what was generally accepted as a "nice., safe family neighbourhood," only, to have it jeopardized by the encroachment of high-density housing into. our residential area. We firmly believe that high-:density housing, such as duplexes, belong closer to the university and existing supportive facilities (i.e. stores, etc.). We therefore encourage all members of City Council to ensure a sensible future growth pattern here in College Station: which is not to the unilateral detriment of existing, invested families. It is ®ur request to City Council that the proposed rezoning be denied for the aforementioned '.reasons. Sincerely, i~ s June 27, 1996 City Council Memeber, We are in opposition of R-2 zoning of 32.72 acres located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham Road intersection Please consider denying the R-2 request. , ~~~~~ Rmbert and Elizabeth Tabor J~~~ 604 Aster ~' ~..~~ College Station, TX 694-1747