HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous^
Prouosed Development Agreement
between the
City Of College Station
- and
Integrou~, Inc a
INTEGROUPIINC.
''~
i
--.
I
tNTEGROUP INC.
•~.~
;,_,
~:~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
~,.~
i
~,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........:............: .......:..........:..............:..................SECTION 1
_f,
STREET IMPROVEMENTS........::...... ' .:.........................::........................SECTION 2
Ww,
1
~ ~ ..............SECTION 3
WASTE/WASTE WATER IMPROVEMENTS .................:...........
,~
~ FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION .....................:: .....:.......,...........:..:.............SECTION4
. ~_
i
~,-,
.APPENDICES
COST ESTIMATES ..........:....:...:.........: ................:..................:.....:.......APPENDIX A
,.
~ ~ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.ADDENDUM ..........:........:.......::.......:....APPENDIXB
~-
'~
CORPORATE INFORMATION ...:..........:.......:........:.........:.....:..........::..APPENDIXC
II
_.~
.'~
~ .J
1
I f-` _
__
:
I -
Proposed Development Agreement
Executive Summary
The following package of information is presented by Integroup in description of the infrastructure
improvements required and requested for the Melrose Apartments which are to be constructed in
the area of Luther Street and Jones-Butler Road in the City of College Station, Texas. Analysis and
discussion of the various development items involved are included, as well as the cost impacts of
those items.
Construction of the initial phase of the Melrose project is scheduled to begin in September 1996
;:~
and conclude in August 1997. Construction of the second phase is scheduled to begin in September
r.~"~ 1997 and conclude in August 1998. Integroup's programs for the design, construction, and
financing of the College Station project are. planned to proceed in accordance with the programs of
Integroup's other Melrose projects in Florida (3), North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois and Austin,
',
Texas.
The development concept of Integroup includes a willingness. to cooperate with each host City and.
work toward the implementation of a quality "shared-living" collegiate housing facility which will
be enhanced by the provision of all required amenities and infrastructure, within the limits of sound
project economics. This concept remains valid for Integroup's College Station project.
Technical discussions have proceeded well with the City's engineering and planning staff during
which the staff have stated their. requests for. improvement work to be performed by Integroup
within the project site, on its frontages, and beyond the project's property limits. However; it must
be stated that the inclusion in Melrose's project cost ofthe complete list of improvement requests
made by the City staff may place the project in economic jeopardy.
It is hereby proposed that the City of College Station and Integroup .immediately begin detailed
~_ ~ discussions of each of the infrastructure improvements required. and requested. These discussions
must include all relevant technical, commercial, construction timing, and financial aspects. Further,
discussions. should be conducted with the .active participation of required decision makers, and
~..;
should be expected to result in a mutually acceptable agreement between the -City and Integroup
regarding fair and equitable cost sharing.
Development issues to be .discussed and agreed include the following:
Southwest Parkway Abandonment:
Luther Street Improvements:
Jones-Butler Road Improvements:
Water/Waste Water Improvements:
Financial Considerations:
Traffic Access
Melrose Property Frontage
Extension to Marion Pugh Road
:Melrose Property Frontage
Extension to Holleman Drive
.Water Line Sizing and Extensions
Waste Water Line Extensions
Cost Allocation
Southwest Parkway. Abandonment:
This issue is central to the .viability of the site, as all Melrose Apartment projects are fully fenced
and gated to enhance resident security. The extension of Southwest Parkway would divide the
project site into separate areas. This would require full duality of security fencing, gating, and gate
operations to enable the accumulation of sufficient acreage for the desired two-phase Melrose
,; project. Such a divided configuration would render the site unusable for the purpose intended.
' As a part of the Melrose project, internal streets will replace the traffic-carrying capability of
.~ Southwest Parkway.. Primary access will be taken on Luther Street at a point approximately 400'
west of the Jones-Butler Road intersection. In .addition, it has been agreed that the project will have
access to Southwest Parkway at its. present point of termination. The costs for these improvements
will utilize any cost savings derived from the abandonment ofSouthwest Parkway..
As a part of the City's revised thoroughfare plan, the logic for extending Southwest Parkway to
`~~ Luther Street will be replaced by the extension of Jones-Butler Road to George Bush Drive as
related to the overall accommodation of the new George Bush Presidential Library and the new
Reed Special Events Center.
Luther Street Improvements:
- Melrose Property Frontage - It is planned that the Melrose frontage on Luther Street will be
,._ improved as a part of the project. It would normally be expected that one-half of the upgrade cost
for Luther Street on .the Melrose frontage would be for the account of Integroup, with cost for the
other half to be provided by the property owner on the other side of Luther Street, which is Texas
'~--~ A&M University.
Traffic studies indicate that a 2T Two-Lane section will be .adequate. However; the City staff has
requested a 38' Collector section, and that the full cost for this upgrade be funded by Integroup.
~,_, Engineering design work .has been .preliminarily completed by Integroup's .civil engineering
consultant and. reviewed by the City staff. Integroup is willing to consider this request, subject to a
-`" mutually acceptable agreement regarding cost sharing.
Project Cost: $212.058
Additional Cost: $325.293
~.~,
~.;~ It would be expected .that one-half of the additional right-of--way for this upgrade would be
dedicated by the Melrose project -and one half by Texas A&M. However; the City staff have
requested .that all additional right-of--way. be dedicated on .the Melrose side of Luther Street.
Accommodation for this request is being made, and Integroup is willing to make the additional
dedication, to the extent that the land' cost for the additional right-of-way will be reimbursed by the
-.:,
City.
~_
Additional Cost: $25.400
- ~ Extension to Marion Pugh Road - The upgraded. extension of Luther Street from the Melrose
property corner at Jones-Butler Road to the Marion. Pugh Road intersection was not included in
project planning or economics.. Discussions with the,City staff have included a request by the staff
that this 1500' section of Luther Street be upgraded as a part of the project.
Traffic studies indicate that. this upgrade extension is not necessary to the project. However;
Integroup's civil engineering consultant has preliminarily completed the engineering design for this
extension, although details regarding the design of the Marion Pugh Road intersection remain to be
I~ finalized. Integroup is willing to consider this request by the City, subject to a mutually acceptable
agreement regarding reimbursement.
Additional Cost: $320.514
Jones-Butler Road Improvements:
Melrose Property Frontage - It would be expected that one-half of the 726' Melrose frontage on
Jones-Butler Road would be improved. as a part of the project. Traffic studies indicate that a 27'
Two-Lane section would be adequate. However;. the City staff have requested that this
improvement be made as a 56' section Minor-Arterial, apparently in preparation for the future tie-
in of Jones-Butler Road to George Bush Drive, and that the .full cost for. this upgrade be funded by
Integroup. Engineering design work has been preliminarily completed for Minor-Arterial standards
by Integroup's civil engineering consultant and reviewed by the City staff. Integroup is willing to
consider this request by the. City, subject to a mutually. acceptable agreement regarding cost sharing.
Project Cost: $ 55.175
Additional Cost: $160,184
Extension to Holleman Drive -The upgraded extension of Jones-Butler Road from the Melrose
property corner south to the Holleman Drive intersection was not included in project planning or
economics. Discussions with the City staff have included a request by the staff that this 424'
section of Jones-Butler Road be upgraded as a part of the project, also apparently in preparation for
the future tie-in of Jones-Butler Road to George Bush Drive.
r ~ Traffic studies recommend a paved section at .the Jones-Butler Road and .Holleman Drive
~.,; intersection to improve traffic operations. Integroup's civil engineering consultant has preliminarily
completed the engineering design for the extension, although details regarding the design of the
r ' Holleman Drive .intersection remain to be finalized. Integroup is willing to consider this request by
W-- the City, subject to a mutually acceptable agreement regarding cost sharing.
Project cost: $ 55.531
Additional Cost: $ 89114
-,
<<~;
Water/Waste Water Improvements:
Water Line Extensions -Water service for the Melrose project is planned for installation from a
point of connection with the City's existing system on the southeast corner of the Luther
V Street/Jones-Butler Road intersection. Engineering studies indicate that an 8" service line would be
adequate for the requirements of the Melrose project. Discussion with the City staff have included
~,• ; a request by the staff that a 16" water service line be installed and extended offsite, along Southwest
Parkway toward Holleman Drive.
• Engineering work has been preliminary completed for the 16" system by Integroup's civil
_ engineering consultant and reviewed by the City staff. Integroup is willing to accommodate this
~, request by the City, subject to a mutually acceptable agreement regarding reimbursement of the
~~ additional costs.
~,
Onsite Project Cost: $119.874
Onsite Additional Cost: $ 64.774
Southwest Parkwav Additional Costs: $ 50.258
It has been requested by the City staff that the Melrose water service .line be extended to the
northwest corner of the property to accommodate future expansion of the system to the southwest,
along Luther Street and beyond. Integroup is willing to consider this request by the City, subject to
a mutually acceptable agreement regarding reimbursement of the additional cost.
Additional Cost: $116.306
j Waste Water Line Extensions -Waste water service is planned for the project, with connections
~-~ to the City's existing system at a point along Jones-Butler Road and at a manhole at Highway 2818
Southwest of the Melrose site. Preferred routing to the latter connection point would require an
easement from the adjacent property owner, Mr. Gorzycki. Contact was initiated, but Mr.
~' ~' Gorzycki, has refused to discuss an easement. Contact has since been made with the owners of
_ Walden Pond Townhomes .regarding an .easement along their side. of the creek to the connection
point at .Highway .2818. Should this routing become .available, we will proceed accordingly.
-y Should this routing not become available, we will advance the concept of an on-site lift station and
-- an alternate tie-in arrangement.
Project Cost: $85.000 to $100.000
It has also been requested by the City staff that waste water service be made available to the
property parcels, excluded from the .Melrose block, fronting Luther Street. Accommodations for
this request will be made as a part of the overall Melrose project design, subject to mutually agreed
upon arrangements for reimbursement.
Project Cost: $16,873
Financial Considerations:
As a baseline for the .financial considerations related to the infrastructure improvements required
and requested for the Melrose project, all relevant cost and revenue aspects should reasonably be
addressed.
Earlier in this summary, discussions of the infrastructure improvements at issue included estimates
of improvement costs and allocations of those costs based on specific necessity to the project.
Costs .identified as "Project Cost" are those specifically required as project elements. Costs
identified as "Additional Cost" are related to improvements beyond the Melrose project scope
which. are not .required of developers in the normal course of business, but which have been
requested by City staff.
Cost Breakdown/Allocation. - Based on traffic studies, typical host city/developer arrangements
and the historical perspective of previous development projects in the College Station area, the
following is a recap of the proposed allocation of .costs for the improvements and extensions
requested by the City staff relative. to the Melrose project:
Item Project Cost Additional Cost Total Cost
Luther Street
Melrose Frontage $212,058 $ 325,293 $ 537,351
Right of Way $ 25,400 $ 25,400
~-~~ Marion Pugh Extension ---- $ 320,514 $ 320,514
Jones-Butler Road
___
Melrose Frontage $ 55,175 $ 160,184 $ 215,359
Holleman Extension $ 55,531 $ 89,114 $ 144,645
Water Service Upgrade
_
Southwest Parkway and Onsite $ 50,258 $ 50,258
16" Line Upgrade Onsite $119,874 $ 64,774 $ 184,648
Water Service Extension
_-
,
Luther Street Extension
' Out-parcel Extension. $ . .116,306 $ .116,306
Waste Water Service
~u
~,
Highway 2818 Extension
$ 85,000
--
--
$
85,000
Out-parcel Extension 16 873 _ 16 873
TOTAL
r, ,
-,
~..
$544,511
$
1,151,843
$1,696,354
It is hereby proposed that the City and Integroup reach an agreement on a final list of infrastructure
improvement items to be completed relative to the implementation of the Melrose project. It is
further proposed that the City and Integroup reach an agreement regarding cost sharing for the
infrastructure improvement items requested by the City staff.
f=
;.-,
;~~
~~~,~
~~
Oversized Participation Summary
Luther Street (Adjacent to Property.)
1 Total cost fora 38' Collector Section $537,351
2 Total cost fora 2T Two Lane Section $424,116
3 Developer's share of the 27' Two Lane Section (Line 2 X 0.5) $212,058
4 City of College Station Oversized Participation (Line 1 minus Line 3) $325,293
5 Additional 10' of R.O.W. $25,400
Jones-Butler (Adjacent to Property)
6 Total cost fora 56' Minor Arterial Section _ $215,359
7 Total cost fora 2T Two Lane Section $110,351
8 Developer's share of the 27' Two Lane Section (Line. 7 X 0.5) _ $55,175
9 City of College Station Oversized Participation (Line 6 minus Line 8) $160,184
Luther Street (Offsite to Marion-Pugh)
10 Total cost fora 38' Collector Section _ _ $320,514
11 Developer's share of the Collector Section $0
12 City of College Station Oversized Participation (Line 10 minus Line 11)
Jones-Butler { Offsite to Holleman) $320,514
13 Total cost fora 56' Minor Arterial Section $144,645
14 _ _ _ _ __ _ ____ _ _
Total cost fora 2TTwo Lane Section $111,063
15 _
Developer's share of the 27' Two Lane Section (Line 14 X 0.5) $55,531
16 City of College Station Oversized Participation (Line 13 minus Line 15) $89,114
17
18
19
20
21
22 16" Waterline Upgrades
Total cost to serve the development only
Total cost to upgrade to a 16" waterline-through the development
_ Additional 16" line upgrade. on site (Line18 minus Line 17)
Total cost to parallel the existing 8" line in Southwest Parkway to Holleman
Total cost to extend a 16" waterline along Luther to the end of our development
Wastewater Extension #o out parcels not in the .proposed subdivision
Extension of wastewater availability to the out parcels along Luther Street
$119,874
$184,648
$64,774
$50,258
$116,306
$16,873
23 Offsite wastewater extension to 2818
Total Infrastructure improvements paid by Integroup
(Sum of dines 3, 8, 11, 15, 17, 22, and 23)
Total Oversized Participation By the City of College Station
(Sum of lines 4, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 20, and. 21) $85,000
$544,512
$1,151,842
Bury + Pittman Confidential
8/5/96
~;
~I Integroup College Station Tract 8/6/96
'~ Preliminary Estimate -With Offsite Improvements
f~~,
Requested Roadwaylnfrastructure
~'~ ~ . ,
Luther Street -Full section along the proposed frontage as a collector.
.Collector Street - 60' R.O.W.; 38' Pavement Section, + 2500 L.F.
Item Description uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Subgrade Preparation 12220 SY $3.00 $36,660.00
2 8" Base Material 10556 SY $6.00 $63,336.00
3 2" Asphalt Pavement 10556 SY $4.50 $47,502.00
4 Curb & Gutter 5000 LF $7.00 $35,000.00
5 2-6' Sidewalks' 30000 SF $3.00 $90,000:00
6 Striping 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00
7 Accessible Ramps 6 EA $500.00. $3,000.00
8 Rolled Curb Driveway 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500.00
9 Street Lighting 15 EA $2,500.00 $37,500.00
10 18" RCP 880 LF $24,00 $21,120.00
11 24" RCP 860 LF $35.00 $30,100.00
12 30" RCP 430 LF $48.00 $20,640.00
13 5' Storm Sewer Inlet 6 EA $2;000.00 $12,000.00
14 7.5' Storm Sewer Inlet 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000.00
15 Concrete Headwall w/ Dissipator 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00
16 Trench Safety 2170 LF $2.00 4 340.00
Subtotal $417,198.00
15 % Contingency $62,579.70
Subtotal $479,777.70
12 % Engineering Design $57.573.32
Total $537,351.02
Roadway Infrastructure Necessary for the Melrose Development
Luther Street -Full section along the proposed frontage as a residential section.
Residential Street - 50' R.O.W:, 2T Pavement Section, ± 2500 L.F.
Item Description uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Subgrade Preparation 8611 SY $3.00 $25,833.00
2 8" Base Material 7500 SY $6.00 $45,000.00
3 2" Asphalt Pavement 7500 SY $4.50 $33,750.00
4 Curb & Gutter 5000 LF $7.00 $35,000.00
5 2-6' Sidewalks" 15000 SF $3.00 $45,000.00
6 Striping 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00
7 Accessible Ramps 6 EA $500:00 $3,000.00
8 Rolled Curb Driveway 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500.00
9 Street Lighting 15 EA $2,500.00 $37,500.00
10 18" RCP 880 LF $24.00. $21,120.00
11 24" RCP 860 LF $35.00 $30,1.00.00
12 30" RCP 430 LF $48.00 $20,640.00
13 5' Storm Sewer Inlet 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00
14 7.5' Storm Sewer Inlet 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000.00
15 Concrete Headwall w/ Dissipator 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00
16 Trench Safety 2170 iF $2.00 4 340.00
Subtotal $329,283:00
15 % Contingency $49,392.45
Subtotal $378,675..45
12 % Engineering Design $45.441.05
Total $424,116.50
-Sidewalks required on one side of residential streets -Code of Ordinances &M.t
~;~ Note:
-The above estimates are based on preliminary engineering, and not final construction drawings. These cost estimates should be revised following the city approval and bid process
to verify actual scope and cost. The above cost estimates may be affected by drainage and other design issues which have not been resolved at this time.
-The above opinion of probable wnstruction cost is made by an engineer, not a professional construction estimator The accuracy of these estimates cannot be guaranteed.
~ Bury+Pittman Confidential Paget
-,
~~ Requested Roadway Infrastructure
Jones-Butler -Full section along the proposed fron tage, as a minor arterial.
Minor Arterial Street - 80' R.O.W., 56' Pavement S ection, + 726 L.F.
~,., Item Description uanti Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Subgrade Preparation 4840 SY $3.00 $14,520.00
r`-'~ 2 8" Base Material 4517 SY .$6.00 $27,102.00
3 2" Asphalt Pavement 4517 SY $4.50 $20,326.50
'°`-' 4 Curb & Gutter 1452 LF $7.00 $10,164.00
5 2-6' Sidewalks" 8712. SF $3.00 $26,136.00
6 Striping 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00
7 Accessible Ramps 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
8 Rolled Curb Driveway 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000.00
._, 9 Street Lighting 5 EA $2,500.00 $12,500.00
,
10 18" RCP 55 LF $24.00 $1,320.00
11 24" RCP 85 LF $35:00 .$2,975.00
12 9' Storm Sewer Inlet 2 EA $3,000.00. $6,000.00
13 Concrete Headwall w/ Dissipato 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00
14 Trench Safety 140 LF $2.00 $280.00
~~ 15 Additional R.O,W. 29040 SF $1.27 $36.880:80
Subtotal $167,204.30
15 % Contingency $25,080.65
Subtotal $192,284.95
~- -~ 12 % Engineering Design $23.074.19
Total $215,359.14
Roadway Infrastructure Necessary for the Melrose Development
Jones-Butler -Full section along the proposed frontage, as a residential section.
Residential Street - 50' R.O.W., 27' pavement section, + 726 L.F.
Item Description uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Subgrade Preparation 2500 SY $3.00 $7,500.00
'^, 2 8" Base Material 2178 SY $6.00 $13,068.00
l 3 2" Asphalt Pavement 2178 SY $4.50. $9,801.00
4 Curb & Gutter 1452 LF $7.00 $10,164.00
5 2-6' Sidewalks' 4356 SF $3.00 $13,068.00
6 Striping 1 EA $1,000.00. $1,000.00
~~, 7 Accessible Ramps 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
';; 8 Rolled Curb Driveway 2 EA .$2,500.00 $5,000.00
'
_, 9 Street Lighting 5 EA $2,500.00 $12.,500.00
I F
10 18" RCP 55 LF $24.00 $1,320.00
'~ 14 24" RCP 85 LF $35.00 $2,975.00
12 9' Storm Sewer Inlet 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000.00
'I 13 Concrete Headwall w/ Dissipato 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00
' 14 Trench Safety 140 LF $2.00 $280.00
°-~-~~ 15 Additional R.O.W. 7260 SF $1.27 9 220.20
Subtotal $85,676.00
15 % Contingency $12,851.40
Subtotal $98,527.40
~ °~-' 12 % Engineering Design $11.823.29
'', Total $110,350.69
~~
-Sidewalks required on one side of residential streets -Code of
~~~
Ordinances 8-M.1
y f, Note:
' ~ -The above estimates are based on preliminary engineering, and not final construction drawings. These cost estimates should be revised following the city approval and
bid process to verify actual scope and cost. The above cost estimates may. be affected by drainage and other design issues which have not been resolved at this time.
i
, -The above opinion of probable construction cost is made by an engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of these estimates cannot be
.
guaranteed.
- Bury+pittman Confidential
~~
8/6/96
Page 2
8/6/96
r-
Requested Roadway Infrastructure
Luther Street - Full Section of the offsite improvements. from Jones-Butler Rd. to
Marion-Pugh as a collector street.
Collector Street - 60' R.O:W., 38' Pavement Section, ± 1500 L.F.
Item Description uantit Unit Unit Cost ~ Total Cost
1 Subgrade Prepa 7000 SY $3.00 $21,000.00
2 8" Base Material 6333 SY $6.00 $37,998.00
3 2" Asphalt Pave 6333. SY $4.50 $28,498.50
4 Curb & Gutter 3000 LF $7.00 $21,000.00
5 2-6' Sidewalks" 18000 SF $3.00 $54,000.00
6 Striping 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00
7 Accessible Ram 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00
8 Street Lighting 10 EA $2,500.00 $25,000.00
9 18" RCP 600. LF $24.00 $14,400.00
10 24" RCP 350 LF $35.00 $12,250.00
11 30" RCP 150 LF $48.00 $7,200.00
12 9' Storm Sewer I 4 EA $3,000.00 $12,000.00
13 7.5' Storm Sewe 4 EA $2,200.00 $8,800.00
14 Concrete Headw 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000..00
15 Trench Safety 1100 LF $2.00 2 200.00
Subtotal $248,846.50
15 % Contingency $37,326.98
Subtotal $286,173.48
12 % Engineering Design $34.340.82
Total $320,514.29
-Sidewalks required on one side of residential streets -Code of Ordinances 8-M.1
Note:
-The above estimates are based on preliminary engineering, and not final construction drawings. These cost estimates should be revised following the city approval and
bid process to verify actual scope and cost. The above cost estimates may be affected by drainage and other design issues which have not been resolved at this time.
-The above opinion of probable construction cost is made by an engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of these estimates cannot be
guaranteed.
Bury + Pittman Confidential
Page 3
~~
I
~-
8/6/96
Requested Roadway Infrastructure
Jones-Butler -Full section of the offsite improvements, as a minor arterial to Holleman.
Minor Arterial Street - 80' R.O.W., 56' pavement section, + 424 L.F.
Item Description
1 Subgrade Preparation
2 8" Base Material
3 2" Asphalt Pavement
4 Curb & Gutter
5 2-6' Sidewalks
6 Striping
7 Accessible Ramps
8 Rolled Curb Driveway
9 Street Lighting
11 24" RCP
12 30" RCP
13 9' Storm Sewer Inlet
14 7.5' Storm Sewer Inlet.
15 Concrete Headwall w/ Dissipator
16 Trench Safety
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
uantit Unit Unit Cost
2826 SY $3.00
2638 SY $6.00
2638 SY $4.50
848 LF $7.00
5088 SF $3.00
1 EA $1,000.00
2 EA $500.00
3 EA $2,500.00
3 EA $2,500.00
325 LF $35.00
150 LF $48.00
4 EA $3,000.00
2 EA $2,200.00.
1 EA $2,000.00
475 LF $2.00
Total Cost
$8,478.00
$15,828.00
$11,871.00
$5,936.00
$15,264.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$14,375.00
$7,200.00.
$12,000.00
$4,400.00
$2,000.00
950.00
$112,302.00
$16, 845.30
$129,147.30
$15.497.68
$144,644.98
Roadway Infrastructure Necessary for the Melrose Development
Jones-Butler -Full section of the offsite improvements, as a residential street to Holleman
Residential Street - 50' R:O.W., 2T pavement section, + 424 L.F.
Item Description uantit Unit Unit Cost
1 Subgrade Preparation 1460 SY $3.00
2 8" Base Material 1272 SY $6.00
3 2" Asphalt Pavement 1272 SY $4.50
4 Curb & Gutter 848 LF $7.00
5 2-6' Sidewalks" 2544 SF $3.00
6 Striping 1 EA $1,000.00
7 Accessible Ramps 2 EA $500.00
8 Rolled Curb Driveway 3 fA $2,500.00
9 Street Lighting 3 EA $2,500.00
11 24" RCP 325 LF $35.00
12 30" RCP 150 LF $48.00
13 9' Storm Sewer Inlet 4 EA $3,000.00
14 7.5' Storm Sewer Inlet 2 EA $2,200.00
15 Concrete Headwall wJDissipator 1 EA $2,000.00
16 Trench Safety 475 LF $2.00
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
-Sidewalks required on one side of residential streets -Code of Ordinances 8-M.t
Total Cost
$4,380.00
$7,632.00
$5,724.00
$5,936:00
$7,632.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$7, 500.00
$7, 500.00
$14,375.00
$7,200.00
$12,000.00
$4,400.00.
$2,000.00
950.00
$86,229.00
$12,934.35
$99,163.35
$11.899.60
$111,062.95
Note:
-The above estimates are based on preliminary engineering, and not final construction drawings. These cost estimates should be revised following the city
approval and bid process to verify actual scope and cost. The above cost estimates may be affected by drainage and other design issues which have not been
resolved at this time.
-The above opinion of probable construction cost is made by an engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of these estimates cannot
be guaranteed.
Bury+pittmah Confidential
Page 4
~c;zJ
Water .Infrastructure
16" waterli ne along Luther Street
1650 feet
Item Description
1 16" Gate Valve
2 16" Water Line
3 Trench Safety
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
16" Water Line Onsite
2430 feet
Item Description
1 16" X 12" Tapping Sleeve & Valve
2 16" Gate Valve
3 16" Water Line
4 Trench Safety
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
16" Water Line Along Southwest Parkway
510 feet
Item Description
1 16" X 8" Tapping Sleeve & Valve
2 16" Gate Valve
3 16" Water Line
4 Trench Safety
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
Minimum waterline required to support the development
2430 feet
.Item Description
1 12" X 12" Tapping Sleeve & Valve
2 8" X 8" Tapping Sleeve & Valve
3 12" Gate Valve
4 8" Gate Valve
5 12" Water Line
6 8" Water Line
7 Trench Safety
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
Note
uanti Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500.00
1650 LF $50.00 $82,500.00
1650 LF $2.00 3 300.00
$90, 300.00
$13,545.00
$103,845.00
$12,461.40
$116,306.40
uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000.00
2 EA $4,500.00 $9,000.00
2430 LF $50.00 $121,500.00
2430 LF $2.00 4 860:00
$143,360.00
$21,504.00
$164,864.00
$19.783.68
$184,647.68
uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000.00
1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500.00
510 LF $50.00 $25,500.00
510 LF $2.00 $1,020.00
$39,020.00
.$5,853.00
$44,873.00
5 384.76
$50,257.76
uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 EA $7,000.00 $7,000.00
1 EA $6,000.00 $6,000.00
1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00
1 EA $800.00 $800.00
1790. LF $31.00 $55,490.00
640 LF $28.00 $17,920.00
2430 LF $2.00. 4 860.00
$93, 070.00
$13,960.50
$107,030.50
$12; 843.66
$119,874.16
-The above estimates are based on preliminary engineering, and not final construction drawings. These cost estimates should be revised following the city approval and
bid process to verify actual scope and cost. The above cost estimates may be affected by drainage and other design issues which have not been resolved at this time.
-The above opinion of probable construction cost is made by an engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of these estimates cannot be
guaranteed
Bury + Pittman Confidential 8/5/96 Page 1
Wastewater Infrastructure
Wastewater Extension
300 feet
Item Description
1 8" Wastewater Line
2 4' Manhole
3 Trench Safety
Subtotal
15 % Contingency
Subtotal
12 % Engineering Design
Total
uantit Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
300 LF $25.00 $7,500.00
2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000.00
300 LF $2.00 600.00
$13,100.00
$1,965.00
$15,065.00
1 807.80
$16,872.80
Note:
-The above estimates are based on preliminary engineering, and not final. construction drawings.. These cost estimates should be revised following the city approval and
bid process to ver'rfy actual scope and cost, The above cost estimates may be affected by drainage and other design issues which have not been resolved at this time.
-The above opinion of probable construction cost is made by an engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of these estimates cannot be
guaranteed.
Bury + Pittman Confidential 8/5/96 Page 2
r S
4 .. ~' • ~ ~ .Trans ortation En ineerin Consultants, Inc.
p g S
~~~
C. Michael Walton, PhD., P.E. Mike McInturff, M.Eng., P.E. Randy B. Machemehl, PhD., P.E.
August 5,1996
Mr. Edwin Hard
City of College Station
I~ 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842-3500
Dear Ed:
The following information is provided to you in support of an agreement regarding fiscal contributions
required from the Melrose Apartments developer.
Information obtained from the City of College Station indicates future plans to classify Jones-Butler
Road as a minor arterial (56 foot cross-section) and Luther Street as a collector street (38 foot cross-
section). As part of the Melrose Apartments site development, the City of College Station has
requested that .the developer construct these two roadways with their ultimately planned cross-
sections in front of the site. However, as shown in enclosed Figures 1 and 2, a revised analysis has been
completed for the intersections of Jones-Butler Road with Luther Street and Holleman Drive. This
analysis assumes maximum buildout of the site to 595 multifamily units and includes traffic generated
by the proposed 35,000 square feet of retail, 3,500 square feet of convenience market with gas pumps, and
a fraternity house which will accommodate approximately 60 men. Results of this analysis indicate
that. a two lane paved cross-section on each of .these roadways will provide acceptable operating
conditions at project opening.
It is our position that the property owner should be required to contribute fiscal toward only those
improvements which are necessary to support planned development on his site; he should not be
required to pay for the construction of the ultimate cross-sections of Jones-Butler Road and Luther
Street. Twenty-seven foot cross-sections on these roadways will more than adequately serve traffic
demands at project opening.
Based on information provided to me verbally from Scott Hester, the City of College Station uses the
following daily volume criteria for urban roadways:
Roadway Classification Cross-Section
Residential 27 feet
;,.~ Minor Collector 38 feet
Major.Collector 44 feet
~~~~°~ Minor Arterial 56 feet
Daily Volume
200-1,000
1,000-5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
A daily volume analysis of Luther Street and Jones-Butler Road indicates forecasted daily volumes of
approximately 4,500 vehicles per day on each of these roadways in the vicinity of the site. These
daily volumes .fall outside the`City of College Station residential collector volume criteria. However,
despite several inquiries, I .have been unable to obtain data which technically support the use of the
above listed volume criteria for the different roadway cross-sections.
' 2717 Rio Grande Street Austin, Texas 78705 Phone 512/473-8343 FAX 512/473-8237
6:.!
~~_
-,
~ Mr. Edwin Hard
August 5,1996
.Page 2
The Highway Capacity Manual provides estimates for service flow rates in passenger cars per hour
(pcph), total both directions, for .two lane roadways as they relate to level of service (LOS). Traffic
flow rates of up to 420,750, 1,200, 1,800, and 2,800 pcph, respectively, can be accommodated under LOS
"-' A, B, C, D, and E conditions, with 2,800 pcph defining the capacity of the roadway.
-,-,
Peak hour traffic volumes on Luther Street and Jones-Butler Road are forecasted to be 273 pcph and 300
°~ pcph, respectively. Therefore, both roadways will .operate at LOS A under site plus forecasted
conditions assuming a two lane section. Using Highway Capacity Manual criteria, traffic volumes can
j"~"`` be increased by as much as 900 percent and maintain operating conditions of LOS D or better on these
~;; roadways.
- Study area intersections wilLoperate at acceptable levels of service assuming two lane cross-sections on
Luther Street and Jones-Butler Road. Moreover, using criteria contained in the Highway Capacity
`~" Manual, two lane cross-sections will provide more than enough capacity for forecasted traffic volumes.
_ And finall , dail traffic volume criteria currentl used by the City of College Station to determine
Y Y Y
roadway cross-sections are not technically supportable.
_,,
Therefore, it is our position that the Melrose Apartments project be required to construct 27 foot two lane
street cross-sections on Luther Street and .Jones-Butler Road. If the City maintains its desire to construct
the ultimate cross-sections on these roadways, the Melrose Apartments development should be required
~:,
to contribute fiscal equal to the cost of constructing 27 foot cross-sections on these roadways.
Please contact me or Heidi Westerfield if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike McInturff, P.E.
President
Enclosure
cc: Bill Mitchem, Integroup, Inc.
John Friedman, Bury & Pittman Inc.
HRW
-~ ~
i
i
~~
Luther St.
~-
Y~
i
d
O
ti
+ +
-- ~
+ +
A
+ A AA
t ' ' ~`
~ A ~ ~--~
A A
Traffic Volumes: Site + Forecasted
:::.
Service Measures:Site + Forecasted
LEGEND: Unsignalized Intersection
LEVEL OF SERVICE
000 = AM Peak Hour Volume
000 PM
Average Total
X = AM LOS Delay
level of Service
X PM
A < 5 sec.
B >5 and <10 sec.
NORTH + = Undefined C >10 and < 20 sec.
D >20 and < 30 sec
Service Measures .
E >30 and < 45 sec.
F > 45 sec.
WHM Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. -Austin, Texas
FIGURE 1
1997
GEOMETRIC AND
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CONDITIONS
All Lanes =12 Feet Wide
Unless Otherwise Noted
Traffic Volumes: Forecasted /Site
~L
r>
.,_.
i
'~
i
it
G
II
` f_
k,i/
~'^3
}
j l I,_YiJ
~:
_~
t e..
I ~'
.:
~~i
~,y
~~
'~~
=-_
~,
a
--,
i
,~ _~
~. )
', -i
Traffic Volumes: Forecasted /Site
3 13 E
11 44 E
2 12
_ q I 106
4 ~-~ 4
17 50
7 it
212
53
283
28
All Lanes =12 Feet Wide
Unless Noted Otherwise
14 57
28 119
21 54
41 112
265 _ ~ .143
311 217
3
v
..,
w
Q
M
V
16'
Traffic Volumes: Site + Forecasted Service Measures: Site + Forecasted
LEGEND: Unsignalized Intersection
LEVEL OF SERVICE
000 = AM Peak Hour Volume FIGjJR$ 2
000 PM
Average Total
pM Level of Service LOS Delay 1997
X A < 5 sec. .GEOMETRIC AND
i = Stop Sign B >5 and < 10 sec.
C >10 and < 20 sec. 'I~~jC VOLUME
NORTH + = Undefined D >20 and < 30 sec. CONDITIONS
Service Measures E >30 and < 45 sec.
F > 45 sec.
WHM Transportation Enginee ring Consultants, Inc. -Austin, Texas
(~ INiEGROUPIINC.
MISSION STATEMENT
To develop, own and operate."Shared Living" multi-family housing designed for
the single person, with an initial emphasis on university communities.
"Shared Living" is our- vehicle to provide the individual desiring a private and
secure living environment with the highest personal value available in rental
developments.
~~:
~~,
~1~
n INTEGROUPIINC.
CORPORATE GOALS
The initial market for introducing our "Shared Living" product was Gainesville,
Florida, near the University of Florida campus. Melrose Apartments of Gainesville
was well received by the community, as evidenced by its being 100 percent pre-
leased, proving the concept is timely and the public is ready and eager for it.
The second target marketwas in Tallahassee, Florida, near Florida State University
and Florida A&M University. The groundbreaking of Melrose Apartments of
Tallahassee was in March 1995. Pre-leasing commenced in February, with more
than 400 leases signed in the first four weeks. First phase construction was com-
pleted in the fall of 1995, with the second phase completed in fall of 1996. The
construction of the Jacksonville, Florida and Raleigh, North Carolina Melrose de-
velopment projects were commenced in winter 1996.
`' ~ Integroup will continue to target three to five additional markets each fall semes-
``' ter, typically near major universities, as we perceive that such markets provide
r-° unique and currently untapped opportunities for the "Shared Living" concept.
~, Integroup, lnc. also will continue to refine our "Shared Living" offering with the
same innovative approach and high quality. construction and management that
have been our trademarks thus far.
->;~
~~J
'~~
(1 INTEGROUPIINC.
Product and Market Overview
"Shared Living" Multi-Family Housing
"Shared Living" is defined by Integroup, Inc. as our "vehicle to provide individuals
desiring a private and secure living environment with the. highest personal value
available in rental developments." A key feature in "Shared Living" is the leasing
of individual bedrooms, rather than the standard whole apartment lease. The de-
sign of Integroup's Melrose Apartments provides a completely furnished bedroom
with private bath, .study desk, telephone, computer. and cable television outlets,
and deadbolt locks. Each apartment is equipped with computerized keyless locks,
and security system with individual panic buttons in each bedroom suite. This
bedroom/bath/study arrangement, combined with the fully furnished and equipped
shared living area of kitchen; dining and living rooms, directly addresses the de-
sires and needs of today's college students and other young singles for the privacy
and personal space they have typically grown up with.
Many of today`s college students never shared a bedroom at home and would
prefer to maintain their privacy. Most .dormitories are designed in a manner that
require students to share not only the room, but also a bathroom down the hall
with many other students. Besides the lack of privacy,- the dormitories at most
major universities can accommodate only 15 - 20 percent of the student
population (see Exhibit "A"). This has forced students to seek other off-campus
alternatives. The traditional approach hasbeen for two to four friends to share an
`~`J apartment or condominium, with one person being responsible for the lease. This
,~.,I commonly causes problems when one or more renters leave, and the responsible
person or other renters are left to bear the increased cost.
The "Shared Living"concept is an alternative to this traditional approach. It was
developed not only to relieve the financial burden but also provide other benefits
as described above. Other developers' student housing are many times "double-
loaded" or "back-to-back," with shared bedrooms and/or baths. While these prod-
uctdesigns work well for student housing, Melrose Apartments has improved upon
the product by offering students privacy as well as a more contemporary project
~~ design, layout and ambiance.
w~a
n INTEGROUPIINC.
The market for off-campus housing. has developed and grown over the years. In-
creasingly limited university budgets across the United States have been used pre-
dominantly for operations, salaries and construction or upgrading of the basic
physical plant that includes classrooms, laboratories, libraries, etc. Since student
housing has been low on the priority list for most universities' budget dollars,
existing dormitories have often been allowed to deteriorate, with few new dormi-
tories being built. This trend of "getting out of the housing business", whether by
design or neglect, has forced an increasing number of students into off-campus
housing, providing the private sector with an opportunity to fill that need.
The initial response of the private sector to this increased student demand for
housing was to develop cost efficient, low to medium quality apartment projects at
universities across the U.S. Since. these projects provided sufficient bedrooms, it
appeared the demand was satisfied in most communities. When the Tax Reform
Act of 1986 was implemented, apartment/multi-family construction came virtually
to a standstill. At the same time, developers started to recognize a demand by
college students for housing designed and constructed specifically for a student's
individual needs, which include privacy and financial integrity.
~~1 Several approaches to this market demand have been developed. Some compa-
~i Hies, such as one based in Houston, Texas, and one in Orlando, Florida, have
literally gone back to the campus for the solution. By leasing land from the univer-
~- ~
sity, they are building, owning and. operating "dormitories" designed to appear as
garden apartments for students. Others have developed condominiums for stu-
'~~' dents which generally have been successful but appeal only to those students/
parents with financial means. and desire to invest in ownership. Still others have
provided off-campus apartments which are placed in a garden apartment setting.
'E~ These apartments are generally designed back-to-back with a higher density per
,;~;, building than the typical contemporary garden style. This provided them with an
institutional look and feel. Most of these projects also require students to share a
bathroom and forgo the desired privacy.
~J'
n INTEGROUPIINC.
Integroup has approached this market with a product designed and constructed
similar to contemporary garden style apartments but with greater focus on the
individual's needs, one of which is a private bath for each bedroom. The leasing
and management of the property is also designed to attend to the needs and de-
sires of the individuals. Melrose apartments will be maintained in a like-new con-
dition with a heavy emphasis on preventive maintenance and excellent responsive
service to resident maintenance and repair requests.
Integroup believes it is entering this exciting market opportunity at the right time as
indicated by the graph attached as Exhibit "B". The second baby boom (or as some
call it, the "Babies of the Boomers") is just beginning to arrive at college age, and
the increased birthrate from 1975 forward indicates that for at least the next 15-20
years there will be an increasing opportunity to provide housing for this segment of
the population.
Integroup's Melrose Apartments are committed to providing the quality of life through
the on-site amenities (see Exhibit C) students desire. Integroup believes that its
Melrose "Shared Living" Apartments will be the preferred choice now and in the
future.
~~
._
~-•
._
~~r
~~~
~ =.~
.~
t~ ~~=
.~.~..
r~
°~
__
.~
~'
t~
Lt
~~`" ~
~~
~~
a~ ~ '~ ~ `~
9 ~ p ~ ,p • w
IL .~ tL E~
~ ~ ~ ~.,
t~ ~ ~ ~
sue,. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '~
.~ ~ ~ Q~'
~ '~ ttT i
~ y ®~
~~ ~
Q
+~
's
w
_.J
~.~_
INiEGROUPIINC.
APARTMENT AMENITIES
Melrose features a new concept in apartment living - "all inclusive living." There is
one fee that includes the monthly rent and utilities* (electric, water, sewage), local
telephone, 24-hour monitored security, cable: Each renter has a private bedroom
suite with private. bathroom, under an individual lease, freeing him from a finan-
cial burden if a roommate moves out. Two, three and four-bedroom units are
available, either furnished or .unfurnished. Renters share the living room, kitchen
and dining areas. Other features include:
^ Full-sized washer and dryer, microwave oven, garbage disposal, dishwasher,
frost-free refrigerator with ice maker, range and mini-blinds in all units
^ Ceiling fan with light in each bedroom
^ Study desk in each furnished bedroom suite
^ Free bus service to local university
^ Large swimming pool with. heated spa
^ Lighted tennis court
^ Lighted basketball court
^ Lighted sand volleyball court
^ Fitness center, complete with circuit training and free weight equipment,
including cardiovascular equipment by StairmasterTM
^ Convenient location adjacent to shopping. and local services
^ State-of-the-art. keyless lock system
^ Gated entrance with video screening from each apartment
^ 24-hour monitored security alarm in each apartment
^ Clubhouse study areas with computers (PCs, laser printer, CD-ROM),
reference materials, copy machine and FAX machine, all available fora
nominal fee
*Utility fees are based on normal conservation-based use. Residents are billed for
any usage. above the allowance.
EXHIBIT "C"
(~'
I'
~..-.: j
'~
1~1
e
r
O
E
e
c
B
G
i
E'~
W ~
V
E.., a
P~ ~
d w
as
~W
W z
~~
~ z
-~ w
W
i
i_
I-
W
N
m
J
U
J
Q
U
G.
H
~"
_..
~-
(` `1
L
~_1
Z
Q
J a
OW
O~
aQ
W J
N Q
~ Z
m O
~a
J W
UV
Q~
U
n.
~-
i,__
~,
l~
-~; ~
{. , -
,__ _ _'
Z
~~, O
a
W
J
W
Z
D
J_
m
J
Q
°~ V
~~ }
..fi~~