Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous
f ~. ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 1 March 25, 1998 I. DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS: L STREETS: WESTFIELD DRIVE (39')..:...... 690 L.F. - 26,910 S.F. - 2,990 S.Y. - 1,280 L.F. of Curb & Gutter .. WESTFIELD DRIVE (28')..... 1,115 L.F. - 31,220 S.F. - 3,470 S.Y. - .. 2,230 L.F. of Curb & Gutter HARVEST DRIVE (39').......... .. 90 L.F. - 3,510 S.F. - 390 S.Y. - 180 L.F. of Curb & Gutter FLOWERMOUND DR (28'1 90 L F - 3 510 S F - 390 S.Y. - 180 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SUBTOTAL ............................. 1,985 L.F. - 65,150 S.F. - 7,240 S.Y. - 3,870 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 80 L.F. of 18" with 2 Inlets 675 L.F. of 24"with 1 Inlet 400 L.F. of 27".with 1 Inlet 20 L.F."of 30" 3.' SEWER LINE_(ON-SITE): 2065 L,F. of 6"Sewer Line 30` Service Lines. (4" - 5T Avg.) 4. WATER LINE: 1900 L.F, of 6" Water Line 30 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 50' Avg.) II. PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: L STREET CONSTRUCTION: 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control.......... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ......................... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation ....:.................................... C.Y. 2,530 $ 2.50 $ 6,325.00- 4 CelluloseFiberMulch Seeding........... S.Y. 4,300 $ .50 $ .2,150.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%) S.Y. 7,960. $ 2.40 $ 19,100.00 6 Extra Lime ..........................:.............. Ton 25 $ 80.00. $ 2,000.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone.......... S.Y. 7,240 $ 6.00 $ 43,440.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ...................... S.Y. 7,240 $ 3.75 $ 27,150.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter.... L.F. 3,870 $ 2.15 $ 8,320.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk............ S.F. 2,720 $ 3.75 $ 10,200.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons (4).......... S.F. 540 $ 3.15 $ 1,700.00 Total ........................................................................................................................... $124,390.00 s 2. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: A 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 80 $ 27.00 $ 2,160.00 2 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet .................. Ea. 2 $ 1,750.00. $ 3,500.00 3 24" RCP. (C76, CL.III).......:................ L.F. 675 $ 32.00 $ 21,600.00 4 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet .................. Ea. 1 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 5 27" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 400 $ 34.00 $ 13,600.00 6 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet ................... Ea. 1 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 7 30" RCP (C76, CL.III) ......................... L.F. 20 $ 36.00 $ 720.00 8 Trench Safety Storm Drain L F 1175 $ 1.50 $ 1,750.00 Total ........................................................................................................................... $ 46,830.00 3. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6'-8' depth) L.F. 2000 $ 15.00 $ 30,000.00 2 Standard Serwer Manhole (< 8' depth) Ea. 4 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 3 Trench Safety Sewer System................ L.F. 2000 $ 1.50 $ 3,000.00 4 4" Service Lines (Toe II) 56' Avg Ea 30 $ .800.00 $ 24,000.00 Total ......................................................................................................................... $ 61,000.00 4. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (C900, CL.200) ...................... L.F. 1885 $ 14.50. $ 27,335.00 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line .............. Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3) ................................ Ea. 3 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ............................... Ea. 5 $ 350.00 $ 1,750.00 5 6" x 6" Hydrant T's ............................ Ea. 3 $ 250.00. $ 750.00 6 6" x b" Line T's ................................ Ea. 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (50') Avg........ Ea. 30 $ 700.00 $ 21,000.00 8 Trench Safety Water Line L.F. 1885 $ 1.50 $ 2,830.00 TotaL ...................:..................................................................................................... $ 59,265.00 5. DETENTION: 1. Detention Area .................................. Ea. 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION .............................. $ 306,485.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION ............................ $ 65,000.00 PHASE 1- 58 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ............................. $ 6,404.91 ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTIONCOST ESTIMATES WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 2 March 25, 1998 L DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS: 1. STREET5• SPRINGFIELD DRIVE.(28')........: 635 L.F. - 17,780 S.F. - 1,975 S.Y. - 1,350 L.F. of Curb & Gutter '~ SPRINGFIELD DRIVE (39')........, 1,115 L.F. - ' 43,485 S.F. - 4,835 S.Y. - 2,230 L.F. of Curb & Gutter MEADOW VIEW STR. (39')........ 690 L.F. - 26,910 S.F. - 2,990 S.Y. - 1.,280 L.F. of Curb & Gutter HARVEST DRIVE (39') :.. .:.: 270 L.F. - 10,530 S.F. - 1,170 S.Y. - ,540 L.F. of Curb & Gutter FLOWERMOUND DR (28') 180 L F - 5 040 S F - 560 S.Y. - 360 L.F. of Curb & Gutter '~ SUBTOTAL.... ....:.......:........ 2,890 L.F.. - 103,745. S.F. - 11,530 S.Y. - 5,760 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 110 L.F. of 18" with 4 Inlets 675 L:F. of 24" 260 L.F. of 24" 3. SEWER LINE. (ON-SITEI: 2700 L.F. of 6" Sewer Line 32 Service Lines (4" - 5T Avg:) 4. WATER LINE: 2600 L.F. of 6" Water Line 32 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 50' Avg.) I II. PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: 1. STREET CONSTRUCTION: 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control.......... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing ......... ............. L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 '~ 3 Excavation.. .:.: ................................. C.Y. 3,840 $ 2.50 $ 9,600.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding........... S.Y. 6,400. $ .50 $ 3,200.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%) S.Y. 12,500 $ 2.40 $ 30,000.00 6 Extra Lime .. ..................................... Ton 50 $ 80.00 $ 4,000.00 7 6".Flexible Base Crushed Stone.......... S.Y. 11,530 $ 6.00 $ 69,180.00 8 1' 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ....................:. S.Y. 11,530 $ 3.75 $ 43,200.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter.... L.F. 5,760 $ 2.15 $ 12,400.00 '' 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk............ S.F. 6,700 $ ..3.75 $ 25,125.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons (6).......... S.F. 810 $ 3.15 $ 2,550.00 Total ................:...........................:...........:......... ..................: ......................... .............. $203,255.00 m ? .,~ 2. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 110 $ 27.00 $ 2,970.00 2 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet .............::... Ea. 4 $ 1,750.00 $ 7,000.00 3 24" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 675 $ 32.00 $ 21,600.00 4 27" RCP (C76, CL.III) .:...................... L.F. 270 $ 34.00. $ 9,180.00 5 Trench Safety Storm Drain L F 1055 $ 1.50 $ 1,600.00 Total ..................................:....................................................................:................... $ 42,350.00 3. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 2 3 4 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6'-8' depth) Standard Serwer Manhole (< 8' depth) Trench Safety Sewer System................ 4" Service Lines (Tyoe II) 56' Avg L.F. Ea. L.F. Ea. 2700 5 2700. 32 $ $ $ $ 15.00 1,200.00 1.50 800.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 4,050.00 $ 25,600.00 Total ..........:........:.................................................. ............ ................. ...... ................ $ 76,150.00 4. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (C900, CL.200) ....................., L.F. 2600 $ 14.50 $ 37,700.00 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line .............. Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3) ................................ Ea. 4 $ 1,600.00 $ 6,400.00 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ..........:...:................ Ea. 5 $ 350.00 $ 1,750.00 5 6" x 6" Hydrant T's ............................ Ea. 4 $ 250.00 $ 1,000.00 6 6" x 6" Line T's ................................ Ea. 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (50') Avg..:..... Ea. 32 $ 700.00 $ 22,400.00 8 Trench Safety Water Line... .;.,.... L.F. 2600 $ 1.50 $ 3,900.00 Total ...................................:...................................................................................... $ 73,950.00 TOTAL ESTIlVIATED COST OF ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION .............................. $ 395,705.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED. COST OF OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION ............................ $ 15,000.00 PHASE 2 - 62 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST. OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ............................. $ 6,624.27 ~, ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 4 January 14, 1998 L DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 4 IMPROVEMENTS: 1. STREETS: SOUTH FORK (30' STR.)........... 200 L.F. - 6,000 S.F. - 670 S.Y. - 450 L.F. of Curb & Gutter CACTUS (30' STR.) .................... 200 L.F. - b,000 S.F. - 670 S.Y. - 450 L.F.. of Curb & Gutter SPRINGFIELD (30° STR.):......... -800 L.F. - 24,000 S.F. - 2,670 S.Y. - 1,800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter E-W COLLECTOR (30' STR.)....1,000 L:F: - 30,000 S.F. - 3,333 S.Y. - 1,800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (1/2 30' STR) 800 L F - 12 000 S.F. '- 1 335 S.Y. - 800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SUBTOTAL .............. ..,...:.. .................. - 78,000 S.F. - 8,678 S.Y. - 5,300 L.F. of Curb & Gutter E-W COLLECTOR (9' O.P)....:.. 1,000 L.F: - 9,000 S.F. - 1,000 S.Y. VICTORIA (1/2..30' STR:)...:...... 800 L.F. -.12,000 S.F. - 1,335 S.Y: - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (26' STR O P) 800 L F - 20 800 S.F. - 2,311 S.Y. SUBTOTAL ..: ......:......................... " ...:... - 41,800 S.F. - 4,646 S.Y. - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 900 L.F. with 4 inlets 3. SEWER LINE: 1700 L:F: b" Sewer Line 10 Service Lines. (4" - 56.2' Avg.) 4.WATER LINE• 1500 L:F. 6" Water Line 10 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 49' Avg.) II. PHASE 4 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: 1. STREET. CONSTRUCTION (DEVELOPER PORTION): 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control: ............... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ........:...................... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation :....:............. ... ......... C.Y. 964 $ 2.50 $ 2,410.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding ................ S.Y. 5,700 $ 0.50 $ 2,850.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 8,678 $ 2.40 $ 20,827.00 6 Extra Lime :................:............................ Ton 60 $ 80.00 $ 4,800.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y.. 7,350 $ 6.00. $ 44,100.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ...... :.............:... S.Y. 7,350 $ 3.75 $ 27,562.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter...:..... L.F. 5,300 $ 2:15 $ 11,395.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk..............:.. S:F. 7,950 $ 3.75 $ 29,812.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons (14) ............. S.F. 1,890 $ 3.15 $ 5,955.00 Total ......:...:.......................................................:......................................:................................ $ 153,711.00 2. STREET CONSTRUCTION {CITY PORTIO 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control................ L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ .0.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing.,......,.....:.: .............. L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00. 3 Excavation... :..:..... ......: .. ................:. C.Y. 4,646. $ 2.50 $ 11,615.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding............:... S.Y.. 0 $ 0.50 $ 0.00 5 6"Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%).::..:. S.Y. 4,646 $ 2.40 $ 11,150.00 6 Extra Lime... ...: ..............................:..... Ton 30 $ 80.00 $ .2,400.00 7 6" Flexible Base. Crushed Stone ..........:.... S:Y. 4;646 $ 6.00 $ 27,876.00 4" Extra Flexible Base Crushed Stone...:. S.Y. 3,910 $ 4.00- $ 15,640.00 ', 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ....... ...........:....: S.Y. 4,646 $ 3.75 $ 17,422.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F: 0 $ 2.15 $ 0.00 10 Reinforced .Concrete Sidewalk.: .:............. S.F. 0 $ 3.'75. $ 0.00 i 11 Reinforced. Concrete Hurons S F 0 $ 3.15 $ 0.00 Total ..:..:............:............::..:......:........................,..........................................:...........:.............. $ 86,103.00 CREEK CROSSING: 1 36" Corrugated Pipe (80') ....................... Ea. 2 $ 5,500:00 $ 11,000.00 2 Dirt Work, Backfill, Compaction....:....... Ea. 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3 Concrete Pipe Ends .. ............:............... Ea. 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 Concrete Abutmentwith Handrail Ea 2 $ 2,500:00 $ 5,000.00 Total ................:.....................:...............:.....................:...........:..............................,................. $ 20,500..00 3. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ....:..: :...:.........:.. L.F: 900 $ 27.00 $ 24,300.00 2 Concrete JunctionBox.(2)... ..: .............: Ea. 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 3 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet.. :.: .........:.... Ea: 4 $ 1,750.00 $ 7,000.00 4 Connectto Existing. ....: .:.. :...............:. Ea. 1 $ 250.00 $ 250:00 5 Trench Safety Storm Drain._ .. L.F. 900 $ 1.50 $ 1,350.00 Tota1.....:: ...........::.....:....................:.........................,..:............................................:................ $ 34,100.00 4: SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6' to 8' depth) L.F. 1,700. $ 15.00 $ 25,500.00 2 Standard SewerManhole (<8' depth)...... Ea: 4 $ 1,200.00. $ 4,800.00 3 Remove Plug & Connect to Existing........ Ea. 1 $ 200.00. $ 200.00 4 Trench Safety Sewer System : ......:.......... Ea. 1,700 $ 1.50 $ 2,550.00 5 4" Service Line (Type II)(56 2'-Avg 1. :.. Ea. 10 $ 800.00 $ 8,000.00 Total ........:.................................:......:....,.:...........................:.::.......:...................................:..... $ 41,050.00 5. WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (C900; C1.200) ....:.: ...............:. L.F. 2 Connect to Existing Line ....:..... .....:..... Ea. 3 Fire Hydrants (3).:... ...: ........................ Ea. 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ................................... Ea. 5 6" x 6» Hydrant Tees ............:..........::...: Ea. 1,500 $ 14.50. $ 21,750.00 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 6 $ 350.00 $ 2,100.00 3 $ .250.00 $ 750.00 _. 1 A 6 6" x 6" Cross ........... ... .....:............. Ea. 1 $ 200.00 $, 200.00 7 1 1/2" Copper-Service (49' AvgJ.......... Ea. ~ 10 $ 700.00 $ 7.,000.00 8 Trench Safet~Water Line L F 1 500 $ 1.50 $ 2,250.00 Total ...........:.........,....................................................,................................................:............ $ 39,150.00 Total Estimated Developer Cost ..............................................................................................: $ 288.511.00 Total City Oversize Participation.. ..... ........................ .................... $ 86.103.00 TOTAL ESTIlVIATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ........ ................................................. $ 374.614.00 PHASE 4 - 35 R-1 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED DEV. COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ................... $ 8,243.00 ~:~ ~. .. ~ ~ ,, TITLE SLIDE -~_.w (Planning Ca a #98-100). (~Pla~nning ase # 98-300) ~.~~ y ~~, ~~ HISTORY SLIDE The Commission heard this request at the 12-4-97 meeting where denial was recommended due to several unanswered questions dealing with the master plan. The applicant pulled the item before going onto the City Council. ORIGINAL. CONCERNS ZONING -piecemeal although in complaince with LUP PHASING -support infrastructure DRAINAGE -hadn't been determined FLOODPLAIN -not. yet indentified SEWER -not yet determined whether using impact fee line or building ~riother OP -impact studies had not been submitted PARKLAND -without floodplain knowledge this was undetermined MASTER PLAN REVISED The applicant has submitted a revised master plan,. but it still addresses only a few of the items mentioned previously.. As a concept, the master plan appears to meet the City's nodes. and ordinances even though there are several unanswered questions remaining. Phasing There are still concerns staff has about the phasing. of the plan and the ability for the development to upport the infrastructure requirements. The developer's intention is to build single family residences on the property with possible neighborhood commercial at the. Victoria/Graham intersection. The previous. plan showed the majority of the residential lots being built before the thoroughfare plan infrastructure was addressed. This revised master plan still shows the majority of the residential lots being. built before the thoroughfare plan infrastructure is addressed. the Victoria extension and the east/west. collector are not :addressed. until phases 3 and 4. Staff is concerned about this phasing. plan. The concern stems from the ability for these phases to support such large pieces of infrastructure. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the. phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing any final plats. Access and.Internal: Street Design The, previous :concerns. about the internal street layout have been addressed. There is now secondary access to Graham provided with Phase 2. There will now be only 5,8 lots built before a secondary access is provided. (Previouslythere were 107 lots with a single o: \group\deve_ser\stfrpt\ 100300nt. doc access.) There is also a street connection made across the creek to the. east/west collector providing access to and visibility to the creek area. Drainage Staff has still not !seen drainage plans for this development.. The developer will submit drainage construction plans with final plats. At that time staff will determine whether drainage'is adequately handled. _. ... _. 11V Vt{~/1W11L11 WL Floodplain and floodway may exist on this property. The developer has still to confirm whether there is any floodplain on the property.: CSISD is performing a hydraulic analysis to define the floodplain/floodway on their adjacent tract and as of this writing, there appears to be floodplain on the school: tract. The location of the floodplain/floodway may have an impact on the lots that backup to it. At this point, with the location unknown, the suitability for'idevelopment of these lots is -also unknown. It is acceptable for the developer`to show approximate floodplainlocation on a conceptual master plan. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined. Sanitary Sewer ~,'I The developer halls discussed the ability for this property to sewer toward the south rather than participating in the Graham Road Impact Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. He has discussed a request to amend the existing impact fee area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line. If this phase is deleted,. he would then like to pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. A portion of this line has already been constructed, and is existing: inthe Springbrook Subdivision and would continue west to and through: thin development. The developer would be requesting.. oversize participation in this new sewer line, Thee esponsibility for demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area 92-01 and reduce the number of lots that would participate in this impact fee is inherent on this developer. Ultimately City Council must approve any change to the impact fee area. This has not been done to date. Lots fronting Graham Road would sewer into the impact fee''line. No final plats ca I~i be processed until this is determined. Oversize Participation It is required that impact studies be presented when oversize participation is being requested. An incomplete impact study was submitted for sewer oversize for Phase L If the developer dogs not submit a complete oversize request prior to construction, he loses the ability to req~iest oversize at all. General note #6 on the master. plan refers to oversize participation by the City. This note should be revised to-read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with OP participation requests to the .City. ". o:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\ 100 300nt. doc Thoroughfare Plan Considerations The Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension of Victoria along the western boundary of the 14.8 acre tract located just to the west of the two tracts submitted for rezoning. The Plan also"shows the extension of Southern Plantation through the southern portion of the subject tracts and through the southern portion of the adjacent 14.8 acre tract. Staff did invite all owners of undeveloped land to a meeting to discuss thoroughfare plan implementation options for this part of town. As a result of this meeting and subsequent .meetings with the developer, it has been determined that Southern Plantation Drive will "T" into the east/west collector which will extend through the southern portion of the subject property. The final location and alignment of the. east/west collector will not be determined until the floodplain limits are established. `~ In discussion with stafl'the developer indicated that he would construct, at his expense, ~ ~ with a request for OP, all of Victoria Ave. in phases 3 and 4. ~` If the developer is unable to acquire ROW from the adjacent property owner (Carroll ~''~ tract) he proposes to shift Victoria completely onto his (the developer's) property as it runs adj scent. to the Carroll tract. ROW from the Fry tract will have to acquired tto avoid an off-set intersection at Graham. Condemnation maybe necessary if the developer cannot negotiate acquisition on theFry tract. The alignment shown as Victoria moves southward, requires ROW from the Bald Prairie Subdivision. Staff strongly. recommends against this alignment. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Sub., thereby preserving the integrity of an established' neighborhood. Parkland Dedication and Open Space. along the .creek The revised master plan shows a residential street crossing the creek area, thus providing some access and visibility into the area. This also results in some lots being oriented with a side to the creek rather than a back yard. The .end of the col-de-sac in Phase. l also extends into this area, but it is unclear whether this will be the final design until the floodplain-location is determined. The. conceptual master plan shows Park at the end of Phase. L .The developer met with the Parks Board to discuss parkland dedication this week. The Board mooed to recommend accepting the land dedication shown depending on the floodplain study and to allow future credit 1VIr. Szb. adjacent development. The developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any. adjacent development. This should be considered when evaluating oversize requests for streets, sewer and water. Greenbelt The master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek. Given the Comprehensive Plan considerations about open space preservation, staff has encouraged the: developer to address how this creek area will work with his planned development. o\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\ 100300nt. doc ~ . A He notes on the master.-plan this area as Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not desire to purchase this area to provide a linkage, as addressed in the.: Comprehensive Plan, then the developer. may incorporate this area into his lots. Revise Note # 9 to read "there.is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area. as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for op ssible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots. ". Until the above information is presented by the applicant, staff cannot process any final plats for any part of the development. Staff does support. the master plan in concept with the conditions noted in the above discussion. Staff Recommendations SLIDE • Staff recommends approval of the master plan in concept with the following conditions: 1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing any final plats. 2. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined. ~ 3. No final plats'can be processed until a determination is made as to how ~ the property will be sewered. i 4. Revise note #6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as`shown with OP participation requests to the City.". 5. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Sub. 6. Revise Note # 9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and. which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for uossible future acquisition or if not. acquired will be incorporated into lots:" Staff reco mmends approval of the preliminary .plat of phase L Zomn~ The property currently has A-O Agricultural Open zoning on it. The developer has a request to rezone a portion of the property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 is in compliance with the land use plan. Staff recommends .approval of the .present zoning request. The applicant has submitted a rezoning request for the remainder of the property (R-1 and some C-3). This avoids the piecemeal approach to zoning that staffwas concerned about. o:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\100300nt.doc ~ . ENGINEERING Water: Water'is provided along Graham Road Drainage: Drainage easement locations will be determined once a drainage. report is submitted. Off-site Easements: May be required for sanitary sewer. Sidewalks: Will. be required. internally. The sidewalk along Graham Road will be constructed with. the City's Graham Road CIP project. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): Eagle; 12-31-97 and 1-28-98 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 1-15-98 Advertised Council Hearing Dates:. 2-12-98 Number of Notices Mailed to Property .Owners Within 200': 8 Response Received: None as of date of staff report Supporting Materials: ~ 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Master Development Plan 4. Preliminary Plat i i o:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\100300nt.doc June 8, 2000 TATION COLLEGE S P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue. College Station, TX 77842 Te(: 409 764 3500 Mr. J.M. Szabuniewicz Westfield Addition, Ltd. PO Box 14000 College Station, Texas 77841 Dear Mr. Szabuniewicz, I am writing in response to our many conversations regarding Victoria Avenue's extension. You have asked for the City to provide participatory. financing in advance of construction: You have asked for special consideration in the way oversize participation is calculated. The City's position on the Victoria extension is that it will be an oversize participation project. A private developer will initiate the project and the City will participate in the oversize costs according to the section of the Subdivision Regulations that define oversize participation. I want to take this opportunity to help you to understand the process required for oversize participation... The. following excerpts from the College Station Subdivision Regulations may provide some direction for you. 6.C.2 An applicant .may .request oversize participation on any infrastructure, as provided in Section 9 of these regulations. In order to do so, impact. studies covering the particular infrastructure must be submitted justifying the request .for oversize. These studies. shall indicate what size infrastructure is necessary to serve the proposed development as shown on an approved master development plan or master preliminary plat. If the city's comprehensive plan calls for infrastructure in excess of that required for the proposed development, the applicant may request .participation for this additional- size.. 9-B Streets Subject to statutory restrictions and approval of the City Council, the City may enter into a development agreement agreeing to participate in the cost of thoroughfares where the width required by the City is in excess of those requirements specified in Section 8-G.10. and agreeing to participate in the extra cost according to the following guidelines: 9-6.1 The proposed thoroughfare and right-of-way, .necessary for it must be located inside the city limits of the City of College .Station at the time the construction of the streets is to begin. 9=B.2 The plans and specifications for the construction of the proposed thor- oughfare must have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer of the City of College Station. Home of Texas A&M University 9-B.3 The street must meet the criteria described in the City's "Future Land Use Plan", as follows: 9-B.3.1 A Principal arterial located` and designed to provide a direct traffic route over fairly long distances within. the metropokitan area. It is intended that traffic volumes be relatively high, but speeds are high enough only to ensure smooth flow. Access controls are provided only at major traffic junctures with traffic controls .located. at most intersections... Frontage is either imited or controlled by use of service road. Texas Avenue and. University Drive are examples of principal arterials. 9-B.3.2 A minor arterial located and designed to serve the high volume traffic. needs of the local area. These routes are continuous through thee. community, and should connect with similar thoroughfares in adjacent, ci#ies. Access is controlled .through placement of entering streets, driveway prohibitions, medians,. left-turn .lanes, and signalization. Holleman Drive and Southwest Parkway are examples of minor arterials.' 9-B.4 A preliminary reguest'for oversize participation, based .upon an engineer's estimate for the project, must be presented to the City Council prior to thee. beginning of construction. Upon approval of a preliminary request, funds will be, encumbered through a purchase order, with the total not to exceed the City's share plus a ten percent (10%) contingency for participation in the approved project. Council, approval and participation shalt'be contingent and subject to commencement within one (1) year of Council approval` and completion of the thoroughfare by the date so designated by the Council. If .construction of an approved project is not either begun within one (1) year of Council approval, or completed by the date designated by the, Council:, then Council approval shall be automatically revoked, the funds will be returned to the oversize street fund and will be available for the next request. After the street has been. completed: and accepted by the City Engineer, 'payment may be requested. Payment will be contingent upon the City's receipt of a deed for the land and improvements, an updated Title report,. and' lien subordination's from all lenders. The cost of the City's participation shall not increase more than ten percent (10%) over the amount calculated using the engineer's estimate_ 9-B.5 The City's participation shall'be limited to a percentage of construction costs and the actual value of the undeveloped 'land in excess of that. required for the thoroughfare as established by an appraisal prepared by a MAl appraiser approved by the City Right- of-Way Ageht, which appraisal is acceptable to the City Rigfit-of-lNay Agent. The cost of the appraisal shall be borne by the subdivider. 9-B.6 At the time of the preliminary request, the City Council reserves .the right to evaluate the overall economic benefit of the thoroughfare to the .City.. The City°Council may elect not to participate or it may elect to limit participation. 9=B.7 .The City's participation will be limited to a maximum of thirty percent (30%), of the engineer's estimate unless the Council agrees otherwise and the project is placed out to .public bide. As you can see from the excerpts above, there are certain key elements required in an oversize request. First, it must. be based on an approved Master Development Plan or Master Preliminary Plat. Second; it must be based on and accompanied. by impact studies that identify the amount of infrastructure required by the City in excess of that required for the development. Also, the oversize participation program is one where the City reimburses the developer for eligible expenses after the improvements are in place and accepted by the City Engineer: It is true that the 1998 bond election has made funds available for City participation in the development of Victoria Avenue. Those funds will be accessed via the oversize participation process described above. I hope that this letter clarifies the City's position with regard to the Victoria Extension Sincerely, _._ _: ~'-- 1 f „ ~. ;: . Mark Snuth, P.E.. , - ~ --- Director of Public Works cc im Callaway, Director of Development Services Bob Mosley P.E., City Engineer. ~~~a©.~ ~~~ GE ST~.TIO COLD P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue. College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 Lick Creek Development, Inc P.O. Box 14000 College Station, Texas 77841 Attn: John Szabuniewicz Dear John: May 12,1998 '~ Tn looking at the conditions of the. approval of the preliminary plat for the Westfield Subdivision,.. it appears that there is one item that is still lacking. As discussed with the preliminary plat, the hydraulic study was to be complete through the entire Westfield :property to show the location of the existing floodplain. To date, staff has been presented with the lines through a portion of Phase 1, but not through the entire property. Please submit the hydraulic analysis (IBC .runs) as well as the location of the floodplain, depicted. on the. preliminary plat. Once we have this information on the preliminary plat, a final plat for Phase 1 can be scheduled for a';hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission. We are currently in the process of reviewing your engineer's estimates for oversize participation and to deternune the viability for the phasing. you have proposed for the development. We have not. completed that review and our comments being returned today include all other review comments save those related to the estimates for construction. ' Please call if you .have any questions regarding the comments on .the construction plans or reports. i c S, ~tr^~ ~` rely, ~ U V - ~,W `U,~,,,~' c, ~'o s Veronica J.B org `1" `~' ~ ~ p^rr D~ Asst. City Engineer ~ ~ ~ ~~ o fv~ ~~~~~ cc: file Tun Callaway, Director of Development Services hirley Volk, Development Coordinator ~ane Kee, City Planner Paul Kaspar, Graduate Civil Engineer Home of Texas A&M University WESTFIELD ADDITION ,LTD. 303 College Main Street, College Station, Texas .77840 P. O. Box 14000, College Station, Texas 77841; (409) 260-1647 March 25,.1998 Mr. Jim Callaway Development Services Director City of College Station 1101 Texas: Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Waiver of Water and Sewer Tap Fees Dear7im: Pursuant to our recent conversation,;I am hereby requesting by this letter that the City of College Station, waive all of the Water and Sewer Tap Fees in the proposed development of Westfield Addition. For and in consideration of the waiver of such fees, the Developer agrees to do the following: 1. Install all sewer taps while constructing the sewer line of the proposed development at Developer's sole cost and .expense. 2. Install all water taps and install and set in place City of College Station approved water meters and meter boxes as the water line is constructed of Developer's sole cost and expense. The purpose of this request is so that the water and sewer taps can be done contemporaneously with the construction of the. infrastructure and at a more economical cost and so that Developer can have lots which can be, priced and. allow for the construction of affordable housing in the City of College Station. This would be for the purpose of promoting the City's goal. of having more affordable housing available to the public. With this requested proposal, the City would not be out any moneys for sewer and water taps and meters since it would be paid by Developer. We would be willing to pay for an inspection fee which would be required prior to the acceptance of each tap. Please give this matter your consideration as soon as possible, and thank you for your assistance. Si erely, (ot~ J: M. Sza uniewicz, President Lick Creek Development, Inc., General Partner of Westfield Addition, Ltd. -- .. ;Jim Callaway...- Westfield _ _ _ . _ Pa9 From:. Jim Callaway To: Jane Kee Date; 1/5/98 3:13PM Subject: Westfield. John S. came in this morning to discuss the atest review of his project. He met with Shirley who asked me to join'(help). John asked several questions that Shively couldn't. answer. t akked John to give me some time. to review the staff report, review memo, etc. He's supposed. to come in"right about now to discuss his concers. John wants to knowwhat he needs to do ao get a favorable recommendations. He says that he recognizes some things are minor and he can fix ahem. Irrorderto answer re: favorable recommendation I've reviewed the case file and. the reports: Here's my "interpretation" of the most important points: Zoning comments- The report refers to piecemeal zoning as one of two reasons for recommending against a zone change "albeit in compliance with the Land .Use Plan". However, most subdivisions are zoned in phases or sections based on a master. preliminary plat or master. plan. It appears that the major concern with piecemeal zoning in this case is really expressed in the second reason ci#ed for denial- "..where are many unanswered questions on themaster plan" resulting in doubt as to the viability of the development plan and its related zoning. There. are numerous unanswered questions. I've tried to breakout the ~ questions from the staff report- the questions that, if-answered, should result in at least a recommendation for conditional approval of the plan. These are restated as problems or issues: 1. The plat avoids or defers significant street construction unti the final phase of -the project. At the same time, the final phase is a primarily the significant streets, a park and a creek with probable floodplain and floodway area. Two reserve tracts also remain.. There needs to be provisions made for constructing or guaranteeing appropriate pro-rated-portions of the major streets as the phases are developed. This has been standard development practice here since Southwood Valley was unable to complete the fast portions of Welch.. The developer should pay no more than his fair share of the infrastructure. The plan, as ubmitted to date, does. not guaranteeing that. Two alternatives are: A. Redraw the phase lines so that .pro-rated. portions of the major infrastructure are.. constructed as each phase develops. This would be consistent with other phased subdivisions..The later phases of Emerald Forest with North Forest Parkway, Appomatox and a major drainage way would be a good comparison. B. Deposit financial surety for pro-rated portions of major infrastructure as each phase develops. This might be more convenient for the developer and- might be the best way to address problems such as the Victoria. alignment tha# overlaps two tracts.. The one drawback is that a development agreement would likely be necessary to accomplishthis. However; a development agreement-might be the best approach for resolving. issues such as ahe aiming of Victoria and the future. east-west thoroughfare, oversize participation in the two streets, etc. There may be other options but in any case I see this as one of the problems that must be resolve before we can give any positive recommendation in this case. 2. The plat does not address the creek that crosses this.: property and will be part of ahe drainage system for this development.. and the upstream :area. The staff comments include references to the development turning its back on an amenity, the lack of a floodplain analysis, a lack of drainage: plans, etc. The developer:Fras stated that the creek and other property in phase 4 will belong to the developer. He has also stated that there will be no homeowner association or other provision for property owners to maintain common property in an effort to avoid lot dues and provide affordable lots. There are several points that need to be addressed.. These are: .. Jim Callaway -Westfield Page, 2 A. What provisions are made to provide for maintenance. of the detention pond(s) or any other common pro ert ?This should. include financial provisions. as well- if there's no HOA then what maintenance funs! escrow/accounts/fees will beset up? l3. Without at least preliminary drainage plans it is'unknown what, if .any, drainage improvements will be made in the creek. Will any such improvements be public or private? If private, the questions. in (A) above apply. here as well I agree that the other issues such as greenways-and linkages, a development turning its back on an amenity and related items are concerns but t think the aboveare the major "creek" .points that he needs to address now. And in' writing (notes on a master plan; attached exhibit, etc.) so that his comments can be passed on to the Commission and Council. 1 am concerned with the-long term maintenance of the'reserve tracts in phases 4. However, the developer proposes to the tracts.: This allows for. code enforcement if :necessary for property maintenance and is now different for the situation that exists on the undeveloped property upstream. ~~~ f ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r a-~ ~` ~~ L~ ~~ v I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ • ~ , ~ .. ~ / , . ~ '. 1 ~ , 1 ~ ~ e ~ .t ~ S •. ~ 1 • 1 Z • 1 ~ ~ • • ~ ~ t S ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ r + ~' ~ • P . J, + ~ ' { a ~' ~ ~ ~ .. o '~ 9 0 . ~ , , •~ ~ ~ ' ~ , • 4 r-x ~ 1 1 ~ a ,~ ¢ i ..i 'I ~~ • ~ ' . I .~ .. ; • ` • L`. i i di Y', . Apri110, 1998 Mr. Jim Calloway Development Services Director City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texa 77842 Re: Westfield Addition, Phase 1 Dear Mr. Calloway: We are enclosing for your review the Engineer's Construction Cost. Estimates for Westfield Addition Phase 1 & 2.` You have already previously received the Estimates for Phase 3 and 4. Also enclosed is the sewer participation for the proposed sewer line extension. I have enclosed the 100- year flood plain data cross-sections 9 and 10 which is for Phase 1. Included are additional estimated cross-sections obtained by phone from Ron Morrison Hydrology Engineers. All of the flood plain is situated totally within the proposed park lot and none of the residential lots .are in the flood plain. We are requesting that the Oversize participation be scheduled for .council consideration at the Apri123, .1998 meeting. According to the proposed alignment, some 2900 ft. Of trunkline into be constructed. The size of the line from MH.1 to M.H. 2 should be a 12" line (to be built in the future).. The recommended size for the line from M.H. 2 to M.H. 3 is 15". Also, we would like the council to consider our request for waiver of water and sewer tap fees. If you need any other information, pleaselet me know. S' erely, 7 M. z unie z Westfield Addition Fc:~: ~ry 9, 1998 Mr. Tim Calloway _ Development Services Director City of College Station, Texas College Station, Texas .77842 Via Hand Delivery Dear 1VIr: Calloway: This is in response to your letter dated February 2, 1998. 1. The estimates provided are good working estimates for purposes of analysis at the present time and can be confirmed by our Engineer, Mr. Martin Riley_ We understand that the oversize request for Victoria Extension will not fomally occur until Phase 3, at which time some of the figures mayhave varied. At such timethey will be revised and properly signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. 2. The proposed developer participation in Victoria Street~was based on a 30 ft. Street as the size which is sufficient given the present subdivision's layout. However,. a thorough traffic analysis has not been completed to date, .and not presently knowing what the impact of future development might be,'final determination will be done. at the time the request is made. In the event traffic impact warrants it, it will be no .problem for the project developer participation to be based on Victoria Street being a collector street width of 39 ft. 3. The estimates reflecting developer participation in Victoria Street at the level oft/2 of a 30 ft. Street, is based on the other 1/2 of 30 ft. being paid for by others, and Developer agrees that it shall not be part of the City's oversize participation. However, Developer will rely on right-of--way participation by adjoining land owners .and prorata contribution. In the event pro-rata contribution is not available, the City may decide to pay .for such prorata portion on behalf of such adjoining owners,. or the Developer agrees to advance such funds and obtain .reimbursement from assessment against adjoining owners as currently authorized under the City. ordinance. Therefor, such prorata cost may be withdrawn from the City's portion'` of ;oversize. participation. In the event that the Developer must bear :all of the cost of the~adjoining owners' 1/2 pro rata portion, it would not significantly financially impact our project, provided that such cost could be recouped in the future from such assessments. 4. After initial conversations with some of the. adjoining landowners, the Developer is confident that right-of--way will be able to be obtained from the Carroll tract and possibly from some of the Bald Prairie Subdivision Lots, however, the Link and Fry property at the southwest corner of Victoria and Graham Road have vehemently opposed any of their property being given up, because it would severely impact their parking. That would have to be a decision .made by City Council, of whether to acquire such right-of--way by condemnation or not. In order for the intersection to be properly. aligned without offset, which is the preferable way of designing the intersection, Council will have to .agree to condemn. In the event that Council decides it will not condemn or obtain such additional right-of--way, Developer would then not have any choice but to offset Victoria such additional space so as to allow its extension.. This; in the opinion of Developer would not affect the number of lots which Developer has proposed; since several of the lots were planned with extra width, in case the lot sizes'would have to be designed smaller.' 5. In the event Ghat all of Victoria extension is deemed to have to be put on Developer's land, Developer could physically do it. However, Developer objects that alI of the cost of Victoria should also be borne by Developer, since adjoining land owners and the City's added growth in the area, i.e. new schools, would ha~~e and probably use access to Victoria. Developer objects to providing all of the right-of-way, and all of the cost, with no cost sharing of adjoining land owners.: Developer, would expect that the City share in the .burden of the normal 1/2 street cost on behalf of such' adjoining landowners and Developer proposes cost recovery through assessments. The City's thoroughfare plan as approved by Council, places the extension of Victoria on the common property line, with participation by each adjoining landowner,. since each will benefit. Developer believes that cost baring should be done by the landowners on both sides, which includesright-of. way and cost of improvements. In the event that Developer must bear the cost of'the full street (whether 30 ft. or 39 ft.), Developer has'sufficient lots in order to recoup such additional cost,'however, Developer intends to proceed with all rights to cost recovery from adjoining land owners as prescribed by ordinance, or allowed under law or in equity. Developer would prefer that at least the adjoining landowners provide the their respective portion of the right-of--way. The critical issue at this time is whether Victoria will be allowed to be offset or not. With regard. tothe remainder of the financial, planning, development and construction issues of Victoria Extension, Developer. is agreeable to entering into a development. agreement with the City. Sin erely, ( .- J. M. Sz buniewicz, resident Lick Creek development, Inc. _~°vy~GE S~"~'° : College Station Independent School District F Y U O ~ eye , Q~y ~ceClence In ~ducation....An Investment In'Zlie future ~¢~i,llQ(- QQ.Q,//~e~lca FNr scx°°ti ~~.` February 18, 1998 ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ 1998 ~ ~; yam Mr. George K. Noe City Manager ~'~ng s1s City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: College Station Independent School District Graham Road School Plan Dear Mr. Noe: Over the last couple of years, the City and CSISD have .made great strides in working cooperatively to serve our constituents. We believe that there will continue to be opportunities that will mutually benefit both entities, and this cooperation will result in best value to our taxpayers. We are excited about some of the joint initiatives now-in the discussion and planning stages. In accordance with our joint agreement, CSISD staff sought City staff input in the site selection process for the proposed intermediate school to be located in the Graham Barron Road vicinity. Since our desire was to acquire a site that was not only in the appropriate target area, but could be developed at least cost to our taxpayers, input from the City was an important step. We compliment the .City Planning staff. for their willing and valuable assistance in acquiring the site, and in the development of the site plan. The Ciry staff provided the school district estimated development costs for the several properties that were being considered. This was a considerable time commitment from City staff and was greatly appreciated. The information provided was very influential in the final site selection. After acquiring the site, we .began to develop our plan which was reviewed at regular intervals by City sta,~`: Several of their recommendations were incorporated into. the plan, including changes in locations of the drives into the site. 71ze plan received staff approval, and was subsequently unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning. Commission.. During. this process, there was no suggestion to consider developing a roadway along either side of the. property. While we respect the process, and do not expect the City Council to rubber stamp .all staff and P1VZ recommendations, we ,find the Council action on January 7, 1998, to be highly irregular. CSISD had staff present'at the meeting during which this plan was approved by Council as a part of the consent agenda without discussion. Having been approved, CSISD representatives left the meeting, only to read in the Eagle the next morning that the plan had been reconsidered and tabled without input from CSISD. At a second meeting on January 22, 1998, CSISD's plan was presented again to Council with full support of Ciry staff. CSISD provided all information requested, and both City and CSISD staff believed that concerns regarding traffic had been satisfied.. Again, we were taken aback by Council rejection of the plan. 1812 Welsh Street College Station, TX 77840 JIM SCALES, Ph.D. 409-764-6456 FAX 409-764-6492 Superintendent of Schools Since that date, district staff and consultants have been actively engaged in a time consuming process of identifying reasonable options. Four options were developed and priced, including two with roads along the east or westproperty lines. The district administration and consultants have reviewed the options with the Facilities Committee of the Board of Trustees, and we conclude that our original plan is viable, safe, and cost effective for our constituents. However, our. architects and engineers. have made changes in the bus and parent drop-off loops that should alleviate concerns regarding traffic, flow on and off campus (see attached letter from CSISD Construction Coordinator, Mr. Bill Savage, P.E., to VLKArchitects). This is a sound plan with ample space for traffic queue on the site. We hope. that. this process indicates our desire to seriously evaluate Council concerns. We could have presented our plan again on February 12, 1998, but we took the time to analyze the options. Unfortunately, each required additional cost without corresponding value. We are not opposed to donating right-of--way for a street along either the east or west property lines of the CSISD tract should some other party wish to construct the roadway now or in the future. We .cannot, however, a,~"ord what. our architects and engineers tell us would be atleast an eight week delay in order to change the orientation of the building toward such a street. .Time is of the. essence. Atthis time, the earliest construction could begin would be April 1, 1998, allowing only sixteen months to construct and move in. Our experience in other school construction projects is that' his is already a very tight schedule. Each day this project is delayed is costly not only in dollars, but' in quality that will be sacrificed in a rush to completion. The College Station Independent School District, therefore, respectfully requests that the school district's development plan for our proposed intermediate school on South Graham Road be placed on the February 26, 1998, City Council agenda for consideration and approval. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim Scales Superintendent of Schools cc: CSISD Board of Trustees r.:.., ~ ~ ,:• College Station Independent School District ~celferrte In ~'ducatinn....An Investment In 2Tie future February 19, 1998 Mr. Steve Aloway Vestal-Loftis-Kafista/Architects 1161 Corporate Drive West Suite 300 Arlington, Texas 76006 Subject: Graham Road Intermediate School Construction Contract .Site Plan Changes Dear Mr. Aloway: Letter No. 381 With regard to the City's opposition to the parent drop and pick-up patterns shown on the current site plan, we request that the site plan. and plat be changed to relocate the bus lane to the front of the school, provide a bus lane, a thru lane and diagonal parking. Relocate the parent drop/pick-up lane to the West side of building, provide an adjacent thru lane and a 9 to 10 car parking lane as shown on the attached marked plan. This plan. should provide us with 725 feet of available Q which is equivalent to 24 vehicles. The College Station Independent School District Facility Committee has instructed us to incorporate the above changes, resubmit the plat .reflecting these improvements .and seek City Council approval.. Please incorporate these changes and forward revised drawings to the City as soon as possible so these can be brought before the City Council Thursday, February 26, 1998. We request that Jeff Kalista and David_Mayes attend the City Council Work Shop at 3:00 pm and the Council Meeting at 7:00 pm Thursday, February 26, 1998 to assist us in seeking Council approval of this-plat Please advise me of any changes to this plan. Yours truly, W. J. e Construction Manager WJS/b Enclosure "" cc: David Neal David Mayes -Cheatham and Associates File L/P Construction Services 1812 Welsh Street College Station, TX 77840 409-694-5610 FAX 409-694-5612 JIM SCALES, Ph.D. . Superintendent of Schools ~ v tvGw..vfiKAYGL ~p ~: ~ ~ _,.~ ~ ~ .I~n-1- ~: X55' gi1VE r~ .~ ~t.~• III .l~,w~~i ~ ( I , a Q'~O • • wy ~p c 1 1 lI I ~ .:1~. .I F~ I I i I I ~~; I I ,. 4 ?~ ~ 1 -~~ Ill '' j I ~ kx~~t. AlTE A E BID ~ I I I ~ ' ~:~~_ ~ cL polls I I I ~ l "wl'`it`: ALT TE 810 'i I~+ ~! ~I I ~" ~ ~I I ;I ~I I .I ~, ' ~I ~ •I ~~I ~~ . J a I I I ~I I I aril t _ . ;1 I i '1 .I i~l~i i ~I~I~ I~I~ , I . ~I It .I 1 ++I I `~ I .yO '1 ~ ~ • j ~I .~~_ s, 'ar . _ ~ - - -- --- I ~3p. 1 __ __~ ' I I ~ I ~ 13T. T5 iI II ~ ;~ II I m . ~ I i --:- .I j, I II Ii I ~ .. rC±1 Ti I I "~~~s •~ I :~-ra I ~t .*. L. iY ' r! a' b wTERME0IATE SCHOOL F.F. ElEV.- 307.33 CLASSROOMS T4,185 S.F. I 35.5 I ~I I e. DUMPSTER LOCATION J W ~> JO - at.~4>~ r-- ---i F T ~ I ETA MATE 61D CL S~p115 3,7Q8 IS.F. I1LTE8O ~. i~-ra:E...r btLOP~/~~cK uPLo vim- ~ ~ -- ^' ~-~- SPACES ..• 1, ~ ' ,, ~f. 9 February 9, 1998 Mr. Tim Calloway Development Services Director City of College:~Station, Texas College Station; Texas 77842 Via Hand Delivery Dear Mr. Calloway: This is in response to your letter dated February 2, 1998. 1. The estimates provided are good working estimates for purposes of analysis at the present time. and can be confirmed. by our Engineer, Mr. Martin Riley. We understand that the oversize request for Victoria Extension will not fomally occur until Phase 3, at which time some of the figures may have varied. At such time they will be revised and properly signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. 2. The proposed developer participation in Victoria Street~was based on a 30 $. Street as the size which is sufficient given the .present subdivision's layout. However, a thorough traffic analysis has not been completed to date, ..and not presently knowing what the impact of future development might be, final .determination will be done at the time the request is made. In the event traffic impact .warrants it, it will be no problem for the project developer participation to be: based on Victoria Street being a collector street width of 39 ft. 3. The estimates reflecting developer participation in Victoria Street at the level of 1/2 of a 30 ft. Street, is based on the other 1/2 of 30 ft. being paid for by others, and Developer agrees that it .shall not be part of the City's oversize .participation. However, Developer will rely on right-of--way participation by adjoining land owners and prorata contribution. In the..event pro-rata contribution is not available,. the City may decide to pay for such prorata portion onbehalf of such .adjoining owners, or the Developer agrees to advance such funds and obtain reimbursement from assessment against adjoining owners as currently authorized under the .City ordinance. Therefor, such prorata cost may be withdrawn from the City's portion`' of ;oversize participation.. In the event that. the Developer must bear all of the cost of the adjoining owners' 1/2 pro rata portion, it would not significantly financially impact our project, provided. that such cost could be recouped in the future from such assessments. P 4. After initial conversations with some of the adjoining landowners, the Developer is confident that right-of--way will be able to be obtained .from the Carroll tract and possibly from some of the Bald Prairie Subdivision Lots, however, the Link and Fry property at the southwest corner of Victoria and Graham Road have vehemently~,opposed any of their property being given up, because it would severely impact their parking. That would have to be a decision made by City Council, of whether to acquire such. right-of--way by condemnation or not. In order for the intersection to be properly. aligned without offset, which is the preferable way of designing. the intersection, Council will have to agree to condemn. In the event that Council decides it will not condemn or obtain such additional right-of--way, Developer would then. not have any choice but. to offset Victoria such additional space so' as to allow its extension. This, in the opinion of Developer would not affect the number of lots which Developer has proposed;`- since several of the lots were planned with extra width, in case the lot sizes would have to be designed.. smaller. 5. In the event that all of Victoria extension is deemed to have to be put on Developer's land, Developer could physically do it. However, Developer objects that all of the cost of Victoria. should also be borne by Developer, since adjoining land owners and the City's added growth. in the area, i.e. new schools, would have and probably use access to Victoria. Developer objects toproviding all of the right=of--way, and all of the cost,, with no cost sharing of adjoining land owners. Developer, .would expect that the City share in the burden of the normal 1/2 street cost on behalf of such adjoining landowners and Developer proposes cost recovery through assessments. The City's thoroughfare plan as approved by Council, places the extension of Victoria on the common property line, with participation by each adjoining landowner, since each.. will benefit. Developer believes. that. cost sharing should be done by the landowners. on both sides, which includes right-of--way and cost of improvements. In the event that Developer must bear the cost of the fizll street {whether 30 ft. or 39 ft.), Developer has sufficient lots in order to recoup such additional cost, however, Developer intends to proceed with all rights to cost recovery from adjoining land owners as prescribed by ordinance, or allowed under law or in equity. Developer would prefer that at least the adjoining landowners provide the their respective portion of the right-of--way. The critical issue at this time is whether Victoria will be allowed to be offset or not. With regard tothe remainder of the financial,'.., planning, development and construction issues of Victoria Extension, Developer is agreeable to entering into a development agreement with the City. Sin erely, J.1V1. Sz buniewicz, resident Lick Creek development, Inc. 11 0 Victoria Street 0 Victoria Oversize Participation Request to be made Request to be based on appropriate Engineering analysis 2~ 31 0 Victoria Centered on Property Line Developer seeks ROW :dedication Developer will seek pro rata contributions from abutting owners 4 O Victoria Cost Recovery Developer may seek recovery through assessments Developer may seek recovery through City participation Subdivision could bear total cost, Developer objects 5 0 Developer confident that ROW except for Graham Rd. tract (Fry, ', Link owners). can be obtained Offset intersection will be necessary unless ROW obtained Dedication, .purchase or even. condemnation may be necessary 6 C] Oversize participation, acquisition issues to be addressed at later date :Development agreement will be necessary Council will determine any City share in Victoria, participation in acquisition Allocate costs for acquisition, etc. ~._ ~.m_~ _..__ ~~ . .~a__ _b~ ~, ~ ~- -7 u~___~_- - -_____ __ - - ---------- -__-~-- -- _-~__~ _-___. _____----- ___-- _ 3 __._ _ _ _. .~~, ~- .~, ~; --- ____. _..LL._ _____.._ ._..~_ . ..__.._ _.. - ---- ---- - ~-- ~ ,, ~ ~~ ----___ _,._.._.n__..w_.._--~--~----~--~-- ~. ~-_T_-_-~_~ ___c~_~__-~_- --_ _______ __~_ . __------,__~y_ ~ __-- __ __ _._______- - - ---_ _______. * ~ i~~ ~~ I ~~ ~ s~ _~.__ v~ '~ ~ .. `` ~. s i ~ ~~" _..- _._ __ ___ _ __._._ ._ ~..__ __y______... -_ _ ~ ~~; '" ~ _ ___~ ____ __ - ~.:_.__..A~__- ______.~_._-_____~__---_~____ ~i ti J p~ v' ;1 ~~ __~ ~____a_.. _. _ ~ . __. __ ~_ r' ~ .~J '~ _ --~ _.__ __, _ _. ~ _ f , _ (, _ ~ _V 1 ---- __. -- ----- - - e ~~ ~orrC~~ _ - - ~' ~j .- __ _ _ ~ ~s f~ ~ ~ ~ 'c/ ~' c~~1 Yc ! ---- - -- - - - -- -- --- -~- ~U S --- - - ----- - __ - -~_ - -- -~ ~.- - - -- '" -- - --- -- ~a ;~~/' ova ^_ - --- ----_~ T -~_ ------- _.__ ~~f S . ---- _ _ -- - - _. - -- - --- ~ - ~ -.. - -- `~-~ -~1- - ---~ ~-=- --- -- - --- ------ ------------- -- ~- J ~jG -~ ~iJ~SJ~~ _ C ~/,G~_ Sc..vt-~3~'T 1' / V y ~ - - = ~ ' - q,~ , @ ! /L/ V ~`~i ,..1 ~/ ~ 1'~ .. ~: r . }(/_'°__ ~ f/t~.M;'.~ft' / ~' ~_ 1_JC!=r_~S- [~~. !, '•i/r _. ~~ - -- _R _ ~ ~ ~!~ --- ~~~ --~ j------~ ~-~~...~_L P ~ ~~- Cam-:-. /~~ r f'~' _ , ------ ---- -- - ~ ~.Gl/~F J__. /o ~_~-r9 ~c _~L -. ~ ___! ~ .~._.1! _d~_'~_ f'~.C3C~-~ ~ ,r G-d~t,..~OJ- --..,-- _ ._ _ _-_ _ ___ - t - ------ . --- --------------- -- . _. ~..__ _..__ _._ _.. ~~ N ~~ ---- _-~..__. - - - - ---- ---- : / _. u --- --- v _ - ~ ~~~~-~ ---!_ £~ -r'~-'-- ~- -- -- ~ `ems Yv"------- -- ------- - ,~(„~,~-.. ;_ ~/'e~~ ~7.~e~~ - --r~'~~?'l ~. / ~- _ '!rte ,~W ~..t~r--T~_~ ~ _- ------ -- ,~j ~ t __ _ '~ ~ - __ ~. .T. R. (Dick) Birdwell Consulting Engineer # 3 Forest College Station,-Texas 7784 (409) 200 2076 (800) 294 0476 .FAX{409) 2601288 Jan 28, 1998 Mayor and Council copy: Skip Noe Re: New School Site on Graham Road ,. - ~, '_~~ ~~~ -~ v --;' r, I will be out of town Feb. 12, 98 and will miss the Council Meeting on that day. Approval of the plat .for the new school on Graham road will be on the agenda. I encourage you to reject the proposed. plat and to ask Staff and the Planning Board to reconsidered this plat requiring the development to have anorth-south street on either the west or east side of this tract. The. plat as proposed has three curb cuts on Graham Road. The plan calls for a future additional .grade school on the same track- with no consideration of the traffic going to that school from the north. The two schools on this track will be significant traffic generators and the tree curb cuts will become bottlenecks on Graham Road in the future. Aside street'. with curb cuts on the side street is a major improvement at minimal cost as compared to the total school budget for this tract. The arguments by the CSISD official for the proposal as laid out are specious and self serving. The City manager admitted to me that the staff agreed to this layout only because they had concerns about the-City requiring the street.. I say if we do not have the guts to require the street we need. to get out of the planning business. Lets not make another mistake that will cost a bunch of dollars. to fix in the future. (Bryan just approved half a million to fix a similar problem.) Thanks for your time. ~~ Dick Birdwell COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College .Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 February 2, 1998 John Szabuniewicz Lick Creek Development PO Box 1400 College Station, Texas 77841 ~a facsimile Dear Mr. Szabuniewicz At the January 15, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting you gave staff copies of construction cost estimates for phases three and four of the proposed Westfield Estates subdivision. These estimates. were requested to verify that the phases could support the cost of the infrastructure, particularly major streets,associated with each phase. There are several points in these estimates that Iwould -like to clarify so that we can present accurate information to the Council when this project is considered on February 12,.1998. 1. The estimates you provided are titled "Engineer's Construction Cost Estimates". These estimates are not signed or sealed by a licensed professional engineer, When submitted, the actual request for oversize :participation. must be based on an analysis ®f the subdivision's traffic demands and impacts. This analysis. and the constn~ction cost estimates must be prepared and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. 2. The projected developer participation in Victoria Street: is based on a residential street (thirty foot width) with oversize participation by the City for the remaining twenty-six feet of width required for Victoria.. Street. In most .oversize participation requests of this type the developer's portion of the street has been based on a collector street width of thirty- nine feet. 3. The estimates reflect. developer participation in Victoria at the level of 1/2 of a thirty foot wide street.. The cost of the other 1/2 of the street appears to be included in the City's .oversize participation. This is not appropriate and should be reflected in the developer's cost. If there is other participation, such as participation by adjoining property owners, that should be identified rather than including that participation in the oversize total. 4. In previous conversations you indicated that right-of--way dedications would be made by adjoining property owners. If not, you intend to shift Victoria to the east where you can provide the necessary right of.way. This would likely cause a reduction in lots in both Home of Texas A&M University 5 phases. What impact would that have on the per lot development costs of the phases involved? 5. In previous conversations you have inquired about condemnation and assessments relating to Victoria .right-of--way alongside Westfield Estates.. You've made no reference to any such City participation in your. submissions to date.. We can not determine from the information submitted if the estimated 1/2 developer participation in Victoria implies any form of City assessments or other participation. Please advise what intentions, if any, you had of proposing any City participation in right-of--way acquisition, cost recovery through assessments, .etc. Any such participation would be determined by the City Council and should be addressed through a development agreement approved by Council. Thank you for your assistance in clarifying these points. Information received by Monday, February 9, will be incorporated into our Council. presentation. Sincerely, ~. J;m Callaway Development Services Director :jc 2/2/98 page 2 i I' ,e~ EN INEER' S ~ ~f ~'-J WE , ~~ ~ ~~~~ 1. STREETS: ~PLANO (30' ST /~VEST (30' f~~TFORD X31 ~f Ff .nWERMOU] MEADOW VICTORIA SUBTOTA] STRUCTION"COST ESTIMATES IELD ADDITION --PHASE 3 January 14,1998 ~;~~ PROVEMENTS: ~~ /..... .......:..... OO L.F. -`9,000 S.F. - 1,000 S.Y. - X50 L.F. of Curb& Gutter "R ... ........... 350 L:F. -1 ,SOO S.F. - 1,170 S.Y. - '100 L:F, of Curb & Gutter iTR 300 L.F. .9,000 S.F. - 1,000 S.Y. - DSO L.F. of Curb & Gutter (30' STR.).... 500 L.F. -,000 S.F. - 1,670 S.Y. -"1;000 L.F. of Curb & Gutter. (30' STR.)..... - ~~~~ - - X50 L F of Curb &. Gntt r - 8.840 S.Y. =3I7~L:F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (1/2 0' STR) .........1,300 L.F. - 19,500 S.F. - 2,167 S.Y. - 1,225 L.F. of Curb & Gutter ~ ~~ ~ VICTORIA STROP 1 300 L F - 33 800 S.F. - 3 755 S.Y. SUBTOTAL.,c. .....:... ......: .. ............` .. 53,300 S.F. - 5,922 S.Y. - 1,225 L.F. of Curb Gutter f ~ t S 2. DRAINAG `~ ~, `~~~_ ~~ 600 L.F. with 4 inlets ~ S ~ `~ ~,'~, ~~ ~ ~' l 3. SEWER LINE: ~ ~ ~~ ^~ d~ ,900 L.F. 6" Sewer Line ~j~'" Service Lines (4" - 56.2' Avg.) ~ r ~~~~~ ~~ ~ V 4.WATER LINE: , ~,~ ~ i ~ ~~CTO L.F. 6 Water Line ~8 Service Lines (11/2" - 49' Avg.) t" II. PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: ~W,, "c 1 STREET CONSTRUCTION (DEVELOPER PORTION)s ~+~ 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control ................ L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00. $ 2,000.00 ': 2 Clearing & Grubbing ......... ................. L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2;000.00 3 Excavation.: .....:...............................,....... C.Y. 9$3 $ 2.50 $ 2,457.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding .....:... .... S.Y. 5 700 $ 0.50 $ 2;850.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%) ..... S.Y. ,84 $ 2.40 $ 21,216.00 6 Extra Lime .........................:.................... Ton b0 $ 80.00 $ 4,800.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. ,520. $ 6.00 $ 45,120.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D).........: ................. S.Y. $ 3.75 $ 28,200.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. ry $ 2.15 $ 11,126.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk ................. S.F. 2,6 $ 3.75 $ 9,750.00 Total .... .......................................................... ...........~................ ......................... $ 134,619.00 LS~~ ~ b ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 2. STREET CONSTRUCTION (CITY PORTIO 1 .. . Erosion Sedimentation Control L:S: 2 :: .,: Clearing & Grubbing L.S. 3 :., Excavation .............................. ...:..... C.Y. 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding.:::..:.......:. S.Y. 5 6" LimeStabilization Subgrade (5%).,...:. S.Y. 6 Extra Lime ......:.........:...::....::.:......:......... Ton 7 6"Flexible Base Crushed Stone...........:.:. S.Y. 4" Extra Flexible Base Crushed Stone .:.. S.Y. 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D)....:::.. ....:........: S:Y. 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter...:.:... 10 Reinforced£oncrete Sidewalk....::.....:..:. .F. 11 Reinforced: Concrete A rons:.: .............:.: S.F. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 658 $ 2.50 $ 1,645.00 0 $ 0.50 $ 0.00 5,922 $ 2.40 $ 14,212.00 30 $ 80.00 $ 2,400.00 5 922 $ 6.00 $ 35,532.00 4 ~ 3 $ 4.00 $ 53,768.00 ~ ~ ,9 $ 3.75 $ 22,207.00 0' $ 2.15 $ 0.00 0' $ 3.75 $ 0.00 Total..... ..... .... .. .......... ... ........~.~...~..~. ~ ~ ...... a U ~ CREEK CROSSING:. 88 ~ ~ - c' ry ^s' ~ $ ~ 129, d,~ 64~ t c 66 6~~tTWV~~-- V" ~: 1 36" Corrugated Pipe (80').: .... ....:.. ....... Ea. 2 $ 5,500.00 $ 11,000.00 2 Dirt Work, Bachill, Compaction:..... ...:.. Ea. 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3 Concrete Pipe Ends::.: .:::..:.. ::....: ....',. Ea. 2 $ 1,000.00 $ .2,000.00 Total.:......:.:........'.......:: ..................................:..:................................:.......:..:.................:......... $ 20,500.00 3. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) .. .... 2 Concrete Junction Box.(2)....: : ..........:.:. 3 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet..: .. .........::... 4 Connect to Existing .... .:..........:... ........ 5 Trench Safety Storm Drain ..::..::..:........:.. L.F. 600 $ 27:00 $ 16,200.00 Ea: 2 $ 1,200.00 $ ~~ 2,400.00 U~ N-- Ea: 4 $ 1,750.00. $ ~ -- 7,000:00 1 ~ r;~,~ ~'~' Ea. 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 ~f L:F: 600 $ 1.50 $ 900.00 Total ..........................:................::...,....:......:..........................:...:.......:........:.....................:...... $ 26,750.00 4. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6' to,8' depth) L.F, 1,900 $ 15:00 $ 28,500.00 2 Standard Sewer Manhole (<8' depth)..:... Ea. 3 $ 1,200:00 $ 3,600.00 3 Remove Plug & Connect to Existing......., Ea: 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 4 Trench Safety Sewer System.. ..::...:....... Ea. 1,900 $ 1.50 $ 2,850.00 5 4" Service Line XType II)(56:2' AvQ:)...... Ea. 18 $ 800.00 $ 14,400.00 Total . ...............................:......:.:.::.......:...:.,..........:.....:.........:.......:........................................... $ 49,550.00 5. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTIONt ~~ __ Q ~ ~~1 ~149~~. ~ ~ ~ ~; 1 6" PVC (C900, C1.200):....:........:...:........ L.F. 1 ,900 $ -14.50 $ 27,550.00 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line: ..:.............. Ea. 1 $ 300.00. $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3)...:.... ..: ..:... ..:..:......: Ea. 3 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 4 6" MJ Gate Valve...: .....::........................ Ea. 7 $ '350.00 $ 2,450.00 5 6" x 6" Hydrant Tees ............. ........:...: Ea. 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 v L Ea. 1 $ 6 6" x 6" Cross .......:. .....:.. 200.00 $ 200.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (49' Avg) ,.:...... Ea. 18 $ 700.00 $ 12,600.00 8 Trench Safety Water Line L F 1 900 $ 1.50 $ 2,850.00 Tota1 .......................................:............................................................................:................... $ 51,500.00 Total Estimated Developer Cost ............................................................................................... $ 272.669.00 Total City Oversize Participation ......................... ... .......... .........................:................ $ 140.014.00 TOTAL, ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................................ ~ 412.683.00 PHA5E III - 63 R-1 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED' CO5T OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ............................. S 6,550.00 lOl 4 ~I ~ 'A• ~ ! I I I II II b II r .:- I I C~ b •O .. I I~I ti •S ~i -Sa ~ ~~ • .I ~ oNrlsr --~ O ca ~ I I a, ~, "' DNr,s~p3ean] s ~ ~ dD - " s ~. I D rml ar --- . .a ~i~ ~• , d I ,LZ _ I ~ 1<< .~Z • N i I r _ -~ - - ~- --~ -~ 'I'I I -.. 711~ra1_nai~l -- _ I I r . I I _ ~ , I 1,.. •or d° O ~ I I :. 3Nrl: S{18 --f ,~ I I Cb . - 4q4 O-i ~ r\ d __-~_ z 9 ~ I N I I ~ 1- t) L__L 3ABI0 3]IAa3S ~ II m Bi .~' i i.. I I I I NOIlr]ol I .~` I C I I ( I - a3lSdnnO I I '. ~ I I r3ar Arld I I ~N aa o 3 I •5E I 11 IO I ~ 1 i I e D3 ] 1 a I I I a I I I ~ - - L snooassro,] J I ; : I I I - - ~ CC'[OC ~ A313'3'd I -' _ I loox]S 31ri03na31M - I I ~i I I 3 I I I I ~ +~ ~ _ ~ . I~ LI~~ I 1DN ( I I N011]310ad -3ald aDe 03l%NladS SI ON10,108 °; 9 ~.r 1° I _ I~ ' i °5371n I 'I - i ~ I i ~ AVM3AIa0 I , I .? I I~ I f I I I ~ - ~ ~; 19 S1N3N I ;• I I •Aarn I I . z z ( ArMc I I ~ -' n I V I I I (>0 3 31TI Oi8 31 1tV ~ i I I I I I ' o a ~; i~ e bc•c I , r•u I- ~ I sr i ~ 3~ v ] ~llr QQ aa S5 I I I ! I I I 018 31 r7J a311r I F . 1Nra0Ax 3a11 I I ~ I I , i ~ II I I I I I i~ I NOI N 1 i . °0 317H~3n~A7N30a3n3 I II 3a 1 d I I. 3 ne I •rZ. I I I -~ ~~ tia rd I ~ I I •- - - - s a I l fat I I ~ n a +Ix11M sr3ar lrl3a I -'. . I I' )r153a ON 3aY 3a3x1 _ _ _ r^ - '1i , I I -~+ou]3s ArNaroa ------ ----- I I I i~ Nt u°ra o3soaoaa •1 3nvly++~loNriliMlurn+noa~Ninl~3viNin _ ~ A]N30a3N3 ONr 3A1a0 SS3]]r3ald y i3nvas5M~ ct I I I ~. s310N ONI%ard l3llrard ~NO,r %1rM3015 °: ,I.I O1 %1rM3015 N1aDN nOtli 031NIrd 30 ~--r~ '1ra011071 a0r ,IIM AIrMSSOa] 1tl1N3Ni 1N0] lr]IdAI r __ ___. __ --" .-- )lddral ONI151%3 C .. _..._.. .._.__.. __ _._......_. _ _ ... plrM301S-i0'-0N3~ lr'7trM3Ala0 N1a0N NO- • ______ _ d015 0_InOM9NIBaf1] •3~IAa35 ONr. ._.-...-- -.._ - ._ _ ~.____.,__. ~ i I I ~ a0i 3AINI1 SS377r 1N3n3ADaav1 ~55300rr ~7fl3ald-5~S9NI151%3 1i0 SI OrDa a3dlrx5 •Z 51 3A1a0 S53]]r l3Ara0 M3N \ o_ I I 300 A,rM3015 lSrc s310N 13015 Slxi NO Ban? ird r 1r111MB05 103NOQNrBV 38 O1> I~ I I I 313a]ND] 1001 BY 3AW0 I i i ~011]35a0Y0N331011. SS3]]r I i I I I l r Sr 031rN01530 l3Ara9 ., ~ ~ roa nrxrao N1nOS •:, -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- -- - _. __ _ .. - -- - - -_...._.. _ _ .... _ .......--- - - - -~ ~ ~ I i ~r _-_ _. _ _ _ _ - - - I I „.I,, I f [t ~~ ~t '~ ~ ,,, ~ ~ . ~~ n a ~~ a !t (\ n `~" ~ t s ~ n s r _ ~" n ~ s L 'f t ~ [ I ~ / 1~ \I j r ry f rte---~ , /„(~ ~ ,+ ~ . ~F° t I ryf e ,p u \ \\ s ~ ~` t~ ~ ~ ~ i" r'~ f [ r { all [t It N a fl [I rya .nR \ s a / ~, If ~I°r sf[rsaa~ ~\ \ ~. \ ~ [ r s ~ ,,, ,`~\ r ~ [. t I i f s f f r S f ~. 2/31N30 30%12l3S .lL/7I1R NO/1d1S 3937700 ,o:,Q, ~. .v>»~ somr N2Nd 9/137H1V ?,~ Z 1 7~ ~/ ~ 1 ~x ~n~ 1 ELI ~~ LL ~ Q> i +, „_ I ' ~ R! ~' !~ ..~ .. -_ h~'`~ S1, - &.~ S ~ l L 4 v 5 9 2, q ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ 4~ ~ b~ b ~ ~ , h ) , -t,2• ~ L~ '~-~ 'l 1 ~ h I ,Z ~~ 4ti ~`~` ! ! ~ BIZ 4~ 4.~ E 91 q LZ 24. ~ .~\ ~1 ~ ` .e `~ ~2 ) h ~ 1 ' l ti S . , ~ -=-~ ~ -, Js~ ~~ 2 b, cticL 2 _.. ~ ~: ~. ~~ a ~.~ ~ S ~2 - : ~` ~ a ~ ~, ,~ ~ o i ~ ~ , - ~i - - ~~ I .< 1 ~~ I ~' / \. e / ~ i I I ! (l~ ~_ ~\ ~ ~ --~ r ~~...1/ / ~1 ~ . 1 ~ 1 a ~ . ` ~1. J I ~~ ' I ~ • ~. ',i ~ _ .~ A .. T TATI7YA r f / n 4 r., ~V h i ~ ~\Y~ € `~ .CITY OF COLLEC STATIOI`I Planning Division A T f Slide 1: Victoria Street Slide 2: Victoria Oversize Participation Request o be made Request to be based on appropriate Engineering analysis Slide 3: Victoria. Centered on Property Line Developer seeks ROW dedication Developerwill seek pro rata contributions from abutting owners Slide 4: Victoria Cost Recovery Developer may seek recovery through assessments Developer may seek recovery through City partaicpation Subdivision could beartotal cost, Developer objects Slide 5: Developer confident that ROW exce t for Graham Rd. tract (Fry, Link owners} can be obtained. Offset intersection will be necessary unless ROW obtained Dedication, purchase or even condemnation maybe necessary Slide 6: Oversize participation, acquisition issues to be addressed at later date Development ageement will be necessary Council will determine any City share in Victoria, participation in acquisition Allocate costs for acquisition, etc. HISTORY: • P & Z 12/97 Denial • Pulled before CC • P & Z 1/98 - 5 to 2 Rec. approval of plan/plat - 7 to 0 Rec. approval of rezoning STAFF COMMENTS: • Phasing • T-fare Plan • Oversize • Drainage • Floodpiain • Sewer • Parkland • Greenbelt • Zoning '~ ~. STAFF RECOMMENDATION .Approve Plan in Concept with: O Engineering Estimates ® No F.P. until Floodplain determined OO No F.P. until Sewer resolved ® Revise Note #6 ®Shift Victoria © Revise Note #7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION (cont.) .Approve Prelim. Plat :Phase 1 .Approve Rezoning to R-1 VICTORIA STREET ®`P z-~ VICTORIA OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Request to be made . Request to based on :.appropriate Engineering 'analysis VICTORIA CENTERED ON PROPERTY LINE . Developer seeks ROW dedication . Developer will seek pro rata contributions from abutting owners VICTORIA COST RECOVERY . Developer may seek recovery through assessments . Developer may seek recovery through City participation .Subdivision could bear total cost, Developer objects ~' ~'y'~~= C- C~~ s'Yl c~~ a ~c M ~ ~ L ._ a ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ l,+~e~3 ~• ~, ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~ ~~5~ ~ c~A~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Developer confident that ROW except for Graham Rd. tract (Fry, Link owners) can be obtained. -Offset intersection will be- necessary unless ROW obtained -Dedication, .purchase or even condemnation may be necessary Oversize participation, acquisition issues to be addressed at later date. Development agreement will be necessary -Council will determine any City share in Victoria, participation in acquisition -Allocate costs for acquisition, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION .Approve Plan in Concept with conditions .Approve Prelim. Plat Phase 1 .Approve Rezoning to R-1 cam. ~ ~ ~~ -''~ ©~J ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ~,~~r~~,~~~~~ rSS~~4~ ~ l'~4 ~~~r'eSS~~~ m~~Y `- C~~~~ -~ ~~~~ ~ rea.~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~s~~ TITLE SLIDE (Planning Case #98-100) (Planning Case # 98-300) Proposed subdivision on south side of Graham Rd. at Victoria Avenue. Applicant submitted a masterplan, which, in concept, appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances. The applicant would like to receive Council action on the development proposal even though there are several unanswered questions and concerns. HISTORY SLIDE The. Commission heard this request at the 12-4-97 meeting where denial was recommended due to several unanswered questions dealing with the master plan. The. applicant pulled the item before going on to the City Council. The developer then dealt with some of the issues and resubmitted the plan to P&Z in Jan.. Staff had then and-still has now several. concerns but the developer wants to get decisions. from the P&Z and Council before doing .additional analysis. P&Z .voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the master plan with several staff conditions and prelim. plat of phase 1 and 7-0 to rec. app. of the rezoning to R- 1. o:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\1003nt2. doc STAFF COMMENTS Phasing There are concerns .staff has about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the development to support the infrastructure requirements.. The developer's intention is to build single family residences on the property with some commercial at the Vctoria/Graham intersection. This master plan is phased with the majority of the residential lots being. built before the extension of Victoria is addressed. Victoria and an east/west collector shown on the t-fare plan are not constructed until phases 3 and 4. Staff requested construction cost estimates to justify this particular phasing plan. Jim C. has. been working'. with the developer along with our development engineers regarding these estimates and he will brief Council when T finish. Thoroughfare Plan Considerations The Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension. of Victoria along.. the western boundary of this property as well as an eastJwest collector through the southern portion of the property.. Staff met with land owners in the area and discussed ' various t-fare. options since there are several tracts impacted by thoroughfares in this area. Final locations and alignment of these t-fares will depend on floodplain locations and possible ROW acquisition. In any event staff does recommend that Victoria not intrude on any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision as it moves south. to Barron Road. Victoria should be aligned to be completely on the undeveloped property adjacent to Bald Prairie and should not intrude into this neighborhood. We are currently reviewing alternative alignments that could move Victoria eastward, away from the Bald Prairie Subdivision Oversize Participation Jim will discuss the latest correspondence between the developer and the City in a moment. General. note #6 on the master. plan refers to oversize participation by the City. The note should' be revised to indicate oversize will be requested by the developer. This is one of the several conditions. noted in the report. o:\group\deve_serlstfrpt\1003nt2.doc Drainage Drainage plans. have not been submitted for this development. The developer will submit drainage construction. plans.: with final plats. Adequacy of drainage systems cannot be determined until then. Flood_Plain/Floodway Floodplain and floodway may exist on this. property. The developer has still to confirm whether there is any floodplain on the property.. CSISD is performing a hydraulic analysis to define the floodplain/floodway on their adjacent tract and as of this writing, there appears to be floodplain on the schooltract. The location of the floodplain/floodwayay have an impact on the lots that backup to it. At this point, with the location unknown, the. suitability for development of these lots is also unknown.. It is acceptable for the developer to show. approximate floodplain location on a conceptual master plan with detailed location to follow before final platting. Sanitary Sewer The developer has discussed the ability for this. property to sewer toward the south rather than participating in the Graham Road Impact Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. He has discussed, but has not .submitted,. a request to amend the existing impact. fee area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line. If this phase is deleted, he would thenlike. to pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. A portion of this. line has. already been constructed, and is existing in the Springbrook Subdivision and would continue west to and through this development. The developer would be requesting oversize participation in this new sewer line. The responsibility for demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area 92-01 and reduce the number of lots that would participate in this impact fee is inherent on this developer.. Ultimately City .Council must approve any change to the impact fee area. This has not been done to date. Lots fronting Graham Road would sewer into the impact fee .line.. o:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\1003nt2.doc Parkland Dedication and Open Space along the creek The conceptual master plan shows Park at the end of Phase 1. The developer met with the Parks Board to discuss parkland dedication last month. The Board moved to recommend accepting the land dedication shown depending on the floodplain studyand to allow future credit for the developer's: adjacent tract when developed. The developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development. If parkland dedication credit is requested for adjacent tracts, the water, .sewer and traffic demands of those tracts should be considered when evaluating.. oversize requests. for streets, sewer and water for this development.. Greenbelt The master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek.. Given the Comprehensive Plan considerations about open spacepreservation, staff has encouraged the. developer to address how this .creek area will work with his planned development. He notes on the master plan this area as Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not acquire this area through dedication or purchase to provide a linkage, as addressed in the- Comprehensive Plan, then the developer may incorporate this area into his lots. Zoning The. property currently has A-0 Agricultural Open zoning on it. The developer has a request to rezone a portion of the property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 is in compliance with the land use plan. A rezoning request for the remainder of thee. property (R-1 and some C-3) has been submitted and will be een by Council in March. Until the above questions are answered by the applicant, staff cannot process any final plats-for any part of the development. Staff does support the master plan in concept with the following conditions: o;\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\1003nt2. doc STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SLIDE • Staff recommends approval ofthe master plan in concept with the following conditions: 1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that. the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure .required must be submitted prior to processing any. final plats. 2. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined. 3. No final. plats can be processed until a determination is made as to how the property will. be sewered. 4. Revise note #6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with OP participation requests to the Cty." 5. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Sub. 6. Revise Note # 9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood .hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a .greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for osp sible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots.". Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of phase 1. Staff recommends a~iproval of the present zoning request. o:\group\deve_serlstfrpt\1003nt2.doc ENGINEERING Water:. Water is provided along Graham Road Drainage: Drainage. easement locations .will be determined once a drainage xeport is submitted. Off-site Easements:May be required for sanitary sewer. Sidewalks: Will be required internally. The sidewalk. along Graham Road will be constructed with the City's Graham Road CIl' project. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): Eagle;: i2-31-97 and 1-28-98 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 1-15-98 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 2-12-98 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 8 Response Received: None as of date of staff report Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Master Development Plan 4. PreliminaryPlat r I ~ o:\group\deve_ser\stftpt\1003nt2.doc 1 ~~~ _ ov~E°E sT~T'° College Station Independent School District G F X U d C I`~ A y ~ce!lence In ~ucation....sin Investment In 2lie J'uture ~~Qh 8(- 1~U-end Rid , Q, --~ SNP sCHHHy G ~ / \ ``~ \ ~6 February 18, 1998 ~ E ~ 7 3 1998 ~ g: i~~ ~ Mr. George K. Noe. City Manager ~~ng ~,ls City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: College Station Independent School District Graham Road School Plan Dear Mr. Noe: Over the last couple of years, the City and CSISD have. made great strides in working cooperatively to serve our constituents. We believe that there will continue to be opportunities that will mutually benefit both entities, and this cooperation will result in best value to our taxpayers. We are excited about some of the joint initiatives now in the discussion and planning stages. In accordance with our joint agreement, CSISD sta,~`'sought City staff input in the site selection process for the proposed intermediate school to be located in the Graham Barron Road vicinity. Since our desire was to acquire a site that was not only in the appropriate target area, but could be developed at least ~ cost to our taxpayers, input from the City was an important step. We compliment the City Planning staff for their willing and valuable assistance in acquiring the site, and in the development of the site plan, The City staff provided the school district estimated development costs for the several properties that were being considered. This was a considerable time commitment from City staff and was greatly appreciated. The information provided was very influential in the final site selection. After acquiring the site, we began to develop our plan which was reviewed at regular intervals by City sta,~`: Several of their recommendations were incorporated into the plan, including changes in locations of the drives into the site. The plan received staff approval,: and was subsequently unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. During this process, there was no suggestion to consider developing a roadway along either side of the property. While we respect the process, and do not expect the City Council to rubber stamp all stajf and PNZ recommendations, we find the Council action on January 7, 1998, to be highly irregular. CSISD had staff present at the meeting during which this plan .was approved by Council as a part of the consent agenda without discussion. Having been approved, CSISD representatives left the meeting, only to read in the Eagle the next morning that the plan had been reconsidered and tabled without input from CSISD. At a second meeting on January 22, 1998, CSISD's plan was presented again to Council with full support of City staff. CSISD provided all information requested, and both City and CSISD staff believed that concerns regarding traffic had been satisfied. Again, we were taken aback by Council rejection of the plan. i -' 1812 Welsh Street College Station, TX 77840 409-764-6455 FAX 409-764-6492 JIM SCALES, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Since that date, district sta, f~ j`'and consultants have been actively engaged in a time consuming process of ident~ing reasonable options. Four options were developed and priced, including two with roads along the east or west property lines. The district administration and consultants have reviewed the options with the Facilities Committee of the Board of Trustees, and we conclude that our original plan is viable, safe, and cost effective for our constituents. However, our architects and engineers have made changes in the bus and parent drop-off loops that should alleviate concerns regarding traj,~ic flow on and o, f~`'campus (see attached letter from CSISD Construction Coordinator, Mr. Bill Savage, P.E., to VLKArchitects). This is a sound plan with ample space for traffic queue on the site. We hope that this process indicates our desire to seriously evaluate Council concerns. We could have presented our plan again on February 12, 1998, but we took the time to analyze the options. Unfortunately, each required additional cost without corresponding value. We are not opposed to donating right-of--way for a street along either the east or west property lines of the CSISD tract should some other parry wish to construct the roadway now or in the future. We cannot, however, afford what our architects and engineers tell us would be at least an eight week delay in order to change the orientation of the building toward such a street. Time is of the essence. At this time, the earliest construction could begin would be April 1, 1998, allowing only sixteen months to construct and move in. Our experience in other school construction projects is that this is already a very tight schedule. Each day this project is delayed is costly not only in dollars, but in quality that will be sacrificed in a rush. to completion. Zne College Station Independent School District, therefore, .respectfully .requests that the school district's development plan for our proposed intermediate school on South Graham Road be placed on'the February 26, 1998, City Council agenda for consideration and approval. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim Scales Superintendent of Schools cc: CSISD Board of Trustees _ ,~ ~" _ - w~~ ' a .,..~ ~.-- (rLIR.-: WtAYGL DRIVE ~ ~ ~ ~ f I ~ `~~ N~ ~~ M~ f4 ~ ~ ~ 1•.j" ~ ` r ~ :.u ~~ ' ~ i C I I I ~ ~O , J Q, ~ ' ~ ~ w ~O ~ . c I- 1 p . ~ _ ~~~, I I I I ~~- I I I ~ ~~: ~ ` - I FU T i - i I ~ I I , ~ - } ... ~, ~~. 4 I f 1 ~ ~ i i ~'' Y '~ i i ~ • ~ •~"~°~ ~~~ : ALTE A E BID ~ 1 : ; CLIIS ~pAtS f , i I I~ ~ ~ T, ., ~ ~~~ '~'~.' 3.7 8~_ ~ ~~ ~~ I I _:: ~ KT TE 8b ~- ~ III . ~ : t '' ~ III :1 ~`' z , ~ ,; I I , j~ I I I .I ~ ~. ( ~~ ~ ~~I I n i , ~~.~~' £' N ~ epo ~ •+t. A ;i~~. I I ~ ~ ~ I Ivi1 i ~ r `~ ~ ~:~ ~` -~ ~~ ~ I F ~ I ALT E ~ cL 3.7Q8 IS.F. K/y~ ~ K 11 I I ~~*Y 7 M~I'TERIdED1ATE SCHOOL ~ I I ~`~' I• F.F. ELEV.- 307.33 a.:~.~ CLASSROOMS '.~ I ~ ~ ;Y ~~ ¢ I ~ I . ~~~ ~*'~ 74.185 S.F. ~1~14 I 35.5• ~ ~ Es:: I ., II Dip ~~~ i:fir. ~ __- .J••.~ ~ tp A?O. ~• . _ I .~ ~~Sf• l' i;~1i 7~~:tyt;:s .E:r Q[rJC~' ~+~,,,f!•~~ :,~ ~f :.~r•.~; • .. ~'J ~ ~ ~ ::'sI':,Y'. _.~ ,.~IXS ,n~4. I ~ I ~ - v'~#~lt~ ~ ' ~ Pic ~ ..y+`J: j i I , I ~o. ~ , ~ _ .~~ N --- SPACES --- ~ ~. ~ i .'y- ;fir i~, ~5, _ ','`~. ' ~. riff. .iy`' ~ C.. E I .mss ,~t~ :St '~;~j ._ w Status Report (sam) Jan: Plat proposed School site removed from consent agenda.. Secondary Street of off Graham main issue - Motions for approval with, without secondary street failed by tie vote.. Consideration was deferred. ~~u Feb. 12 Agenda- School Dist. Reps removed plat from agenda, - look.,at alternatives, address Council concerns. Westfield master plan. Prelim plat and zoning considerations on Council agenda. Adjacent tract to west of School tract. Consideration deferred or tabled to allow review of placing secondary. street that would serve both Westfield and ISD tract. Since then- met and worked with both. Westfield developer andlSD staff- met jointly, met separately,. discussed alternatives, pros and cons, considered comments an recommendations of ISD - staff, developer, City staff. ~,,,, preferred alt map) Staff- Developed .alternatives to Tfare plan for this area, considered relationships to other proposed developments.- Alt- one of several, secondary street by school, change to Victoria re: Bald Prairie subdivision. At least one of the alternatives evaluated by school would- be compatible. ISD- Developed alternatives,. with .and without street(s)- Same used secondary street to address access/traffic issues. Others used on-site designs with access to Graham. `~ Will let school staff present their proposal. Y'' (Developer drawing) Developer- Agreeable to participating in secondary street along west side of School tract- if so, has alternate proposal re: Extension of Victoria along west side of Westfield tract. Alt- New street by school replaces Victoria extension. Conclude- Agree-secondary St. would be better than access to Graham alone. Concerns re: street that extends all the way through School. property- Bisects proposed future. park, separates from Westfield dedication area Different conditions than considered by Parks Board, Developer agreeable to Board review,.. different parkland dedication Concerns re: making this areplacement-for Victoria extension-- Not sure if there's an improvement school access (Back to' major street V. secondary st. controlled) intersection School staff concerned with .potential for high traffic volumes on two frontages Developer concerned: about possibly participating in two N/S streets on perimeter of subdivision If streets on two sides- May consider making Victoria a G1P street- Centered on western PL- multiple tracts involved Could consider R4W dedication to offset .assessments, in lieu of assessments, etc. Concerned about offset in Victoria with NS traffic issues, ~f ~ Agree that secondary street is better situation- ~ ~ Original .submission did comply with ub rags, :practices,. Tfare plan as adopted - rec approval Tfare plan did not: reflect collector street, school based decisions (in part) on .street plans May consider alt street proposal as directive to amend Tfare plan acknowledge letter from ISD =addressed granting ROW ~% At this point, turn over to Bill Savage, CSISD to present the districts position. ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES WESTFIELD ADDITION -.PHASE 1 March 25, 1998 I. DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS: 1. STREETS: WESTFIELD DRIVE (39')....:..:: 690 L.F. - 26,910 S.F. - 2,990 S.Y. - 1,280 L.F. of Curb &. Gutter WESTFIELD DRIVE (28')..:...... 1,115 L.F. - 31,220 S.F. - 3,470 S.Y. - 2,230 L.F. of Curb & Gutter HARVEST DRIVE (39')............ 90 L.F. - 3,510 S.F. - 390 S.Y. - 180. L.F. of Curb & Gutter FLOWERMOUND DR (28'1 90 L F - 3 510 S F - 390 S.Y. - 180 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SUBTOTAL ............................. 1,985 L.F. - 65,150 S.F. - 7,240 S_Y. - 3,870 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 80 L.F. of 18" with 2 Inlets 67S L.F. of 24" with 1 Inlet 400 L.F. of 27"with I Inlet 20 L.F. of 30" 3 SEWER LINE (ON-SITE): 2065 L.F. of 6" Sewer Line 30 Service Lines (4" - 57' Avg:) 4. WATER LINE: 1900 L.F. of 6" Water Line 30 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 50' Avg.) II. PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIlVIATES: 1. STREET CONSTRUCTION: 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control......_... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ......................... L.S. I $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation ................:........................ C.Y. 2,530 $ 2.50 $ 6,325.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding............ S.Y. 4,300 $ .50 $ 2,150.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%) S.Y. 7,960 $ 2.40 $ 19,100.00 6 Extra.Lime ......................................... Ton 25 $ 80.00 $ 2,000.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone.......... S.Y. 7,240 $ 6.00 $ 43,440.00 8 I ' I/2" HMAC (Type D) ...................... S.Y. 7,240 $ 3.75 $ 27,150.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter.... L,F. 3,870 $ 2.15 $ 8,320.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk............ S.F. 2,720 $ 3.75 $ 10,200.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons (4) S F. 540 $ 3.15 $ 1,700.00 Total ............................................................................................................................ $124,390.00 2. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 80 $ 27.00 $ 2,160.00 2 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet ..........:....... Ea. 2 $ 1,750.00 $ 3,500.00 3 24" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 675 $ 32.00 $ 21,600.00 4 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet .................. Ea. 1 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 5 27" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F.. 400 $ 34.00 $ 13,600.00 6 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet................... Ea. 1 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 7 30" RCP (C76, CL..III) ......................... L.F. 20 $ 36.00 S 720.00 8 Trench Safe Storm brain ................. L.F. 1175 $ 1.50 $ 1 750.00 Total ......................... ....................... ............... ............... ..... ................... $ 46,830.00 3. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6'-8' depth) L.F. 2000 $ 15.00 $ 30,000.00 2 Standard Sewwer Manhole (< 8' depth) Ea. 4 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 3 Trench Safety Sewer. System ................ L.F. 2000 $ 1.50 $ 3,000.00 4 4" Service Lines (Tyoe ID 56' Avg Ea 30 $ 800.00 $ 24.000.00 Total ...................................................................... .............. ............... ...... ................ $ 61,000.00 4. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (C900, CL.200) ...................... L.F. 1885 $ 14.50 $ 27,335.00 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line .............. Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3) ................................ Ea. 3 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ............................... Ea. 5 $ 350.00 $ 1,750.00 5 6" x 6" Hydrant T's ............................ Ea. 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 6 6" x 6" Line T's.......: ........................ Ea. 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (50') Avg........ Ea. 30 $ 700.00 $ 21,000.00 8 Trench Safety Water Line L.F. 1885 $ 1.50 $ 2.830.00 Total .......................................................................................................................... $ 59,265.00 5. DETENTION: 1. Detention Area .................................. Ea. 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 TOTAL ESTIIVIATED COST OF ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION .............................. $ 30G,485.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION..........e ................. $ G5,000.00 PHASE 1 - 58 LOTS `~~~~."~~~~ _~ EOFT ~~1 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ...................... i ~. ~~~ll, +... is ~~ ~ ..M.~ i..~.. ...~ ... ..... ~~ FS'••cJST~R~" ~~ s' ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 2 March 25, 1998 L DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS: L STREETS: SPRINGFIELD DRIVE (28')....,.... 635 L.F. - 17,780 S.F. - 1,975 S.Y. - 1,350 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SPRINGFIELD DRIVE (39')......... 1,115 L.F. - 43,485 S.F. - 4,835 S.Y.. - 2,230 L.F. of Curb & Gutter MEADOW VIEW SIR. (39')........ 690 L.F. - 26,910 S.F. - 2,990 S.Y. - 1,280 L.F. of Curb & Gutter HARVESTDR.IVE (39')............ 270 L.F. - 10,530 S.F. - 1,170 S.Y. - 540 L.F. of Curb & Gutter FLOWERMOUND DR (28') 180 L F - 5 040 S F - 560 S.Y. - 360 L.F._of Curb & Gutter SUBTOTAL ............................. 2,890 L.F. - 103,745 S.F. - 11,530 S.Y.: 5,760 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 110 L.F. of 18" with 4 Inlets 675 L:F: of 24" 260 L.F. of 24" 3 SEWER LINE (ON-SITE): 2700 L.F. of 6" Sewer Line 32 Service Lines (4" - 57' Avg.) 4. WATER LINE: 2600 L.F. of 6" Water Line 32 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 50' Avg.) R. PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: 1. STREET CONSTRUCTION: 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control.......... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ......................... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation ......................................... C.Y.. 3,840 $ 2.50 $ 9,600:00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding........... S.Y. 6,400 $ .50 $ 3,200.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%) S.Y. 12,500 $ 2.40 $ 30,000.00 6 Extra: Lime ......................................... Ton 50 $ 80.00 $ 4,000.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone.......... S.Y. 11,530 $ 6.00 $ 69,180.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC ('Type D) ...................... S.Y. 11,530 $ 3.75 $ 43,200.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter.... L:F. 5,760 $ 2.15 $ 12,400.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk............ S.F. 6,700 $ 3.75 $ 25,125..00 1 l Reinforced Concrete Aprons (b) S F 810 $ 3.15 $ 2,550.00 Total ............................................................................................................................ $203,255.0() 2. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. 110 $ 27.00 $ 2,970.00 2 S Recessed Concrete Inlet...... ............. Ea. 4 $ 1,750.00 $ 7,000.00 3 24" RCP` (C76, CL.III) ...........:............. L.F. 67S $ 32.00 $ 21,600.00 4 27" RCP (C76, CL.III) ........................ L.F. .270 $ 34.00 $ 9,180.00 S Trench Safety Storm Drain L F LOSS $ 1.50 $ 1,600.00 Total ........................................................................................................................... $ 42,350.00 3. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6'-8' depth) L.F. 2700 $ 15.00 $ 40,500.00 2 Standard Serwer Manhole (< 8' depth) Ea. S $ 1,200.00 $ 6,000.00 3 Trench Safety Sewer System................ L.F. 2700 $ 1.50 $ 4,OS0.00 4 4" Service Lines (Tvce Ii) S6' AvQ Ea 32 $ 800.00 $ 25,600.00 Total ......................................................................................................................... $ 76,:150.00 4. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (C900, CL.200) ...................... L.F. 2600 $ 14.50 $ 37,700.00 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line .............. Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3).......:.._. .................... Ea. 4 $ 1,600.00 $ 6,400.00 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ............................... Ea. S $ 350.00 $ 1,750.00 S 6" x 6" Hydrant T's .......:....:............... Ea. 4 $ 250.00 $ 1,000.00 6 6" x 6" Line T's ................................ Ea. 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (SO') Avg........ Ea. 32 $ 700.00 $ 22,400.00 8 Trench Safety Water Line L F 2600 $ 1.50_ $ 3;900.00 Total .......................................................................................................................... $ 73,950.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED. COST OF ON-5I°TE CONSTRUCTION .............................. $ 395,705.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF OFF-STI'E CONSTRUCTION ...........................< $ 15,000.00 PHASE 2 - 62 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ............................. S 6,623.27 OF 7-F ~~1 o~ E -'R'- °P~ 2~las ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 3 January 14, 1998 f 4 ~ 4~ I. DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS: 1. STREETS: PLANO (30' STR.) ...................... HARVEST (30' STR) ................. HARTFORD (30' STR) .............. FLOWERMOUND (30' STR.)..... MEADOW VIEW (30' STR:)...... VICTORIA (1/2 30' STR.)::........ SUBTOTAL ......................:......... 300 L.F: - 9,000 S:F. - 1,000 S.Y. - 650 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 350 L.F. - 10,500 S.F. - .1,170 S.Y. - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 300 L.F. - 9,000 S.F. - 1,000. S.Y. - 650 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 500 L.F. - 15,000 S.F. - 1,670 S.Y. - 1,000 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SSO L.F. - 16,500 S.F. - 1,833 S.Y. - 950 L.F. of Curb & Gutter '~ 300 L.F. - 19 500 S.F. - 2 lb7 S.Y. - 1 225 L.F. of Curb & Gutter ............. - 79,500 S.F. - .8,840 S.Y. - 5,175 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (1/2 ~0' STR.).......:..1,300 L.F. - 19,500 S:F. - 2,167 S.Y. - 1,225 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (26' S'T~t. O P) 1 300 L F - 33 800 S F - 3 755 S Y SUBTOTAL ............................................... - 53,300 S.F: - 5,922 S.Y. - 1,225 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 600 L.F. with 4 inlets 3. SEWER LINE: 1900 L.F. 6" Sewer Line 18 Service Lines (4" - 56.2' Avg.) 4.WATER LINE: 1900 L.F. 6" Water Line 18 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 49' Avg.) II. PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: 1. STREET CONSTRUCTION (DEVELOPER PORTION): 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control :............... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ............................... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00. $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation ........:...................................... C.Y. 983.. $ 2.50 $ 2,457.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding ................ S.Y. 5,700 $. 0.50 $ 2,850.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 8,840 $ 2.40 $ 21,216.00 6 Extra Lime .............................................. Ton 60 $ 80.00 $ 4,800.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. 7,520 $ 6.00 $ 45,120.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC ('Type D).: ........................: S.Y. 7,520 $ 3.75 $ 28,200.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. 5,175 $ 2.15 S 11,126.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk ................. S.F. 2,600 $ 3.75 $ 9,750.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Ayrons (12) S F 1 620 $ 3.15 $ 5,100.00 Total ...........................................:.............................................................................................. $ 134,619.00 2 STREET CONSTRUCTION (CITY PORTION): 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control ................ L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing.................. ...: L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3 Excavation ............................................... C.Y. 658 $ 2.50 $ 1,645.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding ................ S.Y. 0 $ O.SO $ 0.00 5 6" I>ime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 5,922 $ 2.40 $ 14,212.00 6 Extra Lime .......:..........:........................... Ton 30 $ 80.00 $ 2,400.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. 5,922 $ 6.00 $ 35,532.00 4" Extra Flexible Base Crushed Stone..... S.Y. 13,442 $ 4.00 $ 53,768.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ........................... S.Y. 5,922 $ 3.75 $ 22,207.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. 0 $ 2.15 $ 0.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk.. ............... S.F. 0 $ 3.75- $ 0.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons S F 0 $ 3.15 $ 0.00 Total .........................................................................:..............----..:......:................................... $ 129,764.00 CREEK CROSSING: 1 36" Corrugated Pipe (80') .......:............... Ea. 2 $ 5,500.00. $ 11,000.00 2 Dirt Work, Bacldill, Compaction............ Ea. 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3 Concrete Pipe Ends ................................ Ea. 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 Concrete Abutment with Handrail Ea 2 $ 2 500.00 $ 5,000.00 Total ..............................................................................................a.......................................... $ 20,500..00 3. llRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.IIn ............................ L.F. 600 $ 27.00 $ .16,200.00 2 Concrete Junction Box.(2) ....................... Ea. 2 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 3 S' Recessed Concrete Inlet ...................... Ea. 4 $ 1,750:00 $ 7,000.00 4 Connect to Existing ................................. Ea. 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 5 Trench Safety Storm Drain L F 600 $ 1.50 $ 900.00 Total ......................................................................................................................................... $ 26,750.00 4. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6" PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6' to 8' depth) L.F. 1,900 $ 15.00 $ 28,500.00 2 Standard Sewer Manhole (<8' depth)...... Ea. 3 $ 1,200.00 $ 3,600.00 3 Remove Plug & Connect to Existing........ Ea. 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 4 Trench Safety Sewer.System...... .............. Ea. 1,900 $ 1.50 $ 2,850.00 5 4" Service Line (Type II)(56 2' Avg) Ea 18 $ 800.00 $ 14.400.00 Total ......................................................................................................................................... $ 49,550.00 5. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6"PVC (C900, CL200) ........................... L.F. 1,900 $ 14.50 $ 27,550.00 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line .................. Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3) ............................:....... Ea. 3 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 4 6" MJ Gate Valve............< ...................... Ea. 7 $ 350.00 $ 2,450.00 S 6" x 6" Hydrant Tees ............................. Ea. 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 6 6" x 6" Cross ......................................... 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (49' Avg.)........... 8 Trench Safety Water Line.. .................... Total .............. .... .......................................... Total Estimated Developer Cost ........................ ~. 1 S 200.00 S 200.00 Ea. 18 $ 700.00 $ 12,600.00 L F 1 900 $ 1.50 $ 2,850.00 ......:....................................................... $ 51,500:00 ................................................................. $ 272.669.00 Total City Overs'~ze Participation ............................................................................................. a .~.,,,,.~..,., TOTAL, ESTIlVIATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................................ $ 412,683.00 PHASE III - 63 R-1 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ................>............ $ 6,550.00 ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIlVIATES _ WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 4 _~~..~~~t„~~ January 14, 1998 ' .~~. of TF~h~ ~CP:•' .. i ~ R: _ .. •gPNM ~.... ...... iH.l_ t~t~r, IR. • ~yQ,.,p X0316 Q: I. .DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 4 IMPROVEMENTS: ~F FC~S7ER~vC~_~ 1. STREETS• ~1~0`h1A-V ~~.r~ ..~.~~` SOUTH FORK (30' STR.)........... 200 L.F. - 6,000 S.F. - 670 S.Y. - 450 L.F. of Curb & Gutter CACTUS (30' STR.) .........:.......... 200 L.F. - 6,000 S.F. - 670 S.Y. - 450 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SPRINGFIELD (30' SIR.).......... 800 L.F. - 24,000 S.F. - 2,670 S.Y. - 1,800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter E-W COLLECTOR (30' STR.)....1,000 L.F. - 30,000 S.F. - 3,333 S.Y. - 1,800 L.F. of Curb'. & Gutter VICTORIA (1/2 30' SIR) 800 L F - 12 000 S F - 1 335 S.Y. - 800 L.F. of Curb'& Gutter SUBTOTAL .............................................. - 78,000 S.F. - 8,678 $.Y. - 5,300 L.F. of Curb & Gutter E-W COLLECTOR (9' O.P)....... 1,000 L.F. - 9,000 S.F. - 1,000 S.Y. VICTORIA (1/2 30' SIR).......... 800 L.F. - 12,000 S.F. - 1,335 S.Y. - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (26' STR O P) 800 L F - 20 800 S F - 2311 S.Y. SUBTOTAL ............................................... - 41,800 S.F. - 4,646 S.Y. - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE: 900 L.F. with 4 inlets 3. SEWER LINE: 1700 L.F. 6" .Sewer Line 10 Service Lines (4" - 56.2' Avg.) 4.WATER LINE: 1500 L.F. 6" Water Line 10 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 49' Avg.) II. PHASE 4 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: 1 STREET CONSTRUCTION (DEVELOPER PORTION): 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control.. ............... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 ^learing &Grubbing ............................... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation ............................................... C.Y. 964 $ 2.50 $ 2,410.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding ................ S.Y. 5,700 $ 0.50 $ 2,850.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 8,678. $ 2.40 $ 20,827.00 6 Extra Lime .............................................. Ton 60 $ 80.00 $ 4,800.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. .7,350 $ 6.00 $ 44,100.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ........................... S.Y. 7,350 $ 3.75 $ 27,562.00 9 Reinforced. Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. 5,300 $ 2.15 $ 11,395.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk ................. S.F. 7,950 $ 3.75 $ 29,812.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons (14) S F 1 890 $ 3.15 $ 5,955.00 I Total .......................................................................................................................................... $ 153,711.00 2 STREET CONSTRUCTION (CITY PORTION): 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control ................ L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ............................... L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3 Excavation ............................................... C.Y. 4,646 $ 2.50 $ 11,615.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding. ............... S.Y. 0 $ 0.50 $ 0.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 4,646 $ 2.40 $ 11,150.00 6 Extra Lime .............................................. Ton 30 $ 80.00 $ 2,400.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. 4,646 $ 6.00 $ 27,876.00 4" Extra Flexible Base Crushed Stone..... S.Y. 3,910 $ 4.00 $ 15,640.00 8 l 1/2" HMAC (Type D) .....:..................... S.Y. 4,646 $ 3.75 $ 17,422.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. 0 $ 2.15 $ 0.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk ................. S.F: 0 $ 3.75 $ 0.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons S F 0 $ 3.15 $ 0.00 Total ......................................................................................................................................... $ 86,103.00 CREEK CRO5SING• 1 36" Corrugated Pipe (80') ....................... Ea. 2 $ 5,500.00 $ 11,000.00 2 Dirt Work, Bachill, Compaction............ Ea. 1 $ 2,500.00 $ .2,500.00 3 Concrete Pipe Ends .......:........................ Ea. Z $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 Concrete Abutment with Handrail Ea 2 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 Total ...................................................:........................................._........................................... $ 20,500.00 3. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ............................ L.F. 900 $ 27.00 $ 24,300.00 2 Concrete Junction Box.(2) ....................... Ea. 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 3 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet ...................... Ea. 4 $ .1,750.00 $ 7,000.00 4 Connect to Existing ................................. Ea. 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 5 Trench Safety Storm Drain L F 900 $ 1.50 $ 1,350.00 Total ..........................................:.............................................................................................. $ 34,100.00 4. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTIONr 1 6"PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6' to 8' depth) L.F. 1,700 $ 15.00 $ 25,500:00 2 Standard Sewer Manhole: (<8' depth)...... Ea. 4 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800;00 3 Remove Plug & Connect to Existing........ Ea. 1 $ 200.00 $ 200..00 4 Trench Safety Sewer System ................... Ea. 1,700 $ 1.50 $ 2,550.00 5 4" Service Line (Type lI)(56 2' Avg) Ea 10 $ 800.00 $ 8;000.00 Total ................................................................................:........................................................ $ 41,050.00 5. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 6" PVC (C900, C1.200) ........................... L.F. 1,500 $ 14.50 $ 21,750.00 Connect to Existing Line ....................... Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 Fire Hydrants (3) .................................... Ea. 3 S 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 6" MJ Gate Valve ................................... Ea. 6 $ 350.00 $ 2,100`_00 6" x 6" Hydrant Tees ............................. Ea. 3 S 250.00 $ 750.00 6 6" x 6" Cross ......................................... Ea. 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (49' Avg.)............ Ea. 10 $ 700.00 $ 7,000.00 8 Trench Safet~Water Line L F 1 500 $ 1.50 $ 2,250.00 Total .............................................................................:............. ............................................. $ 39,150.00 . t C l d D ................................................ $ 288.511.00 .................................. ............ os oper eve Total Estimate ... . ti . tici i P . ........................................... $ 86.103.00 ..... ................................. on .. pa ar ze Total City Overs .. VIATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION ST ................................................ $ 374,614.00 .......... Il TOTAL E PHASE 4 - 35 R-1 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED DEV. COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ..................... $ 8,243.00 Feh.~arY 9, 1998 Mr. Tim Calloway Development Services Director City of College:Station, Texas College Station, Texas 77842 Via Hand Delivery Dear Mr. Calloway: This is in response to your letter dated February 2, 1998. 1. The estimates provided are good working estimates for purposes of analysis at the present time and can be confirmed by our Engineer, Mr. Martin Riley. We understand that the oversize request for Victoria Extension will not fomally occur until Phase 3, at which time some of the figures may have varied.. At such time they will be revised and properly signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. 2. The proposed developer participation in Victoria Street-was based on a 30 ft. Street as the size which is sufficient giventhe present subdivision's layout. However, a thorough traffic analysis has not been completed to date, and not presently knowing what the impact of future development might be, final determination will be done at the time the request is made. In the event traffic impact warrants it, it will be no problem for the project developer participation to be based on Victoria Street being a collector street width of 39 ft. 3. The estimates reflecting developer participation in Victoria Street at the level of 1/2 of a 30 ft. Street, is based on the other 1/2 of 30 ft. being paid for by others, and Developer agrees that it shall not be part of the. City's oversize participation. However, Developer will rely on right-of--way participation. by .adjoining land owners and prorata contribution. In the event pro-rata contribution is not. available, the City may decide to pay for such prorata portion on behalf of such adjoining owners, or the Developer. agrees to advance such funds and obtain reimbursement from assessment against adjoining owners as currently authorized under the City ordinance. Therefor, such prorata cost may be withdrawn from the City's portion' of ;oversize participation. In the event that the Developer must bear all of the cost of theadjoining owners'. 1/2 pro rata portion, it would not significantly financially impact our project, provided that such cost could be recouped in the future from such assessments. 4. After initial conversations with some of the adjoining landowners, the Developer is confident that right-of-way will be able to be obtained from the. Carroll tract and possibly from some of the Bald Prairie Subdivision Lots, however, the Link and Fry property at the southwest corner of Victoria and Graham Road have vehemently: ;opposed any of their property being given up, because it would severely impact their parking. That would have to be a decision made by City .Council, of whether to acquire such right-of--way by condemnation or not. In order for the intersection to be properly aligned without offset, which is the preferable way of designing the intersection, Council.: will have to agree to condemn. In the event that Council decides it will not condemn. or obtain such additional right-of--way, Developer would then not .have any choice but to offset .Victoria such additional space so as to allow its extension. This, in the opinion of Developer would not affect the number of lots which Developer. has proposed, since several, of the lots were planned with extra width, in case the lot sizes would have to be designed smaller. 5. In the event that all of Victoria extension is deemed to have to be put on Developer's land, Developer could physically do it. However, Developer objects that all of the cost of Victoria should also be borne by Developer, since adjoining land owners and the City's added growth in the area,. i.e. new schools, would-=have and 'probably use access to Victoria. Developer objects to providing',all of the right=of--way, and all of the cost, :with no cost sharing of adjoining land owners. Developer, would expect that the City share in the burden of the normal I/2 street cost on behalf of such adjoining landowners. and Developer .proposes cost recovery through assessments. The City's thoroughfare plan as approved by Council, places the extension of Victoria on the common property line, with participation by each adjoining landowner, since each will benefit. Developer believes that cost sharing should be done by the landowners on both sides, which includes right-of--way and cost of improvements. In the event Chat Developer must bear he cost of the full street (whether 30 ft. or 39 ft.), Developer has sufficient lots in order to recoup such additional cost, however, Developer intends to proceed with all rights to cost recovery from adjoining land owners as prescribed by ordinance, or allowed under law or in .equity. Developer would prefer that at least the adjoining landowners provide the their respective portion of the right-of--way. The critical issue at this time is whether Victoria will be allowed to be offset or not. With regard tothe remainder of the financial, planning, development and construction issues of Victoria Extension, Developer is agreeable to entering into a development agreement with the City. -Sin erely, G 7. M. S buniewicz, resident Lick Creek development, Inc. REQUEST FOR OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION V'VESTFIELD ADDITION COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS MARC~I, 1998 OWNER & DEVELOPER LICK CREEK DEVELOPMENT, INC. P.O. BOX 14000 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77841 (409) 2601647 ~" PREPARED BY RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 RILEY ROAD BRYAN,. TEXAS 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES FOR OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Item. Description Developer's Portion Actual To be Built Oversize Part. 1 Easement Cost $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 2 Clearing & Grubbing $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.00 3 Pipe & Trenching: Sewer Pipe -PVC (SDR-26, D-3034) 435 L.F. 8" @ $15.00 $ 6,525.00 435 L.F. 18"@ $36.00 $ 15,660.00 $ 9,135.00 2,485 L.F. 8"@$15.00 $37,725.00 2,485 L.F.15"@$34.50 $ 85,732.50 $ 48,007.50 311 L.F. 8" @ $15.00 S 4,665.00 $ 4,665.00 $ 0.00 4 Trench Safety: 3231 L.F. @ 1.50 $ 4,846.00 3231 L.F. @ 2.00 $ 6,462.00 $ 1,616.00 5 Maholes 7/60"@$2,500 $17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 0.00 6 Hook-up to Ezisting MH $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 0.00 7 Sand Backl"ill- 750CY@$5 $ 3,750.00 Sand Backfill-1125CY $ 5,625.00 $ 1,875.00 8 Engineering, Surveying $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 0.00 9 Legal, Easmt. Prep. $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.00 TOTALS ..................................... $ 86,411.00 $ 147,044.50 $ 60,633.50 OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST...........< .................................................. $ 60.633.50 ~ ~ ~ f ag c ~ z R ? i e ti f s \ `~~` , ~' ~ ~ .l . \ L \ } 2 ~• _ ne - ,` ~~ , \ ~ - ~~ ~ _ ~~ e '7 J nN J - ~ _ ~n RQ ~ p - e~ ~ ~ 1` Rn N 0 1 ® ~~~ n i~ ~ ' / ~~ ~~'~~ "~~ ~ fi~ ~r ~ ~ ~~~ .ti e~ e~, ~ ch Sao ~ ~e h ~ // h ,~ "o~ /// l~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ i ~ a~ ~i ~I I~ :, ~ • _- T ~s ENGINEER'S SUMMARY FOR PHASE 1- WESTFIELD ADDITION 1 Street Construction ...................................................... $ 124,390.00 2 Drainage Construction ................................................. $ 46,830.00 3 On-Site Sewer Line Construction ................................ $ 61,000.00 4 Off-Site Sewer Line Construction ................................ $ 147,044.50 5 Water Line Construction .............................................. $ 59,265.00 6 Detention, Lot Prep, Other ........................................... $ 15,000.00 TOTAL PHASE 1 COST ESTIMATE .................................... $ 453,529.50. DEVELOPER'S PORTION ..................................................... $ 392.896.00. CITE' OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION ..................................... $ 60,633.50 :'y: ~;` A ~h ~'~ ~' EXHIBIT C Calculations of Demand and Q of Pipe A. Demand Calculations: 1 Manhole A Contributory Area (C A Al Area B-6 243 Acres: 243 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. = 1,215 D.U. 1,215 D.U X 200 G.P.D. = 243,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% _ .24,300 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor (cry 3 5 = 850 500 G.P.D: TotalPeak Flow M.H. A = 1,117,800 G.P.D. (Gallons Per Day) 1,117,800 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1./60 X 1/7.5 = 1.725 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 2 Manhole B Contributory Areas (CAB) B-2 and B-5 118 Acres: 118 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. _ .590 D.U. 590 D.U. X 200 G.P.D. = 118,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% = 11,800 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor ~a 3 5 = .413,000 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow of C.A. = 542,800 G.P.D. (Gallons Per Day) 542,800 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 0.838 C.F.S (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 3 Manhole C Contributory Areas (C A C) B-1 B-3 and B-5, 190 Acres: 190 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. = 950 D.U. 950 D.U. X 200 G.P.D. = 190,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% = 19,000 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor ~a 3 5 = 665,000 G.P.D, Total Peak Flow of C.A. _ .874,500 G.P.D. (Gallons Per Day) 874,000 G.P.D. X 1/24 X:1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 1.349 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 4 Additional Flow at Manhole C from B-4 and Alternate A-S, 80 Acres: 80 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. = 400 D.U. 400 D:U. X 200 G.P.D. = 80,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration @ 1.0% = 8,000 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor (a~ 3 5 = 280,000 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow of C.A. = 3.68,000 G.P.D. (Gallons Per Day) 368,000 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 0.568 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) Ba Q of Pipe• 1 Q of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole A - 12" (a~ 0.25% Slone: Q= [1.486 A R 2/3 S 1/2] / n Q = [1.486 (0.785) (0.25)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (0.785)0.397) (0.05) Q = 2.315 CFS 2 Q of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole B - 15" (a~ 0.25% Slone: Q = [1.486 (1.227) (0.312)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (1.227) (0.460) (0.05) Q = 4.194 CFS 3 Q of Pipe Flowing at Manhole C - 18" (a~ 0.25% Slone: Q = [1.486 (1.767) (0.375)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (1.767) (0.520) (0.05) Q = 6.827 CFS CALCULATIONS OF DEMAND FOR. WESTFIELD ADDITION AND ADJOINING LAND 1. LAND. AREA: Westfield Addition ...................... 52 Acres Adjoining Land ..................... 66 Acres Total Land .................................... 118 Acres 2. CONTRIBUTION TO SEWER LOAD FROM 118 ACRES: 118 Acres X 5 D.U../Ac. = 590 D.U. 590 D.U. X 200 G.P.D. = 118,000 G.P.D. Plus Infiltration 10% = 11,800 G.P.D. Plus Peak Factor (a~ 3.5 = 413,000 G.P.D. Total Peak Flow of 118 Ac. = 542,800 G.P.D. 542,800 G.P.D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 0.838 C.F.S. (Cu. Ft./Sec.) Peak Flow From 118 Acres = 0.838 C.F.S. 3. PIPE SIZING: Q of Pipe- 8" flowing @ 0.33%-Slope: Q = [ 1.486 A R2/3 S 1 /2J/n Q = [1.486 (0.342) (0.163)2/3 (0.0033)1/2] / 0.01 Q = 148.6 (0.342) (0.49) (0.05745) Q = 1.430. C.F.S. ~~ WESTFIELD ADDITION,. LTD. 303 College Main Street, College Station, Tegas 77840 P. O. Box 14000, College Station, Tezas 77841 November 5, 1998 Mr. James Calloway, Director of Development Services Mr. Mark Smith, Director of Public Works P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Extension of Victoria Avenue Dear Sirs: This is to notify you that Westfield Addition, Ltd. (the "Developer"} is hereby undertaking the project to develop, build and construct the extension of Victoria Avenue in conjunction with the .development of Westfield Addition and with the City of College Station's paprticipation. It is the intention of Westfield Addition, Ltd., to go ahead and develop the extension of Victoria Avenue from Graham Road to Barron Road. This is also our formal request. and application for such sums of up to $860,000.00, as per the recently voted and approved Capital Improvement Project {See attached Exhibit}, as the City's portion in participation with the Developer for the development of the extension of Victoria. Avenue from .Graham Road to Barron Road, which the undersigned undertakes to develop, build and construct in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of College Station. It is the intention of developer to proceed with the Project on its own with the City's projected participation. and by so doing privately with the. hopes. that the. Developer can get it done at a cost to the City of 'less than the projected amount of $860,000.00. Westfield Addition, Ltd., will proceed with the preliminary planning for the extension of Victoria Avenue from Graham Road to Barron Road. The Developer intends to acquire or negotiate to acquire such right-of-way as needed to construct the Project. At this time, it is the intention of the Developer to place Victoria Avenue in the general location shown on the thoroughfare plan, it being the intention of the. Developer to acquire such right-of- way as is possible from the owners of the lots in the Bald .Prairie .Subdivision as are agreeable. Normally, adjacent properties should be assessed according:. to the enhancement of property. values. The Developer intends to negotiate such .right-of--way easements and utilize its own funds. to the .extent needed whereby assessments to Bald Prairie Subdivision Lots will not be necessary. The Developer would like to reserve. the right to finalize the exacts location and ,alignment of the extension of Victoria Avenue, subject to the City's normal approval procedures. It is anticipated that all of the .funds earmarked for Land or Right-of--Way Costs ($120,000.00) will be needed and utilized and it is hereby requested that such funds be made available, subject to your normal approval .procedures,. to the Developer as needed so that right-of--way acquisition can proceed or upon completion of right-of--way acquisition. Following the right-of-way acquisition, the Developer will proceed with the design and engineering for the extension of Victoria Avenue and submit such plans for your review. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that only some of the funds earmarked for Engineering Costs (less than $110,000.00) will be needed. Upon final approval of the plans and specifications, Developer .shall proceed with construction. Again, preliminary cost estimates indicate. that only some of the funds earmarked for construction (less than $597,000.00) will be needed. Upon completion of the improvements and final acceptance by the City, Developer will convey and dedicate the improvements to the City as well as assign and transfer all of the Easements which are required to be delivered and transferred at such time. Developer will make periodic requests for such earmarked funds upon the completion of each portion or phase of the Project, .subject to the City's normat approval procedures. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, W stfield Addi ion, Ltd. . M. S buniewic PROJECT NAME: PROJECT #: PROJECT MANAGER: FUNDING SOURCEIS): CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FORM (x $1,000) Victoria--Oversize Participation PROJECT BUDGET: S 860 RECOMMENDED PROJECT DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION: This is the extension of Victoria Street from its current termination at Graham Road, south to Barron Road. The street is a major thoroughfare,. 54 feet wide in a 70 foot ROW. The length would be 4,200 feet. There will be a significant drainage structure on this .section of roadway. The project vvill improve the value of adjacent properties and will encourage development of that property. For that reason this project is an ideal candidate for developer participation. If :the City implements this project, adjacent properties should be assessed according the enhancement topro~erty values. This project maybe initiated by developers of The adjacent properties. In that case the pity vvill participate in the costs of the street width in excess of 8~ feet. This street is on the City's thoroughfare. plan and vvould provide north-south access and access to a.future CSISD school PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPEND/TURFS BY F/SCAL YEAR Fv i nNn FN[;_ CONSTR. MISC. PROD. TOTAL Prior Years $ - 1996-97 ---- - 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 120 11-0 597 33 860 2000-01 - 2001-02 - TOTAL $ 120 $ 110 $ 597 $ 33 $ 860 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS __ _. CATEGORY 1ST F.Y. ANNUAL .-- __. Personnel Supplies Services Capital TOTAL $ - $ - ---- Page 8 3 ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES >, WESTFIELD ADDITION -PHASE 4 `~..~~~t~~~~ ~ = SCE, OF TF~~11 January 14, 1998 .-~~,,,,. ~ ~6 r +~ r + R ~ _ ..4.N0.. AN L Rltk7.lt~. ~y ~~~Qc? I. DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 4 IMPROVEMENTS: ~' 1. STREETS: SOUTH FORK (30' STR.)........... 200 L.F. - 6,000 S.F. - 670 S.Y. - 450 L.F. of Curb & Gutter CACTUS (30' STR.) .................... 200 L.F. - 6,000 S.F. - 670 S.Y. - 450 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SPRINGFIELD (30' STR.).......... 800 L.F. - 24,000 S.F. - 2,670 S.Y. - 1,800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter E-W COLLECTOR (30' STR)....1,000 L.F. - 30,000 S.F. - 3,333 S.Y. - 1,800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (1/2 30' STR) 800 L F - 12 000 S F - 1 335 S Y - 800 L.F. of Curb & Gutter SUBTOTAL .............................................. - 78,000 S.F. - 8,678 S.Y. - 5,300 L.F, of Curb & Gutter E-W COLLECTOR (9' O.P)....... 1,000 L.F. - 9,000 S.F. - 1,000 S.Y. VICTORIA (1/2 30' STR).......... 800 L.F. - 12,000 S.F. - 1,335 S.Y. - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter VICTORIA (26' STR O P) 800 L F - 20 800 S F - 2 311 S Y. _ SUBTOTAL ............................................... - 41,800 S.F. - 4,646 S.Y. - 700 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 2. DRAINAGE• 900 L.F. with 4 inlets 3. SEWER LINE: 1700 L.F. 6" Sewer Line 10 Service Lines (4" - 56.2' Avg.) 4.WATER LINE: 1500 L.F. 6" Water Line 10 Service Lines (1 1/2" - 49' Avg.) II. PHASE 4 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES: 1. STREET CONSTRUCTION (DEVELOPER PORTION): 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control ................ L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ............................... L.S. 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 Excavation ............................................... C.Y. 964 $ 2.50 $ 2,410.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding.. .............. S.Y. 5,700 $ 0.50 $ 2,850.00 5 6"Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 8,678 $ 2.40 $ 20,827.00 6 Extra Lime .............................................. Ton 60 $ 80.00 $ 4,800.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. 7,350 $ 6.00 $ 44,100.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ........................... S.Y. 7,350 $ 3.75 $ 27,562.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. 5,300 $ 2.15 $ 11,395.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk ................. S.F. 7,950 $ 3.75 $ 29,812.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Aprons (14) S F 1 890 $ 3.15 $ 5.955.00 Total .......................................................................................................................................... $ 153,711.00 A 2 STREET CONSTRUCTION (CITY PORTIO N): ~ ~ 1 Erosion Sedimentation Control ................ L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 2 Clearing &Grubbing ..............:................ L.S. 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3 Excavation ...:........................................... C.Y. 4,646 $ 2.50 $ 11,6.15.00 4 Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding................ S.Y. 0 $ 0.50 $ 0.00 5 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%)....... S.Y. 4,646 $ 2.40 $ 11,150.00 6 Extra Lime .............................................. Ton 30 $ 80.00 $ 2,400.00 7 6" Flexible Base Crushed Stone ............... S.Y. 4,646 $ 6.00 $ 27,876.00 4" Extra Flexible Base Crushed Stone..... S.Y. 3,910 $ 4'.00 $ 15,640.00 8 1 1/2" HMAC (Type D) ........................... S.Y. 4,646 $ 3.75 $ 17,422.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter......... L.F. 0 $ 2.15 $ 0.00 10 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk.................. S.F. 0 $ 3.75 $ 0.00 11 Reinforced Concrete Ayrons S F 0 $ 3.15 $ 0.00 Total ...............................................:......................................................................................... $ 86,103.00 CREEK CROSSING• 1 36" Corrugated Pipe (80') ....................... Ea. 2 $ 5,500.00 $ 11,000:00 2 Dirt Work, Backfill, Compaction............ Ea. 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3 Concrete Pipe Ends ................................ Ea. 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 Concrete Abutment with Handrail Ea 2 $ 2 500.00 $ 5,000.00 Total ......................................................................................................................................... $ 20,500.00 3. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 1 18" RCP (C76, CL.III) ............................ L.F. 900 $ 27.00 $ 24,300.00 2 Concrete Junction Box.(2) ....................... Ea. 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 3 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet ...................... Ea. 4 $ 1,750.00 $ 7,000.00 4 Connect to Existing ................................. Ea. 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 5 Trench Safeh~ Storm Drain L F 900 $ 1.50 $ 1,350.00 Total ......................................................................................................................................... $ 34,100:00 4. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6"PVC (SDR-26, D3034)(6' to 8' depth) L.F. 1,700 $ 15.00 $ 25,500.00 2 Standard Sewer Manhole (<8' depth)...... Ea. 4 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 3 Remove Plug & Connect to Existing........ Ea. 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 4 Trench Safety Sewer System .................... Ea. 1,700 $ 1.50 $ 2,550.00 5 4" Service Line (Tvae ID(56 2' Avg) Ea 10 $ 800.00 $ 8,000.00 Total ......................................................................................................................................... $ 41,050':.00 5. WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION: 1 6"PVC (C900, C1.200) ........................... L.F. 1,500 $ 14.50 $ 21,750.00 2 Connect to Existing Line ....................... Ea. 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 3 Fire Hydrants (3) .................................... Ea. 3 $ 1,600.00 $ 4,800.00 -' 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ................................... Ea. 6 $ 350.00 $ 2,100.00 5 6" x 6" Hydrant Tees ............................. Ea. 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 ........... 6 6» x 6" Cross ........:............ ......... Ea. 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 7 1 1/2" Copper Service (49' Avg.)........... Ea. 10 $ 700.00 $ 7,000.00 1 ~ 8 Trench Safety Water Line L F 1 500 $ 1 50 $ 2,250.00 ..... $ 39,150,00 Total .......................................... .......... ..................................,....... t C l v ............................................... $ 288.511.00 ............................................. oper os e Total Estimated De ... i i i a e ......................................... $ 86.103.00 on ........................................... rt c pat P Total City Oversiz ......... i TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION .......... .................................................. $ 374,614.00 PHASE 4 - 35 R-1 LOTS TOTAL ESTIMATED DEV. COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER LOT ..................... $ 8,243.00 E STATION COLLEG P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 November.20, 1998 Mr. J.M. Szabuniewicz Westfield Addition, Ltd. PO Box 14000 College Station, Texas 77841 Dear Mr. Szabuniewicz, I am writing in response to the letter you presented to me dated November 5, 1998. In your letter, you make a formal request for funds approved for oversize participation on Victoria Avenue. Your letter_does not contain all of the necessary elements for an oversize participation. request. I want to take this opportunity to help you to understand the process required for oversize participation. The following excerpts. from the College Station Subdivision Regulations may provide some direction. for: you. 6.C.2 An applicant may .request oversize participation on any infrastructure, as provided in Section 9 of these regulations. In order to do so, impact studies covering the particular infrastructure must be submitted justifying the request for oversize. These studies shall indicate what size infrastructure is necessary to serve the proposed development~as shown on an approved master development plan or master. preliminary plat.. If the city's comprehensive plan-calls for infrastructure in excess of thaf required for the proposed development, the applicant may. request participation for this additional size. 9-B.4 A preliminaN re uest .for. oversize participation; based upon an engineer's estimate for the project, must be presented to the City. Council prior to .the beginning of construction.. Upon approval of a preliminary request,, funds will be encumbered through a purchase order, with the total not to exceed-the City's share plus a ten percent (10%) contingency for participation in the approved project. Council approval and participation shall be contingent and subject to commencement within one (1) year of Council approval and completion of'the thoroughfare by the date so designated by the Council. If construction of an ..approved project is not either. begun within .one (1) year of.Council approval, or completed by the date designated by the Council, then Council approval shalt be automatically revoked., the funds will be returned to he oversize street fund and vvill be available for the next request. After the. street has been completed and accepted by the City .Engineer, payment may be ..requested... Payment will be contingent upon the City's receipt of a deed. for the land and improvements; an updated title. report, and lieh subordination's from all. lenders. The cost of the. City's participation shall not increase more than ten percent{10°/0) over the amount calculated using the engineer's estimate. 9-B.5 The City's participatioh shall be limited `to a percentage of construction costs and the actual value of the undeveloped land in excess of that required for the thoroughfare as established by an appraisal prepared... by a MAI appraiser approved by the City Right-of- Way Agent, which appraisal is acceptable to the City Right-of-Way Agent. The cost of the appraisal shall be borne by the subdivider. 9-B.6 At the ime of the preliminary request, the City Council .reserves the right to evalu- ate the overall economic benefit of the thoroughfare to the City. The City Council may elect not to participate or it may elect to lirnit'participation. Home of Texas A&M University t 9-B.7 The City's participation wiq be limited to a maximum of thirty percent (30%) of the `engineer's estimate unless the Council agrees otherwise. and the project is placed out to public bid. As you can see from the excerpts above, .there are certain key elements required in an oversize request. First, it must be based on an approved Master Development Plan or Master Preliminary Plat. Second, it must be based on and accompanied by impact studies that identify the amount of infrastructure required by the City in excess of that required for the development. Also, the oversize participation program is one where the City reimburses the developer for eligible expenses. after the improvements are in place and accepted by the City Engineer. It is true that the recent bond election has made funds. available for City participation in the development of Victoria Avenue. Those funds. are accessed via the oversize participation process .described above. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 764-3690, or Jim Callaway at 764- 3570. k mit .E. Director of ublic Works cc J~iria (~i11'~n~a~ _1)ir~t~i<ir ~~~~ U~«I~>h~mnt S~r~ iC~, Bob Mosley P.E., City Engineer Veronica Morgan, P.E. Assistant City Engineer PL.~~ ~,~ ~,p~~' ~` TITLE SLIDE ~ , i ~!'~ y~, ~~ D~ ~ S ~ ~; - ~~ (Planning Case #98-100) (Plannin use-# 98-30 ~ Proposed subdivision on south si e o am Rd. at Victoria Avenue. Applicant submitted a master plan, which, in .concept, appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances. The applicant would lik to receive Council action on the developme proposal ere are several unanswered questions and concern , HISTORY SLIDE The Commission heard this request at the 12-4-97 meeting where denial was recommended due to several unanswered questions dealing with the master plan. The applicant pulled the item before going: on to the City Council. The developer then dealt with some of the issues. and resubmitted. the plan to P&Z in Jan.. Staff had then and still has now.several. concerns but the developer wants to get decisions from the P&Z and Council before doing additional analysis, P&Z voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the master plan with several staff conditions and prelim. plat of phase l and 7-0 to rec. app. of the rezoning to R-1. ~5~ ~ ~~ ~~ a.~ p r o~~~ a~~e~ ('e 7~-w~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ S hy~ G,~c~`~, ~..~, ~~ ~ a car `~ ~ ~'~ s ~ w ~ ~- ~5 ~5 ~~ . o;\groupldeve_ser\stfrpt11003nt2. doc STAFF COMMENTS Phasing There are concerns. staff has. about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the development to support the infrastructure requirements. The developer's intention is to build single family residences. on the property with some commercial at the Victoria/Graham intersection. This master plan is phased with the majority of the residential lots being built before the extension of Victoria is addressed. Victoria and an eastlwest collector shown on the t-fare plan are not constructed until phases 3 and 4. Staff requested construction cost estimates to justify. this particular phasing plan. Jim C. has been wor'g with the developer along with our development engineers regarding these estimates. and he will brief Council "when I fmish. Thoroughfare Plan Considerations The Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension of Victoria along the western boundary of this property as well as an east/west collector through the southern portion of the property. Staff met with land owners in the area and discussed various t-fare options since there are several tracts impacted by thoroughfares in this area. Final locations and alignment of these t-fares will depend on floodplain locations and possible ROW .acquisition. In any event staff does recommend that Victoria not intrude on any of the. Bald Prairie Subdivision as it moves south to Barron Road. Victoria should be aligned to be completely on the undeveloped property adjacent to Bald Prairie .and should not intrude. into this. neighborhood. We are currently reviewing alternative alignments that could move Victoria eastward, away from the Bald Prairie Subdivision Oversize Participation Jim will discuss the latest correspondence between the developer and the City in a moment. General note. #6 on the master plan refers.to oversize participation by the City. The note should be revised to indicate oversize will be requested by the developer. This is one of the several conditions noted in the report. o:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\ 1003nt2. doc ~~' Drainage Drainage plans have not. been submitted for this development. The developer will submit drainage construction plans with fmal plats. Adequacy of drainage systems cannot be determined until then. Floodplain/Floodway Floodplain and floodway may exist on this property. The developer has still to confum whether there is any floodplain on the properly. CSISD is performing a hydraulic analysis to define the floodplain/floodway on their adjacent tract and as of this writing, there appears to be floodplain on the school tract. The location of the. floodplain/floodway may have an impact on the lots that back. up to it. At this point, with the location unknown, the suitability for development of these lots is also unknown. It is acceptable for the developer to show approximate floodplain location on a conceptual masterplan with detailed location to follow before final platting. Sanitary Sewer The developer has discussed the ability for this property to sewer toward the south ;~~ rather than participating in the Graham Road Impact Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. He has discussed, but has not submitted, a request to amend the existing impact fee area 92-0 l and remove the Phase 3 line. If this phase is deleted, he would then like to pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. A portion of this line has already been constructed,.. and is existing in the Springbrook Subdivision and would continue west to and through this development. The developer would be requesting oversize participation in this new sewer line. Theresponsiblity for .demonstrating the need to amend the Impact Fee Area 92-01 and reduce the number of lots that would participate in this impact fee is inherent on this developer. Ultimately City Council must approve any change to the impact fee area. This. has .not been done to date, Lots fronting. Graham Road would sewer into the impact fee line. 1 o:\group\deve_ser\stfipt\1003nt2.doc Parkland Dedication and .Open Space along the creek The conceptual master plan shows Park at the end of Phase 1. The developer met with the. Parks Board to discuss parkland dedication last month. The Board moved to recommend accepting the land dedication shown depending on the floodplain study and to allow future credit for the developer's .adjacent tract when developed. The developer can use this excess.. to meet :additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development. If parkland dedication credit is requested for adjacent tracts, the water, sewer and traffic demands of those tracts .should be considered when evaluating oversize requests for streets, sewer and water for this development. Greenbelt The master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek. Given the Comprehensive Plan considerations about open space preservation, staff has encouraged the developer to address how this creek area will work with his planned development. He notes on the master plan this area as Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not acquire this. area through dedication or purchase to provide a linkage, as addressed in the. Comprehensive Plan, then the developer may incorporate this area into his lots. Zonin The property currently has A-O Agricultural Open zoning on it. The developer has a request to rezone a portion of the property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 is in compliance: with the land use plan. A rezoning request for. the remainder of the property (R-1 and some C-3) has been submitted and will be seen by Council in March: Until the above questions are answered by the applicant, staff cannot process any final plats for any .part of the development. Staff does support the master plan in concept with the following conditions: o:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\1003nt2.doc 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SLIDE • Staff recommends approval of the master plan in concept with the following conditions: 1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing any final plats. 2. No final .plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined 3. No final plats can be processed until a determination is made as to ,how the property will be sewered. 4. Revise note#6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with OP participation requests to the City." 5. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Sub. 6. Revise Note # 9 to read "there is shown the. approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved for osp sible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots.". Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of phase 1. Staff recommends approval of the present zoning request. o:\group\deve_ser\stfrpt\1003nt2. doc February 9, 1998 Mr. Tim Calloway Development Sjervices Director Cityof College.~tation, Texas College Station, Texas 77842 Via Hand Delivery Dear Mr. Calloway: This is in response to your letter dated February 2, 1998. 1. The estimates provided are good working estimates for purposes of analysis at the present time and can be confirmed by our Engineer, Mr. Martin Riley. We understand that the oversize request for Victoria Extension will not fomally occur until Phase 3, at which time some of the figures may. have varied. At such time they will be revised and properly signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. 2. The proposed developer participation in Victoria Street~was based on a 30 ft. Street as the size which is sufficient given the present subdivision's layout. However, a thorough traffic analysis has not been completed to date, and. not presently knowing what the impact of future development might be, final determination will be done at-the time the request is made. Im ther event traffic impact warrants it, it will be no problem for the project developer participation to be based on Victoria Street. being a collector street width of 39 ft. 3. The estimates reflecting developer participation in Victoria Street at the level of 1/2 of a 30 ft. Street,'is based on the other 1/2 of 30 ft. being paid for by others, and Developer agrees that it shall not be part of the City's oversize participation. However, Developer will rely on right-of--way participation by .adjoining land owners and prorata contribution.. In the event pro-rata contribution is .not available, the City may decide to pay for such prorata portion on behalf of such adjoining owners, or the Developer agrees to advance such funds and obtain reimbursement from. assessment .against adjoining owners as ~'~o currently authorized under the City ordinance. Therefor, such prorata cost. may be ~~ withdrawn from the City's. portion ` of ;oversize participation. In the event that the ~'~M~~ Developer mustbear all of the cost of the adjoining owners' l/2 pro rata portion, it would not significantly financially impact our project, provided that. such cost could be recouped - ' C ~ ~'o in the future from such assessments. u~,~1e~" ~._..®- ~~' ~- 4. .After initial c nversations with some of the adjoining landowners, the Developer is confident that ri -of--way will be able to be obtained from the Carroll tract and possibly from some of the ald Prairie Subdivision Lots, however, the Link and Fry property at the southwest corner of Victoria and Graham Road have vehemently~,opposed any of their property being given up, because it would severely impact their parking. That would have to be a decision made by City Council, of whether to acquire such right-of--way by condemnation or not. In order for the. intersection to be properly aligned without offset, which is the preferable way of designing the intersection, Council will have to agree to condemn.. In the event that Council decides it will not condemn or :obtain.. such additional right-of-way,. Developer would then not have any choice but to offset Victoria such additional space so as to allow its extension. This, in the opinion of Developer would not affect the number of lots which Developer has proposed;' since several of the lots were planned with extra width, in case the lot sizes would :have to be designed. smaller. 5. In the event that all of Victoria extension is deemed to have to be put on Developer's land, Developer could physically do it. However, Developer objects that all of the cost of - . p Victoria should also be borne by Developer, since adjoining land owners and .the City's ~. ~~ added growth. in the area, i.e. new schools, wouldhave and. probably use access to velo er ob'ects to rovidin all of the nght=,of--way, .and all of the cost,: with ~~~ Victoria. De p ~ p g no cost sharing of adjoining land owners. Developer, would expect that the City share in ~ the burden of the normal 1/2 street cost on behalf of such adjoining landowners and ~ Developer proposes .cost recovery through assessments. ~-' The City's thoroughfare plan as approved by Council, places the extension of Victoria on the common property line, with participation by each adjoining landowner, since each will benefit. Developer believes that cost sharing should be done by the landowners on both sides, which includes right-of--way and cost of improvements. In the event that Developer ~~ must bear the cost of the full street. (whether 30 ft. or 39 ft.), Developer has sufficient lots , in order to recoup such additional cost, however, Developer intends to proceed with all ~ ~ r rights to cost recovery from adjoining land owners as prescribed by ordinance, or allowed under law or in equity.. Developer would prefer that at least the adjoining landowners r ~~ provide the' heir respective portion of the right-of--way. ti ~~'~-~"'~~~ e~.5 The critical issue at this time is whether Victoria will be allowed to be offset or not. With regard tothe remainder of the financial, planning, development and construction issues of Victoria Extension, Developer is agreeable to entering into a development agreement with the City. Sin erely, J. M. Sz buniewicz, resident Lick Creek development, Inc. 02/06/98 FRI 15:58 FAX LINI~~RSIT~ TITI~~ co~~~~~ ~~ f FAX: (~09) 268-3080 FROM: iTNIV1;RSITY ,TJTI.F COMPANY TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL -PAGE PLEAS);. DELIVER THE FOLLOWING TELECOPY TO: ~ ~p NAME:. ~.~ (rt.~ ~ ~ ~~~ `-~ COMPANY OR FIRM NAME: ~~ TELECOPIER NUMBER: ~ ~' ~ ~ 3 TOTAL NUMBER Ol+ PAGES (Inclttdir+g transmittal page) _ Date: ~~ IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, OR IF Y{OU HAVE~IANY QUESTIONS PLEASE fC~ALL (409} 260-9818. COMMF'sNTS : +~C.. d- 4~ D GI ~ L ~2. / f ~ t'" ~ (;~C.2 t ~s...~ ~c.-~~ [~ ool u~~ n_ ~n ~f ~j~ l f~~ ~if n~ .~ ~r~' -F-~i~v ~ An11/C. ~3 ,~(G~il/LVr~~~''! ~1.-p ~t~.L~°.~ , SENT BY. tt~~~ ~~` ~,~.y`(y^ Conf dentiality Notice: The infornration contained in tltis facsimile transmission is ~ t ~•-?~ privileged and eonf dential, and is intended only for the use of the individual andlor ~DS ~ entity .named above. If the reader or receiver of this message is not the intended ~ ~ ~ recipient, you are hereby notif ed that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this tele~:opy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please `n ~ immediately notify University Title Company by telephone (4D9) 2b0-981 & and return ~,~(,. ~ • lire +~riginal message to us at P.O. Drawer DT, College Station, TX 77841-5079, via ~~ ,._!, United States Postal Service. Thank You. Celia Goode, Fres-dent tn~.~ TTnCversity Drive East Post Offfice Dr.~wcr DT ColleBc Station, Texas 77841-5079