HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 3_2/14/1994 i.
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequcsta Drive
„,.. Tcquesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
; ' ,:',' ,:�� Fax:(407)575-6203
L. `ate +`c
fk COUM\
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Village Council
...-----0"
FROM: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
DATE: February 11, 1994
SUBJECT: Country Club Drive Recommendations to Eliminate Possible
Four-Laving and Mitigate Traffic Impacts to. Adjacent
Property Owners
Previously the Village Council has instructed me to review ways and
means to:
1) Prevent the possibility of Country Club Drive ever being four-
laned
2) Mitigate the impacts of current and future traffic to adjacent
residential property owners
This memorandum enumerates my recommendations in this regard.
Over the course of the next decade, Northern Palm Beach County will
experience exponential growth. In fact, Northern Palm Beach County
may be the only area in which growth rates approximating those
experienced by Palm Beach County as a whole during the 70 's and
80 's will be realized. Growth rates in the central and southern
portions of Palm Beach County should be much lower than that
experienced in the previous two decades.
Although Tequesta is approximately 90% built out and Southern
Martin County is relatively built .out, growth in and around our
community will continue to impact us in the years ahead.
Page 2-
Therefore, Tequesta is not an enclave and must realize that it
impacts and is impacted by the actions of its neighbors . This is
particularly true regarding development matters . Over the years
Martin County has regularly approved developments without giving
proper consideration to infrastructure provision. The primary
transportation corridors owned and operated by Tequesta, Tequesta
Drive and Country Club Drive, have borne the brunt of these
actions .
This was clearly indicated in the Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
Corridor Analysis prepared by TEI in February, 1993 . _Regarding
Country Club Drive, 51% of all traffic currently emanates from
Martin County and at future build out, 62% will be from Martin
County.
The maximum capacity of Country Club Drive is currently 15, 300
vehicles per day (v.p.d. ) during peak season. Traffic counts in
December of 1993 indicate 6,205 v.p.d. At build out, Country Club
Drive is projected to have 9,222 v.p.d.
Therefore, Country Club Drive is an 80 ' ROW, two-lane city urban
collector which, for all intents and purposes, will:
1) Never need 80 ' of right-of-way (in which 5-lanes can be
constructed)
2) Never experience the maximum peak season vehicles per day
currently allowed at 15, 300
Therefore, my first recommendation _ is to eliminate this excess
right-of-way on Country Club Drive, reducing the available right-
of-way to 50 ' . This is recommended to be accomplished by the
designation of multi-purpose easements of 15 ' on each perimeter of
Country Club Drive. The multi-purpose easement would be for
utilities, including water, electric, telephone, CATV, drainage and
sewer. Additionally, the ,easements should provide for pedestrian
pathways (sidewalks and bicycle paths) as well as for landscaping,
which will prove to be an important variable in this
recommendation. Finally, Tequesta should grant unto itself, within
the multi-purpose easements, perpetual roadway construction
easements to allow ourselves to use these easements if and when the
same is needed in the course of maintaining and improving the
remaining right-of-way for Country Club Drive in the future.
The above referenced recommendations should preclude the
possibility of Country Club Drive ever being four-laned by outside .
parties . By going to a 50 ' ROW, our consulting engineer is of the
opinion that it becomes physically impractical to build four lanes .
Page 3-
In addition to the above referenced actions, Tequesta must amend
its Comprehensive Development Plan to reclassify Country Club Drive
and Seabrook Road to a roadway classification more in keeping with
the current and future anticipated circumstances regarding these
roadways . Instead of being classified "city urban collectors" , a
designation not necessarily in keeping with a Village that is
primarily residential, Tequesta should reclassify this roadway to
a nomenclature we have chosen as "neighborhood access road" . We
believe that this classification imparts the true nature of the
purpose of Country Club Drive.
The level of service standards (LOS) for Country Club Drive, and
other roads so similarly designated, is recommended to now follow
the Florida Department of Transportation's document entitled
Florida 's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for
Planning for classification and LOS standards (Non-State Roadway,
Level of Service C) so that the maximum this road may carry in
terms of vehicles per day shall be 10,900 as opposed to the current
15, 300 during peak season. This coincides with the Tequesta
Drive/Country Club Drive Corridor Study of February 1993 and its
recommendations . See Exhibit "A" for the level of service
standards proposed for Country Club Drive. See Exhibit "B" for the
draft language necessary in an amendment of the Tequesta
Comprehensive Development Plan to reclassify Country Club Drive as
a neighborhood access road.
Tequesta subdivision regulations will need to be amended so that
they are in keeping with the .50 ' ROW associated with neighborhood
access roads . See Exhibit "C" for the draft language necessary to
amend the Subdivision Regulations of Tequesta.
Finally, my assignment was to mitigate the current and future
impacts of traffic to the adjacent residential properties . Closing
the road by placement of a cul-de-sac at the border with Martin
County is the most effective way to mitigate traffic impacts .
However, the only apparent way of closing the road would be under
the procedures spelled out in the Safe Neighborhood Act, and even
here the ability to sustain such an event is questionable, at best.
Short of closing the road, the best way of mitigating the current
and future traffic is to slow it down and divert it elsewhere. In
order to slow down the traffic, it is recommended that the
following take place:
1) At the Martin County Line, it is proposed that a median be
built dividing the traffic and slowing it down with stamped
concrete placed in the roadway. See Exhibit "D" for a sketch
of this proposal.
Page 4-
2 ) It is proposed that roundabouts be built at the north gate and
south gate of Tequesta Country Club. Roundabouts are now
accepted by FDOT and have a long proven track record in Europe
and Australia. See Exhibit "E" for roundabout sketches .
3 ) Country Club Drive should be rebuilt with curb and gutter with
10 ' lanes for each direction of traffic. This will serve as
a physical and psychological barrier to slow down traffic.
Slower traffic causes avoidance by many drivers . Trucks and
other vehicles may forego the route altogether. See Exhibit
"F" for a cost estimate of rebuilding Country Club Drive. The
'cost estimate, $1 . 12 million, includes everything and could be
reduced if desired.
Please note that the cost of repairing Country Club Drive may
be significantly reduced if the road is closed at the Martin
County Line and no enhancements are provided.
4) It is recommended that Country Club Drive be provided with a
streetscape along the perimeter of existing rights-of-way
within the proposed 15 ' multi-purpose easements which will,
particularly with the passage of time, significantly improve
the appearance of the roadway, providing a heavily foliated
vista for drivers which is a proven way to slow down traffic.
A . streetscape with significant trees also buffers adjacent
property from the .sight and sound of traffic, which is greatly
beneficial. See Exhibit "G" for a sketch of such landscaping.
If these recommendations are approved by the Village Council, staff
will immediately proceed with the following:
1) Amendment of the Tequesta • Comprehensive Development Plan to
provide for neighborhood access roads with 50 ' ROW.
2 ) Ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations of Tequesta so
that they dovetail with the neighborhood access road
designation.
3) • Drafting of documents necessary to record the recommended
multi-purpose easements reducing the right-of-way.
4) Scheduling of a bond issue to provide funds sufficient for the
necessary construction work contemplated on Country Club
Drive.
I am available to answer any and all questions that may arise by
virtue of these recommendations for Country Club Drive.
TGB/krb
Attachments
Page 5-
c: John C. Randolph, Village Attorney, w/attachments
Fred Schwartz, P.E. , Kimley-Horn, w/attachments
W. Richard Staudinger, P.E . , Gee & Jenson, w/attachments
Gary Preston, Director of Public Works , w/attachments
Scott D. Ladd, Building Official, w/attachments
Jack Horniman, Planning Consultant, w/attachments
soaglamilmaar
EXHIBIT "A"
p
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES
The foregoing analysis in this report leads to a reassessment of the provisions of the Traffic
Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, especially as they relate to acceptable level
of service thresholds and development intensity. In order to control growth in the Village of
Tequesta and in adjacent government jurisdictions, a balance of v/c ratios and levels of
service should be maintained on adjacent roadways. A couple of approaches can be used to
accomplish this:
• Adjust the level of service standards, and
• Refine the level of service thresholds.
These two approaches will be addressed individually in this section of the report.
j.evel of Service Standard
The authoritative document for selecting level of service standards is the Florida's Level of
Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning. A section of this document
entitled "Statewide Minimum Level of Service Standards" is reproduced in Appendix D.
This demonstrates that for sections of Country Club Drive it is appropriate to incorporate a
change from Level of Service D to Level of Service C.
Because of the different travel patterns and roadway characteristics on Tequesta Drive, it is
SH advisable to maintain the Level of Service D.
J.evel of Service Threshold
)
The traffic element of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan identifies certain level
of service thresholds (for example 15,300 for Levels of Service D for two lane roadways).
f These were based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the Florida's Level of Service
Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning. However, these sources are continually
being updated and interpretations and applications for local governments to refine.
Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning has been updated
by the FDOT on April 12, 1992. It outlines several key points to assessing level of service
i J thresholds for collectors in the Village of Tequesta. Section 5.8 Non-State Roadways,
reminds that:
There is no acceptable technique to evaluate collectors. The
1985 HCM addresses arterials and signalized intersections, not
collectors and local streets.
•
16
)
This statement leads one to believe that the FDOT guidelines do not address local
government needs. However, the guidelines go on to say that some of the tables may be
used. It is a decision that the traffic engineering and planning professionals_must make
along with representatives of the Village. Again, from Section 5.8:
9 Specifically, FDOT considers it appropriate for local
government to decide whether to analyze these roads as "major
) city/county roadways"....
The term"major city/county roadways" refers to entries on the Generalized Annual Average
) Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas. Because the Village of Tequesta is located
within the West Palm Beach urbanized area, the use of this table is appropriate. It is
reproduced on the Table 4. Note that on the right side, half way down the table, is a section
entitled "Non-State Roadways". The appropriate level of service standards for city and
county roadways are as follows:
)
• Level of Service C- 10,900 vehicles per day
• Level of Service D- 13,400 vehicles per day.
)
) These level of service thresholds are much more appropriate for the local collector streets in
the Village of Tequesta,especially Country Club Drive. If the Level of Service"C'threshold
defined above is used, the resulting v/c ratios and levels of service for Country Club Drive
are shown on Table 5.
+ Goals and Objectives
Selected goals and objectives from the Traffic Element of the Village Comprehensive Plan
are presented on Table 6. They illustrate that choosing new roadway designations, level of
service standards and level of service thresholds is appropriate as it serves to meet the
intentions of the Village in relations to roadways and their impact on the residential
S ) lifestyles.
i )
f`1 •
+ 1 -
17
'-- ---- -----
•
1) •
(1 '�
0 Table 4
Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
. Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes
for Florida's Urbanized Area
)
STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIAIJ FREEWAYS
oil(.reibp Ili• hemp 1 NA.Y•rsrslwd aim..r AOOJ00.d rsA I t•a eWNs
ow..•0r ww OLIO.y.wNwd•r..rri..e pn I man d sissy 67•••W 1.u1•r•.eW
amassed reiwr.bJ .
) Ld a bran lea.. lard et Mewing
Le'• C D s A a C D a
2 Dad • 11L/P00 YJ00 4 /i100 00.000 SIJO YJ0D W00
/Vwi.. �JOD 10 10.7w0Y100 MOO 10A00 111J00
•a1°0 YAtp COD DMA / . aJ00
4 Die 1f 1DD Wee Nan 1/.7D0 / a JsOD ICJ 00 114200 111 100 101JD0
/Di.. f 1,.Do CLOG
aa. /0A00 411J10 rile aJ/o 114J0 II 1/10D Max IMIoo 101/00 11 .1�00
14 11JOO 117200 IMAM >D/JMUM00 M
DiniUtUrTrD now .
emus a OLIO t.in+rem Imes slluu 441 rawer 1 t.lur slashed rw aid ea I.Orate 11
Ld.r1...t.
,' t...r Low if Swim L... A a C D a
Divided As D C Ds• !"'w 0 54 0 aae Oao Y10o IOW
II Ueda 11100 NAM MHO 14J00 111.000 11J100 a..00 Ia10
4 Di. 0/A00 1.100 loco° 12 100 111J00
v a ... • 002D0 a0./•0 oo p 300 A I
A Us. • pJ00 .a." woo 0.100 A 10 7YOJ00 1MJ000 1Y..00 147.700 100
1 12
II Id mow 170200 171100 117.100 111.700
Cow a CIAO to 430 e1••Om0 riinier'w p".11.) I NON-STATE ROADWAYS
L
11W0a CRTADID V a0ADW AT/
Lwow o .
srn. •• D. C D a 1.*w Ld O%sib
/Usti 1a0 11410 11J/0 D oddA•• a. C D a
4 Do.. - ONO • IMMO ;�' Hams 1A0 IL7 oo
/ - - a - sae sal LOOP
DI.
skim woo 00,400 I DN. - • 11.10 40A41 0110
-r D•r�D here Den 4.10$••ad■ 1r'/•sad d Ea within C I r0salr sniped .
primary dty sinus,Wrw&WA 4whin el ,
�-. ere.ewer1°oJ1Y1 I. L✓ land O loran ,
/ DI.Yd
A•• M C D a
0J/0 M00
/ I Uwe. /�00 l 117
lame' 1...1 Olson - - 11100 t= MILD
A.. a" C.' D [ r DN.
Ddd • 11100 N.700 a
D a U..i.. 1200 21110
•Die. • - - a.fao •ad ADJUSTMENTS
/A.. DIVIDEDN►m(VIDCD
•
/D1. M100 OJ 0 tdar rf1r1�01ww sly 1•f+mind pima) .
Grew I Ws.).n 020 sllrli..d i.rr shier•tw sib d within
}riss7 easel beams drain O Monied C lass 110W Lab Tun 1be A�swimrt Paola.
•�i city
mw500.00) C I Divided To •A
• l 1/.•.+d 5. • •11/ •
Iasi dlenl. l Mehl Vdi.fi.i V. •11
Divided Av. Ir.
IUdi• • - - 1/100 14.700
4Di.. - 111100 /4000 MI pQ.�AT
/Ds. - «J00 4010D •
limas show r/irW puma)
li /DN. • hA0 ODJao Sits rrwwp..!•1
0r.w4 anmpwnlel Affuna.l
—. Ls Te.WgLas Iry
a / -MS -
n a a .40
a a •11a
11 a bale des ert maltel.•4. 4 end Aril be eat dab hi bead*rain ge/••rfm4 The rmlr•rr wrre1 awe whit\We 11/14 1./.Isl•r1 be W
ass nen death 1f•ml•i•pelmWa Pebble d derrr4R.00pmd.sable Maid art M wa01r rnlisrsr burnt".Ind"elrs lies easel Wow s11d
Wow ass w�r1 meow deb here WDfl o o skewhawse�ea RIO brumbil peek IL.Ws••• d who swimming end LW ...I..Mr4.pemren O.lei hay weir)br beds r t med..nil en bieed is he 1
•
�--� w�endr+vr•••t.rsrlrl■e..nd.4 Ate
Cue..r.at•rd. OD
ISA&Deperiarie irhowarataiiet111111. 11442121
IEa. '
'Dank Engineering,Inc.
EXHIBIT "B"
ASSOCIATES �)
. V,LLAGI7T
Tc0UcsS?-d;
planning a zoning • permitting • site planning • land development resear h' ;
L n - •
i,4 1
)1 :r!l.L.'3E •
OFAC j
February 3, 1994
Mr. Tom Bradford, Manager
Village of Tequesta
P.O. Box 3273
Tequesta, .FL 33469
Dear� Bradfor
As per your request from our meeting of Wednesday, February 2nd,
I have prepared the proposed Policy 1.4.2 to the Village of
Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan, Transportation Element.
Richard Staudinger, P.E. , Gee and Jenson. Engineers has reviewed
this policy also and he is comfortable with its wording.
I hope this meets your need. If you require additional
information, please contact me. I will be in Tallahassee from
Tuesday afternoon, February 8 through Friday, February 11th;
however, my secretary Margie can contact me in Tallahassee if
necessary.
Sikicerely,
.Jack L. Horniman
Planning Consultant
•
;K
•224 Doturo Street. Suite 1001 •West Palm Bench,R.33401 (407)655-0024 = i
Policy 1 .4 .2 "Neighborhood access roads" should provide for .a
mamixmum 50 feet of right-of-way to accomodate a
two-lane undivided road and drainage system, except
at intersections, cul-de-sacs or other special areas
where a maximum 80 feet of right-of-way shall be
provided. In addition to the maximum 50 feet of
right-of-way for roadway and drainange improvements,
an additional 15 feet on each side of the 50 feet
of right-of-way shall be dedicated as multi-purpose
easements specifically to be used for landscaping,
sidewalks and other appropriate utilities. Village
land development regulations shall be amended to
provide for "Neighborhood access roads" and these
requirements and criterion.
Th
EXHIBIT "C"
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA TEQAGc of
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �, STA ,
• Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
q ' FED — •;.., J
�- �� Tcqucsta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407)575-6220 ' I .
i�' N,, ,° Fax: (407) 575-6203 �1�'r;LAG_"
, r �rdtier
cous OFFrci- -
•
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
FROM: Scott D. Ladd, Building Official Od-
DATE: February 9, 1994
SUBJECT: Draft ordinance _ changes to the Subdivision Regulations
regarding street types and maximum right—of—way widths.
Tom, attached is a copy of a draft ordinance that proposes changes
to Article IV, Section 3, Streets, by adding two new street types
with their respective maximum right—of—way widths to indicate that
the width. stated is the maximum width for that street type. A
comparison of the existing list and the proposed new list of street
types and right—of way width is as follows:
Existing list:
Right—of—Way
Street Type ( Feet)
1. Primary arterial street 80
2. Secondary arterial street 60
3. Alleys . 20
Proposed new list:
Right—of—Way
Street Type ( Max. Width in Feet)
1. Primary arterial street 80
2. Secondary arterial street 60
3. Limited neighborhood access street 50
4. Neighborhood street 40
5. Alleys . 20
SDL: imm
Attch.
R,•-vrtr,i par,
DRAFT
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF TEOUESTA, PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 398, APPENDIX
B, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV,
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 3,
STREETS, PARAGRAPH ( 15) , BY PROVIDING A REVISED LIST OF
STREET TYPES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR
PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL
OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph ( 15) ,
relating to street types and right-of-way widths, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
( 15) Unless otherwise indicated or required by a major
Village approved street plan, street rights-of-way
shall be as follows:
Right-of-Way
Street Type ( Max. Width in Feet)
1. Primary arterial street 80
2. Secondary arterial street 60
3. Limited neighborhood access street 50
4. Neighborhood street 40
5. Alleys 20
( a) No change.
( b> No change.
Section 2. Severability. If any provision of this
Ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or
applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect
without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this
end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared
severable.
Section 4. Codification. This Ordinance shall be
codified and made a part of the official Code of Ordinances of
the Village of Tequesta.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall
take effect immediately upon its passage and approval, as
provided by law.
•
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was offered by Council-
member _ ____ , who moved its adoption.
The Ordinance was seconded by Council-
member _-___. _.__ _._,. . and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
FOR ADOPTION AGAINST ADOPTION
•
The Mayor thereupon declared the Ordinance duly passed
and adopted this day of _.. 1994.
MAYOR OF TEQUESTA
Ron T. Macka i l
ATTEST:
Village Clerk
rl "
•
/ .
)XN , \ N N .
\ ‘ \ \ \
\ \ \ N �\
N \ N.
\\ N
N N MARTIN COUNTY
\ \ PALM BEACH COUNTY
\\ N \ \
16'X 35'
\ No; N ISLANDN. SPECIAL PAVERS
C \ , e/��� itl FLUSH W ITH ASPHALT
/l/7 EXISTING
/Qr 'ATH WAY
\\ \\ ` \
VILLAGE OFTEOUESTA ----.. ----- .../
SIGN WALL \-...„ r-
m
\
\ \
�
\ �
`
� \ \
` ° \
`
/
i < �
/
0,0
3-2
3381
000000
...-
lzw-
� .
701 .
_� ��' _ _ _ _ _ _
��."~
! �
\
� �
N '
/ .
117" II8IHX� -
^
i
z I
, ,
--- .
t I#k
o
0 i.
.,.. • \I iv
....,
Iv, I' \
...
ii
I A ...
. .-
, . 1 \t
-,
__ J t•••%6 /
I fir„ _�s ��� \ 1 1
PALM ~ �/' \ I
TREE TREE # "'t/e / .�
EL POR TAL DRIVE - - �.�.�....- -
...vie, _ TEQUESTA DRIVE .
PALM �`� ���• -
TREE ,-,*PALMa��I►: \
-� l I TREE 'vd.ii. \ _ — - — �"�--
1 II
II I
_ � � I1.
/ 1 .. 7:Il
LiJ1
I I .
r- - -1
I �, I 30' r \ I I
1
II \ I
•
GEL JLN:,GN ID :4u,' 6uu - ,'4,1u I LU 1(J ' •j4 15 :4 ' Nu .uz:. Hu:;
EXHIBIT "F"
PROJECT MOR: Richard Staudinger DATE: January 24, 19994
Revised: Feb. 10, 1994
PROJECT: COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE JOB NO.93004.401108
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
ESTIMATED BY: Jay Roach. Bret!Nein
PAVING, DRAINAGE,AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
PART-C-I (2)10'LANES W/TYPE F C&U WFUMES TO&WALES(NOT INCLUDING ROUNDABOUTS)
emilamr I - f I I
I Mobi2dlon LIMP SUM • $26.000
2 Mai tenano.d Trail! LUMP SUM $$28,000
a Driveway Raptao.,nart 900 BY $19.60 $13.200
W
4 Clearing a On6bino 2 AC $2,000.00 $$4,000
6 Regular Excavation 6.060 CY $2.00 ;10.100
6 Removal of Marble Pay.mwt 17,200 SY 82.75 $47.200
7 , Topcoat 8,000 SY 91.00 . ;6.000
a tr subbn.(Stabilized)
21,200 SY $2.50 999,000
a r Urrrerodc Base 17,200 SY $6.76 $91.900
10 2ti'ACSC Type-S 17,200 SY $4.75 $61,700
22.000 BY $1.20 iwA00
12 Cob 0 Gtdat(Type"F') 14,600 LF NM4e7,000
1a Caro.Curb&OuttR-Spsdal Fium. 260 LF 010.00 $2.500
14 6 L Wide Concrete 6Idelvek 6.600 SY $14.00 _ $119,000
16 Remove Existing Petfwray 6.000 SY $2.75 $10,700
10 Trees(9'Callao) • 270 EA $250,00 ;WOO
•
17 Gwen Pelme 100 EA , $250.00 $25.000
16 Hoke 0400 EA $0,00 $v, o
19 hta Son 230,000 SF $025 _ $57 500
20 Signing a Markings 29,000 LF ;0A0 $8,700
i
21 R.lf.cdw Markers a Mho.stlpinp LUMP SUM $4.000 1
22 Rebcatlry Mane so EA $100.00 $3.000
IS 2.000 CY . $62S $10.600
PART C-1 SUBTOTAL $026,,200
.
GEE�JL,,:,LN ID :40 ' b<;r., l'44u i t_ll :0 ' 'i4 15 : 4 ,' rv'U .UZ:i P . .)..
,
COUNTRY CLUB DRN6
VILLAGE OF TEOUEBTA
PAGE-2
PAVING,DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
- PART C':2 TWO ROUNDABOUTS AND LANDSCAPE ISLAND t
ITEM NO_ ITEM QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
I Regular Excavation 560 CY $200 $1.100
2 Removal d Fiabb Pa amoral 3,400 SY $276 . i0,
SO
S i r Subbase(8bbltead) 4,000 SY B260 610,000 ..
i 4 r Unstuck Bans $.500 SY $6.76 $20,126
i 6 2 11r ACSC Type-8 3,600 SY $4.76 $16,126
• Curb S Gutter(Type}") 1.650 LF $6.00 S11.100
Cora Curb
•00 LF $6-00 $4,100
• Slpnln0 i M.dI Ua 6,000 LF $0. 0 $1.600
9 eV"Now 20 EA $100.00 ' $2,000
10 Pavan SO SY $20.00 • $1200
11
Ear i LUMP SUM $10.000
12 Patt+way Modb1oadoti LUMP SUM 12,E
PART C-2 SUBTOTAL $50,600
PART C-1 SUBTOTAL $120,200
PART C-2 SUBTOTAL $60,600
CONTINGENCY .10% $01,600
SUB-TOTAL $1,007.,110
DIG i SURVEY 7% $70,600
ESDC 4% $40,300
• TOTAL 31.110,400
•
va++russe
GEE8.JEN'AN 1 V 4u? UU-i .'44i, I Li, 1 u . 1 5 : ,1r Nu . ..). I' .
i 1
.
EXHIBIT "G"
i` EXlSTINCs
M • Of- I WAY
------ 1 - 111. 'al°
��'il
t'MI. (VI . i
i
•
f
' ; _"E6 Hill
s , 0 ;
ilia •
MGTlN6 k
'
1r 144 UfE p
--�- __ 14. t,ai-
. . � �
II CNN0 1
TiLee -SO O.G.± kti
11'41' ---- 1:.:f!-.�� QUEEN F \LM- �,
: t'; • ' .•• - It 6 E4DK AT ` 0
R 1k.• 1N"rely 5 '14N9 j Q 3.1
?I V V
•
. Iia� . SOON swo Z
i 1P4246ATer3 RI
;ii' • . . f z •
•
11 :• • •. •:.
•••- if
•____ OP
PLAN
111_ 5o 1 t 1ro..o
s in
i
l or
`MIIIINIIMIL