Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GTAB_05.13.2016Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Adv isory Board and the Gov erning Body of the City of Georgetown May 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM at the GMC Building - 300-1 Industrial Av e., Georgetown, TX 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City at leas t fo ur (4) d ays prior to the sc heduled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for ad d itional informatio n; TTY users ro ute thro ugh Relay Texas at 711. Regular Session (This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.) A Call to Ord er The Board may, at any time, rec es s the R egular S es s io n to convene in Exec utive S es s io n at the reques t of the Chair, a Board Memb er, the City Manager, As s is tant City Manager, G eneral Manager of Utilities, City Co uncil Member, o r legal c o uns el for any p urpos e authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Government C o d e Chapter 551, and are s ubjec t to actio n in the Regular Ses s ion that follows . B Introduction of Vis itors C Ind ustry/C AMP O/TXDOT Updates D Dis cus s ion regard ing the Projec t Progres s Reports and Time Lines. – Bill Dryd en, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Trans p o rtatio n Servic es Manager, Nat Waggoner, PMP ®, Trans p o rtatio n Analys t and Ed ward G. P o las ek, AICP, Transportatio n Services Direc tor. E Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f results of the firs t pub lic meeting o f the Aus tin Ave Brid ges Projec t -Nat Waggoner, PMP ®, Trans p o rtatio n Analys t and Ed ward G. Polasek, AIC P, Trans portation S ervic es Directo r. F Dis cus s ion regard ing the Airp o rt Mo nthly Progres s Rep o rt and Projec t Time Lines. – Rus s Vo lk, C.M., Airp o rt Manager and Edward G. Po las ek, AICP, Trans p o rtatio n Services Directo r. Legislativ e Regular Agenda G Review and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Bo ard meeting held on Ap ril 8, 2016. - Jana Kern – GTAB Bo ard Liais on H Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to award a c o ntract to Cho lla P avement Maintenance, of Ap ache Junc tion, Arizo na, for two c o urs e c hip s eal and P o lymer Mo dified Mas terseal (PMM) o n s treets identified in the Pavement Management P ro gram fo r $1,600,719.40 – Mark Miller, Transportation Servic es Manager and Ed ward G. Polasek, AIC P, Transportation Servic es Direc tor I Co nsideration and possible recommendatio n to ap p ro ve a tas k o rd er with Kas berg, Patrick and As s o ciates L.P. (“Engineer”) of Geo rgetown, Texas, for the 2016 Curb and Gutter Replac ement and Page 1 of 129 Sid ewalk d es ign P ro ject in the amo unt of $117,940. – Edward G. Po las ek, AICP, Trans p o rtatio n Servic es Directo r, Bill Dryden, P.E., Trans p o rtation Engineer and Mark Miller, Trans p o rtatio n Services Manager. J Dis cus s ion and d irectio n to S taff concerning Texas Department o f Transportation Draft MOBILIT Y35 Aes thetic Guidelines alo ng the I-35 c orridor from Georgetown to San Marc os . – Bill Dryd en, P.E., Transportatio n Engineer and Ed ward G. P o las ek, AICP, Transportation Services Direc tor. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2016, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 2 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Disc ussion regarding the P ro ject P ro gress R ep o rts and Time Lines . – Bill Dryden, P.E., Trans p o rtatio n Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Servic es Manager, Nat Waggo ner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G . Polas ek, AICP, Trans p o rtation S ervic es Directo r. ITEM SUMMARY: GTAB Projec ts Aus tin Avenue Bridges P ro ject CDBG Sidewalk Imp ro vements - MLK/3rd St (Scenic Dr. to Aus tin Ave.) - University Ave. (I 35 to Hart St.) FM 971 R ealignment at Aus tin Avenue FM 1460 Imp ro vements Projec t Jim Ho gg Drive/Road at Williams Drive Southwes t Bypass Projec t (Leander Road to I 35) Trans it Development Plan Trans portation S ervic es Operatio ns – CIP Maintenance GTEC P ro jec ts Projec t S tatus Report 2015 Ro ad Bond P ro gram Southwes t Byp as s (Leander Dr./R M 2243 to Wo lf Ranc h Parkway Extens io n) andWolf Ranch Parkway Extens ion (S W Byp as s to DB Wo o d Rd .) FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Trans portation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type GTAB May 2016 Project Progres s Reports Backup Material GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05 Backup Material 2105 Road Bond Program Projects Backup Material Page 3 of 129 Austin Avenue Bridges Project  (North and South San Gabriel Bridges)  Project No. TBD     TIP Project No. N/A  May 2016  Project  Description  Develop 30% plans for improvements along Austin Ave. between 3rd Street and Morrow  Street.  The project involves several phases and requires participation and support from  various stakeholders– interested citizens, community businesses, professional  consultants, State and regional transportation partners City Staff and Council.  Schedule Phase Activity Completion   1 Public involvement and alternative analyses, evaluating   alternatives for feasibility and costs, etc. Mid 2016  2 Develop geometric layouts and preliminary construction  estimates for two alternatives Mid 2016  3 Selection of alternative by Council End 2016  4 Develop schematic and 30% plans. Mid 2017 Proj. Mgrs Ed Polasek, AICP; Bill Dryden, P.E.; Nat Waggoner, PMP®  Engineer Aguirre & Fields, LP    Element Status/Issues  Public  Involvement  1st Public meeting held March 31, 2016.  Meetings with Affected Property Owners (MAPO) held the week of February 22‐ 26, 2016.  Design Forensic testing completed.   Surveying  70% complete  Environmental 4f and Study Scope documents drafted, Meeting 5/13 with TxDOT  Rights of Way Exist. ROW from N. of 2nd to Morrow; Additional ROW may be required 3rd to N.  of 2nd.  Utility Relocations TBD (future)  Construction TBD  Other Issues     Page 4 of 129 CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project  MLK/3rd Street (Scenic Dr. to Austin Ave.)  Project No. None    TIP No. None  May 2016  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for  sidewalk improvements along MLK/ and 3rd streets from Scenic Drive to Austin  Avenue.  Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps along the route.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Steger Bizzell    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way N/A  Utility Relocations N/A  Construction Under Construction  Other Issues None    Page 5 of 129 CDBG Sidewalk Improvements Project  University Avenue (SH 29) (I 35 to Hart St.)  Project No. None    TIP No. None  May 2016  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for  sidewalk improvements along University Avenue (SH 29) from I 35 to Hart Street.  Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks in the area.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Steger Bizzell    Element Status / Issues  Design Design is complete; awaiting TCEQ final approval.  Environmental/  Archeological  N/A  Rights of Way Existing  Utility Relocations None identified  Construction Bid opening May 31st; GTAB and Council in June; NTP 2nd week of July.  Other Issues Awaiting final TCEQ approval.    Page 6 of 129 FM 971 at Austin Avenue  Realignment Intersection Improvements  Project No. 1BZ     TIP No. AG  May 2016  Unchanged  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the  widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street.  Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed  Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from  the west side of I 35 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel  Park and a more direct route to SH 130.  Project Managers Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Preliminary Engineering complete;   Engineer working on 60% design submittal  Environmental/  Archeological  10/2015  Rights of Way Complete  Utility Relocations TBD  Construction 10/2016  Other Issues Meeting scheduled with TxDOT on February 5th to discuss the Advance Funding  Agreement.    Page 7 of 129 FM 1460  Quail Valley Drive to University Drive  Project No. 5RB     TIP No. BO & CD  May 2016  Unchanged  Project Description Design and preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the  widening and reconstruction of FM 1460.  Project will include review and update  to existing Schematic, Right‐of‐Way Map and Environmental Document and  completion of the PS&E for the remaining existing roadway.  Purpose To keep the currently approved environmental documents active; purchase ROW,  effect utility relocations/clearance and to provide on‐the‐shelf PS&E for TxDOT  letting not later than August 2013, pending available construction funding.  Project Managers Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Brown and Gay Engineers, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way 1 Remaining parcel of original 36 – pending closing documents.  Utility Relocations Ongoing  Construction Construction is on‐going  Other Issues Engineer preparing Change Orders for construction contract.    Page 8 of 129 Jim Hogg Drive/Road at Williams Drive  Intersection and Signalization Improvements  Project No. 1DE    TIP No. None  May 2106  Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the  widening of Jim Hogg at the intersection of Williams Drive, inclusive of installation  of a traffic signal.  Purpose To provide a widened 3‐lane section with signal at the intersection of Jim Hogg and  Williams Drive.  The proposed improvements will provide improved access for the  residents and the employees of the new City Service Center to Williams Drive.  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Environmental/  Archeological  Complete  Rights of Way Existing  Utility Relocations Included with construction project  Construction Construction is on‐going; signals have been installed; Contractor is working  roadway base and paving.  Other Issues None    Page 9 of 129 Southwest Bypass Project   (RM 2243 to IH 35)  Project No. 1CA     Project No. BK  May 2016  Project Description Develop PS&E for Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the  ultimate configuration for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2‐lane  roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner  Loop underpass at IH 35.  Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road  (RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road.  Project Manager Williamson County  City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP and Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer HDR, Inc.      Element Status / Issues  Williamson County  Project Status  (from WilCo’s  status  report)  Southwest Bypass Driveways – Award of the construction contract was approved  at 3/8/16 Commissioners Court Meeting. Five (5) bids were received on 2/24/16, with  the apparent low bidder being Smith Contracting with a bid of $289,981.90.  NTP is  anticipated to be issued 5/2/16 with Time Charges beginning on 5/12/16. A  Preconstruction meeting was held 4/15/16.  Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) – A meeting with HDR to discuss the WA  Supplemental and project status was held on 3/9/16. A meeting with TxDOT and the  City of Georgetown to discuss the turn lanes on RM 2243 was held on 3/9/16. A  meeting with the City of Georgetown and County staff was held on 2/26/16 to  discuss project status. A 30% PS&E Submittal for the Southwest Bypass Phase 1 was  received on 2/23/16 and is under review. A GEC Constructability review meeting  was held on 3/3/16. An ILA with the City of Georgetown was approved by  Commissioners Court on 2/23/16. Comments were issued 2/18/16 on a 60% PS&E  submittal for turn lanes on RM 2243 at Southwest Bypass.  Rights of Way Complete for the parcels east of the Texas Crushed Stone properties.  Other Issues City and WilCo completing the Interlocal Agreement for the Project.    Page 10 of 129 Transit Development Plan (Fixed Route Bus) May 2016 Project Description The purpose of this study is to develop a local transit plan for the City of Georgetown that would serve transit needs within the city limits and connect to existing and future regional transit options to form a regional transit network that would improve mobility, improve the region’s environmental and economic sustainability, and slow the increase of congestion on roadways. Schedule Phase Activity Completion 1 Initiation Fall 2014 2 Public Involvement, Existing Conditions, Recommendations Spring 2015 3 Initial Report Completed Summer 2015 4 Boards and Commissions Review, Council May 2016 5 Consideration by Council June 2016 Proj. Mgrs Ed Polasek, AICP; Nat Waggoner, PMP®; Bill Dryden, P.E. Engineer AECOM, Capital Metro Element Status/Issues Public Involvement 2 Public Meetings Public Intercept Survey, Online Survey, GYAB Survey, Multiple Stakeholder Interviews More than 20 presentations Design Revisions underway based on changed conditions, See Next Page Next Step(s) See Next Page Page 11 of 129 Highlights from the DRAFT Agreement with the Georgetown Housing Foundation (GHF):  Planning Meeting in 2016 to determine additional needs to be met with $50K of reserved funding  Provision of Fixed Route within 1 year of adoption by Council  Forming of a Steering Committee (CoG, GHF, CARTS, Capital Metro) to help guide service 2017-2020  CoG handles contracting and service delivery with CapMetro  The Foundation will contribute $150,000 to the City on an annual basis to support the 2017-2020 Georgetown Public Transportation Services Plan. Annual payments shall be made as follows: April 1: 2017, 2018, 2019  The Foundation will contribute an additional $50,000 to the City on an annual basis to support additional transportation solutions targeting communities not directly serviced by fixed route bus system in the Georgetown Public Transportation Services Plan. Routing Considerations to TDP Currently Being Investigated:  Accommodate feedback from residents along 7th street and are currently evaluating the feasibility of using 8th or 5th to deliver service to SU, Quail Valley etc.  The feasibility of meeting the needs of Lone Star Circle of Care, the Georgetown Housing Authority north of Williams Drive and the Rec Center Administrative Considerations to TDP Currently Being Developed:  Update the financial plan based on GHF contribution, increased 5307, and marketing  Update paratransit locations and expected fare recovery (if needed)  Recommend kiosk services at the Red Poppy Café to the TDP  Update cost per passenger  Add “Connect to Project Connect” in the report Workshop with City Council 5/24 to review Agreement with GHF, funding structure and consider adoption of final Transit Development Plan 6/28 Page 12 of 129 Transportation Services Operations  CIP Maintenance  May 2016  Project Description 2016‐2017 CIP Maintenance of roadways including, Chip seal, Cutler Overlays,  Fog seal applications and Engineering design of future rehabilitation projects.  Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of  85%.  Project Manager Mark Miller  Engineer/Engineers KPA, LP  Task Status / Issues     Chip Seal  Bids opened April 27th;  Award on today’s GTAB Agenda.   Fog Seal Rejuvenation has been discontinued indefinitely  HIPR/overlay Bids taken on March 30th.  Awarded by Council on April 26th.  NTP anticipated early June.  Engineering 2016 Work in progress!    Page 13 of 129 Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP No. Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Projected Current Year Cost Current Year Available Lakeway Drive Overpass #10 5QL Project Complete. Complete 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 Southeast Arterial 1 (Sam Houston Avenue)#12 5QG Project Complete. Complete 12,995,625 10,478,499 2,517,126 0 0 Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Road) #14A 5QW Project Complete. Complete 1,330,000 1,111,233 218,767 283,350 0 283,350 Southwest Bypass (SH29 to RR2243)#14B 5QC Project Complete. Complete 7,756,432 3,225,132 4,531,300 4,539,107 5,787 4,533,320 Northwest Blvd Overpass #QQ 5QX Engineer is coordinating design with the design for Rivery Boulevard in moving towards construction PS&E for both projects to minimize overlap work between these two projects. Engineer is developing alternatives for storm water outfall. Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid-FY 2019. In-process Unchanged 1,136,178 1,099,076 37,102 571,178 479,588 91,590 NB Frontage Road (SS 158 to Lakeway)#QQ 5QY We have been informed by TxDOT that it will be doing the Schematic, Environmental, etc., and PS&E for the NB Frontage Road as part of its proposed Williams Drive Bridge project. The City project is on indefinite hold but we will be coordinating with TxDOT on its design project Indefinite Hold 613,822 613,822 0 382,822 382,822 0 ROW - 1460 #EEa #EEb #EEc 5RB Contractor has begun working on the project; contract time is beginning to accrue. Utility relocations - ongoing. As of October 16th, the City has obtained PUAs or have closings completed or planned for all the remaining FM 1460 parcels. Remaining parcel – pending closing documents. Under Construction Unchanged 11,788,230 5,348,470 6,439,760 6,727,539 2,315,896 4,411,643 TCS/RR Easement 5RD Project Complete. Complete 1,500,000 1,503,148 -3,148 0 0 FM 971 / Washam 5RE Project Complete. Complete 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 Rivery Road 5RF Project Complete. Complete 779,000 29,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 Rivery Boulevard 5RM Engineer has submitted 75% plans for City review. Appraiser is completing appraisals on remaining 4 parcels which are expected by the end of March. Offers have been made to the 16 parcel owners from Park Lane southward to Williams Drive. Closed on 3 parcels; 3 more in process; 1 pending subject to GTEC/Council approval. Construction tentatively scheduled to begin mid FY 2018. On Schedule Unchanged GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT April 2016 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05.xlsx Page 1 of 3 5/6/2016Page 14 of 129 Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP No. Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Projected Current Year Cost Current Year Available GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT April 2016 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) Snead Drive 5QZ Utilities are complete and tested; Contractor is installing drainage items and has begun installation of the road base. Substantial Completion date is mid‐May; Final Completion date is mid‐July. Under Construction On Schedule 825,100 87,000 738,100 825,100 87,000 738,100 Mays Street Extension 5RI Design is Complete Engineer has submitted all ROW documents; acquisition has begun with the property owners south of Westinghouse Road. Project will be bid as ROW is acquired. Project will take 12 months to complete (tentatively set for Spring 2017). Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Round Rock has been adopted by Councils of both cities. In Process 196,000 196,000 0 196,000 196,000 0 IH 35/ Hwy 29 Intersection 5RJ TBD 650,000 0 650,000 650,000 0 650,000 L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05.xlsx Page 2 of 3 5/6/2016Page 15 of 129 Current Capital Improvement Projects TIP No. Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Projected Current Year Cost Current Year Available GTEC PROJECT UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT April 2016 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) Current Economic Development Projects Project Type Project No. Update On Schedule/ Or Behind Project Budget Project Cost Available Current Year Budget Current Year Cost Current Year Available 100 S. Austin Ave Eco Devo Project 5RA In-process 507,000 507,000 0 0 Williams Drive Gateway 5RC Engineer working on schematic design alternatives and preliminary cost estimates. On Schedule 65,000 61720 3,280 0 0 Economic Development Projects 1,137,500 1,137,500 1,137,500 0 1,137,500 16,062,596 3,467,093 12,595,503 Project to Date Current Year Budget (13/14) L:\Global\CIP Budgetary Worksheets\GTEC Status Report\2016\GTEC - Project Status - 2016-05.xlsx Page 3 of 3 5/6/2016Page 16 of 129 2015 Road Bond Program Southwest Bypass (Leander Rd. to Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension)  Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension (SW Bypass to DB Wood Rd.)  Project No. 1DI       OTP Project No. AD & AZ1  May 2016  Project  Description  Construction of Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to Wolf Ranch  Parkway Extension and Wolf Ranch Parkway Extension from Southwest Bypass to  DB Wood Road.  Remaining Project Schedule  Notice to Proceed Effective May 9, 2016  Completion of Construction Fall 2018 Purpose To complete a connection from Leander Road (RM 2243) to University Ave. (SH 29)  Project Manager Bill Dryden, P.E.  Engineer HDR, Inc.    Element Status / Issues  Design Complete  Surveying  Complete  Environmental Complete; TCEQ comments have been resolved  Rights of Way ROW acquired.  Utility  Relocations  TBD  Construction NTP has been issued effective May 9th.  Other Issues None    Page 17 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Presentatio n and dis c us sion of res ults of the firs t p ublic meeting of the Aus tin Ave Bridges P ro ject -Nat Waggo ner, PMP®, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. P o las ek, AICP, Trans p o rtatio n Services Direc tor. ITEM SUMMARY: The City o f G eo rgeto wn initiated a s tud y o f Aus tin Avenue from Mo rro w S treet to 3 rd Street inc luding the two bridges c ros s ing the S an Gab riel River. The bridges were c o nstruc ted in 1940 and have deterio rated o ver time and with increased traffic in the area. This s tudy will evaluate a range o f both s hort and long term s o lutio ns fo r Aus tin Avenue while b alanc ing c ons id erations such as s afety, mo b ility, pub lic input, impac ts to p ro p erty owners , and cost. The City o f G eo rgeto wn ho s ted the first public meeting for the Aus tin Avenue Bridges P ro ject on Marc h 31s t as an open hous e format with no formal pres entatio n. Attend ees were ab le to view p ublic meeting exhib its, vis it with members o f the p ro ject team, and provid e their input o n the p ro ject and proc es s . Attac hed is a draft s ummary o f the res ults of the firs t p ublic meeting. The final s ummary will b e provid ed to the general pub lic in multip le formats including email up d ates, the p ro ject webs ite and future pub lic meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION n/a FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Nat Waggoner, PMP ® ATTACHMENTS: Description Type DRAFT Summary (3MAY2016)Exhibit Page 18 of 129 Austin Avenue Bridges Project Public Meeting Summary The City of Georgetown initiated a study of Austin Avenue from Morrow Street to 3rd Street including the two bridges crossing the San Gabriel River. The bridges were constructed in 1940 and have deteriorated over time and with increased traffic in the area. This study will evaluate a range of both short and long term solutions for Austin Avenue while balancing considerations such as safety, mobility, public input, impacts to property owners, and cost. MEETING DETAILS The City of Georgetown hosted the first public meeting for the Austin Avenue Bridges Project as an open house format with no formal presentation. Attendees were able to view public meeting exhibits, visit with members of the project team, and provide their input on the project and process. Thursday, March 31, 2016 4 – 7 p.m. Georgetown Public Library 402 W. 8th Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 NOTICES AND ADVERTISEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC MEETING The following methods were used to contact and inform the community of the meeting: Direct Mail A letter was mailed to 49 property owners along the project limits on March 4, 2016 notifying them of the upcoming public meeting. Published Notification A display advertisement was published in the Williamson County Sun on March 27, 2016. E-Mail Notifications An email notification was sent to the project database on March 4, 2016 to 524 individual email address. A reminder email was sent on March 21, 2016 to 534 individual email addresses. Signage Large signs were placed on the north and south end of the San Gabriel Trail on March 25, 2016. The signs displayed public meeting details and project contact information. Notification signs were also placed at the Georgetown Public Library, the Georgetown Recreation Center and the Williamson Museum. The meeting information was also shared on the digital display monitors at both the Recreation Center and Georgetown Public Library. Advertisement in the Williamson County Sun Austin Ave. Public Meeting Page 19 of 129 2 Additional Outreach Public meeting flyers and project information contact cards were distributed to local business and City offices on March 10, 2016. Members of the project team also attend Georgetown Market Days on March 12, 2016 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Attendees were able to visit with the project team to learn about the project as well as public meeting details. Attendees were also able to sign up for project email updates, and contact cards and public meeting flyers were distributed. PUBLIC MEETING EXHIB ITS As attendees entered they were asked to sign-in and were provided name tags. There were 104 people signed in at the public meeting. Comment cards, as well as additional share your story cards, were provided to attendees. Exhibit boards shared the following information  Project Need and Purpose  Project History  Project Overview and Process  Goals and Evaluation Criteria  NEPA Process  Historical Significance  Environmental Constraints  Existing Conditions  Aerial Maps of Project Area Comment and survey stations with 8 laptops and iPads were also available for attendees to provide their input. PUBLIC INPUT The official comment period was open from March 31, to April 22, 2016. Two email notifications of the comment period were sent to the project database on April 4 to 587 email addresses and on April 20 to 590 email addresses. Input on the project was collected through several methods. Attendees were able to participate in a mapping exercise where they shared project or area specific concerns on post-it notes placed directly on large aerial maps. In addition, input was collected through an online project survey, written comment cards, and via email. All comments and a complete survey report is included in the Appendix. Summary of Participation 104 – Meeting Attendees 31 – Mapped Comments 128 – Survey Responses 201 – Additional Comments Included in the Survey 14 – Written and Email Comments 2 – Shared Personal Stories Public Meeting Flyer and Project Contact Card Survey Station Page 20 of 129 3 Mapping Exercise There were 31 comments collected through the mapping exercise at the public meeting. Most comments indicated a need for pedestrian and bicycle improvements and connections. Comments also referenced construction concerns and specific design considerations. Written & Emailed Comments Ten written comments were collected at the public meeting and no additional mailed comments were received. Four additional comments were received via email. Generally, most comments indicated a need for pedestrian and bicycle improvements and connections. Some comments referenced concerns for the impacts of construction and a preference for rehabilitation of the bridges. Project Survey A survey with 15 questions was open and available online from March 31 to April 22, 2016. There were 128 individual responses received with 201 addition comments. Highlights of survey responses include:  98% participants use Austin Ave. for vehicular travel followed by 36% that bike/walk on Austin Ave., and 43% use the bike/pedestrian trails  When asked if the bridges met needs of residents and visitors respondents reported o Vehicular traffic – 43% needs are met; 39% needs are met but there are opportunities for improvements; 17% improvements are needed o Load limits – 31% needs are met; 25% needs are met but there are opportunities for improvements; 37% improvements are needed o Bike/Ped traffic – 13% needs are met; 30% needs are met but there are opportunities for improvements; 54% improvements are needed o Bike/Ped trails – 34% needs are met; 29% needs are met but there are opportunities for improvements; 31% improvements are needed o Considering aesthetics there was an equal split – 40% needs are met; 40% needs are met but there are opportunities for improvements; 17% improvements needed o Considering the Gateway into Downtown, again there was an equal split – 38% needs are met; 38% needs are met but there are opportunities for improvements; 22% improvements are needed  When asked about the evaluation criteria o On average 75% agreed with evaluating and enhancing safety o On average 77% agreed with evaluating and reducing impacts o On average 80% agreed with most infrastructure needs, except on removing the load limits where 41% agreed, 30% were neutral, and 29% disagreed o On average 78% agreed with evaluation cost considerations o On average 79% agreed with enhancements including providing a gateway, aesthetic opportunities, and scenic viewing opportunities  A majority of respondents did find the public meeting helpful Mapped Comments Page 21 of 129 4 Comment Summary There were 246 comments received on maps, via comment cards and email, and the open comments in the survey. These comments shared valuable information with the City and the project team. All full comments received are included in the Appendix. To further analyze these comments, the project team worked to identify topics and created the summary below. Note - some comments included more than one topic. Comment Topic Number of Comments Comments on Project Development Process (decision making, timeline, public involvement) 57 Comments on Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Components 53 Comments on Construction (impacts to business, suggestions, lane closures) 49 Prefer Rehabilitation or Opposed to Replacement 27 Comments on Safety 23 Comments on aesthetics, historic characteristics, and character (gateway) 22 Comments on Need, Purpose, and Premise of Project (traffic counts, data analysis, current condition, study results) 21 Comments on Travel Lanes (number of lanes, turn lanes, width) 18 Concern for Downtown Traffic (additional traffic, commercial traffic, large trucks) 11 Prefer replacement of bridges 7 Design Comments and Considerations (speed, landscape, etc.) 6 Other Traffic Issues and Transportation Planning (bottlenecks, alternate solutions) 4 Comments on cost 4 Prefer No Improvements 2 Concern for Environment 1 Page 22 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Disc ussion regarding the Airport Monthly Pro gres s Report and P ro ject Time Lines . – Russ Volk, C.M., Airport Manager and Ed ward G. Polasek, AIC P, Trans portation S ervic es Direc tor. ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Projects: Grant 1314GRGT N Update Grant 1514GRGT N Update Grant 16MP GRGT N Update FAA Tower Report Fuel Sales Report Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update 2016 Accomplishments and P rojects Business Office Software Update Avgas Fuel P rice Comparison Jet A Fuel P rice Comparison Airport Monthly Financial Report FINANCIAL IMPACT: none SUBMITTED BY: Rus s Vo lk, C.M., Airport Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Grant 1314GRGTN Update Backup Material Grant 1514GRGTN Update Backup Material Grant 16MPGRGTN Update Backup Material FAA Tower Report Backup Material Fuel Sales Report Backup Material Hangar/Tie-Down Report Backup Material 2016 Goals and Accomplis hments Backup Material Bus ines s Office Software Report Backup Material Avgas Price Comparis on Backup Material Jet A Price Comparis on Backup Material March Financial Report Backup Material April Detailed Financial Backup Material Page 23 of 129 Airport Improvements Project No. 1314GRGTN May 2016 Project Description FY2013 project: Design New Fuel Farm, Parallel Taxiway A, Pavement Maintenance Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Project Engineer Garver Notes: Jul 2005 – Airport Master Plan Update identified many of these projects as “Development Goals” May 2013 – Commission Approval of Grant Jul 2013 – Mayor signs Grant Participation Agreement Aug 2013 – Garver Engineering selected as Engineering / Design Firm Page 24 of 129 Project Elements include: Engineering / Design Services Environmental Review Bidding Process Feb 2016 – Review Bid Packet Mar/Apr 2016 – Bid Process Apr 12 2016 – Bid Opening results - Mitchell Enterprises of Sherman Texas as low bidder Late May 2016 – Conditional Award Construction phase of project is under Grant 1514GRGTN Page 25 of 129 Airport Improvements Project No. 1514GRGTN May 2016 Project Description FY2015 project: Construction of Fuel Storage Tanks, Parallel Taxiway A, Pavement Maintenance Purpose Improved safety and reliability of airport Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Project Engineer Garver Notes: Oct 2014 - Council Resolution 101414-F – Approval to Debt Fund $870K for project Mar 2015 - Council Resolution 032415-G – Authorization for City to Sell Certificates of Obligation to fund project Jan 28, 2016 – Transportation Commission approval of $8.3M Grant Page 26 of 129 Jan 29, 2016 – City cost share of $830K wire transferred to TxDOT Aviation per payment instructions from TxDOT Late Jun 2016 – Following completion of bidding process being conducted under grant 1314GRGTN, TxDOT will provide Construction Project Participation Agreement for City consideration Page 27 of 129 Airport Improvements Project No. 16MPGRGTN May 2016 Project Description FY2016 project: Airport Master Plan Update Purpose Update to 2005 Airport Master Plan Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Project Estimate $200,000 Project Engineer Unknown Jan 28 – Transportation Commission approval of $200K Grant Feb 19 – Solicitation for Consultant Qualifications Mar 29 – Consultant Qualification Submissions due TxDOT Aviation Apr – Committee to Review Consultant Qualifications • John Pettitt • Donna Courtney • Mike Babin • Jordon Maddox • Russ Volk May 9 – Selection Committee scheduled to meet to tabulate scoring of consultants Page 28 of 129 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update For Month of Mar 2016 Project Description Georgetown Tower Monthly Update Purpose Operations Report Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Operating Statistics Performance/Volumetric Indicators For the Month of: Mar 2016 Mar 2015 FY-T-D Mar 2016 FY-T-D Variance Take Offs and Landings Day* Night* VFR 6,480 332 30,671 37,339 6,668 18% IFR 922 33 3,263 3,824 561 15% Total Take Offs/Landings 7,402 365 33,934 41,163 7,229 17.6% Total for Month 7,767 * This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC.). Page 29 of 129 Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update For Month of Mar 2016 Project Description Georgetown Fuel Sales Update Purpose Fuel Sales Monthly Report Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators Gallons For the Month of: Mar Mar 2015 FY-T-D Mar 2016 FY-T-D Variance Type of Fuel 2015 2016 AVGAS 15,804 26,726 116,801 148,120 31,319 21% JET A 30,940 32,885 216,168 233,507 17,339 8% Total Gallons Sold 46,744 59,611 332,969 381,627 48,658 13% Page 30 of 129 Airport Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update May 2016 Project Description Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Agreements Purpose Occupancy Rates Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Unit Stats Total Hangars – 114 • 100 Percent Occupied Total Storage Units – 7 • 5 Occupied • 2 Vacant Total Tie-Downs – 39 Monthly, 14 for Overnight/Transient Parking • 100 Percent Occupied Page 31 of 129 GTU Airport In-Work Projects Underbrush trimming on north end of airport. Replace door seals on Hangars E, F, and G. Replace bottom door seals on Hangars H, I, and J. Develop Airport Preventative Maintenance Program. Updating Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Update to Airport Rules and Regulations and Minimum Standards. Planned Projects Demolition of old Civil Air Patrol building. Obtaining Pesticide Application License to allow for airport staff to spray weed killer. Develop Hangar Routine Maintenance Program. Evaluate possible software solutions for a technology based Pavement Management Program. Evaluate possible software solutions for a technology based Airport Self Inspection Program. Upgrade electrical service to Hangars I and J. Repairs to terminal ramp to reduce FOD issues. Upgrade to bi-fold doors drive motors on Hangars BB and CC. Developing lease agreement for storage locations. Page 32 of 129 Accomplishments 2016 Resealed windows in first four floors of Control Tower Resealed two windows in Terminal Conference Room Accomplished annual maintenance on windsock Painted main entry hallway in Terminal Painted main lobby in Terminal Painted conference room in Terminal Replace gate rollers on south electronic gate. Facility Inspection of Gantt Hangars Facility Appraisal of Gantt Hangars Upgraded electrical service to Hangar H Installed aviation radio in Kubota Crack seal Runway 18/36 Selected new Business Office software – Total Aviation Accomplished Electrical upgrades in CTA hangar Replaced Key Pad at South Gate Entrance Painted reflective tags on Runway Lights Accomplished repairs on Hangar D in preparation for new tenant. Vegetation spraying around signage and taxiway cracks Quarterly gate maintenance on all electronic gates Replaced gate entrance key pad on south gate Obtained Facility Inspection Report on Gantt Hangar Page 33 of 129 Obtained Appraisal on Gantt Hangar Quarterly Maintenance on RWY 18 PAPI system Rotating Beacon maintenance Accomplished Asbestos Survey on old Civil Airport Patrol building Page 34 of 129 Airport Project May 2016 Project Description Business Operations Software Purpose Software Solution for Airport Business Operations Project Manager Russ Volk C.M., Airport Manager Project Estimate $7,000 Sep 2015 – Request for Proposals from potential vendors Oct 2015 - Demos and evaluation of software products Nov 2015 - Final selection of vendor Dec 2015 – Negotiation of cost and licensing agreement Jan / Feb 2016 – Software modifications for CoG process Feb 24/25 – Initial software training for CoG Business Operations Coordinator Mar 2016 – Integration of Fuel Master with Total Aviation Software Mar /Apr/May 2016 - Implementation of Phase 1 of project Page 35 of 129 1. Testing software functionality in a “Sandbox” environment 2. Integration of existing process utilizing new software 2016 – Future phases Phase 2 – Switch over management and billing of airport leases into Total Aviation Software Phase 3 – Integration of new fuel farm features into Total Aviation Software Page 36 of 129 Page 37 of 129 Page 38 of 129 Page 39 of 129 Page 40 of 129 Page 41 of 129 Georgetown Municipal Airport Income Statement 3/31/2016 FY2016 Budget Beginning Fund Balance 748,167$ 792,318$ 44,151$ 82,210$ 710,108$ Operating Revenues Fuel Sales 2,875,000 988,582 34.39%1,039,251 -4.88% Lease & Rentals 684,400 348,899 50.98%289,092 20.69% Interest & Other 41,550 1,595 3.84%1,625 -1.85% Total Operating Revenue 3,600,950 1,339,076 37.19%1,329,968 0.68% Operating Expenses Personnel 321,471 143,019 44.49%153,874 -7.05% Operations - Fuel 2,448,882 726,351 29.66%1,014,629 -28.41% Operations - Non Fuel 659,759 428,145 64.89%460,226 -6.97% Capital 20,000 - 0.00%6,704 0.00% Total Operating Expenses 3,450,112 1,297,515 37.61%1,635,433 -20.66% Policy Compliance (Rev. - Exp.)150,838 41,561 (305,465) Nonoperating Nonoperating Revenues 25,000 20,107 80.43%0 100.00% Nonoperating Expenses 938,157 864,209 92.12%12,750 98.52% Ending Fund Balance (14,152) (10,223) (236,005) Reservations Restricted Bond Proceeds - - - Available Fund Balance (14,152)$ (10,223)$ (236,005)$ Notes: A) The Electric Fund is covering the contingency requirements for Airport to meet City-wide contingency reserves per policy. Airport reserve was decreased to 45 days effective October 1, 2014. FY2016 YTD Actual Variance to Budget FY2015 YTD Actual FY2015 Variance Page 42 of 129 Page 43 of 129 Page 44 of 129 Page 45 of 129 Page 46 of 129 Page 47 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Review and pos s ible actio n to ap p ro ve the minutes fro m the Regular GTAB Board meeting held o n Ap ril 8, 2016. - Jana Kern – GTAB Bo ard Liais o n ITEM SUMMARY: Bo ard to review and revis e and /or ap p ro ve the minutes fro m the regular meeting held o n Ap ril 8, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: n/a SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Minutes Backup Material Page 48 of 129 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas April 08, 2016 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the schedule d meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information: TTY users’ route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members: John Pettitt – Chair, John Hesser – Vice Chair, Ron Bindas – Secretary, Peter Behrman, Donna Courtney Board Members Absent: Doug Noble, Troy Hellman, Scott Rankin, Steve Johnston Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Jana Kern, Ed Polasek, Bill Dryden, Russ Volk, Nat Waggoner, Trina Bickford, Tristan Whitmire Others Present: John Milford, Carl Norris, Dennis Hegebarth, Terry Reed – ACC, Tom Crawford – GTEC, Ken Mabe – Tx Aviation Partners/GTU Jet, Trae Sutton – KPA Engineering, Colin McGahey – Poznecki Camarillo, Inc. Regular Session A. Call to Order: Mr. John Pettitt called the Regular GTAB Board Meeting to order on Friday, April 8, 216 at 10:00 AM. Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. B. Introduction of Visitors C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT Updates: First update concerns the Lone Star Rail. At the last GTAB meeting it was mentioned that the CAMPO Board has directed staff along with TxDOT and the Alamo Area Council of Government to go back and review the funding scenarios for Lone Star Rail and if Union Pacific really has pulled out and if the no build scenario is chosen then all of the CAMPO dollars would have been spent on environmental process and all of the San Antonio Council Government money would go back to San Antonio. There appears to be an inequity in funding of the initial environmental study if the no build scenario is chosen because of the Union Pacific position. The Board has called a special meeting, which will be held on Friday April 15, 2016, to discuss their ongoing position. By early June we should know where CAMPO stands on the funding, and we will know which direction Lone Star is going. Staff has the opportunity to really be involved the State Legislative process, from the TML prospective. Our Transportation Analyst – Nat Waggoner has been asked to serve on the TML Committee for Transportation Legislation Review. Page 49 of 129 D. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Reports and Time Lines – Bill Dryden, P. E., Transportation Engineer, Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. E. Discussion regarding the Airport Project Progress Report and Time Lines. – Russ Volk, Airport Manager and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director. Mr. Milford spoke on this item. His presentation is at the end of these minutes Legislative Regular Agenda The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items: F. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GTAB Board meeting held on March 11, 2016 – Jana Kern Motion by Courtney second by Behrman to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) G. Consideration and possible recommendation to award a bid to Cutler Repaving of Lawrence, KS in the amount of $872,512.00 for pavement maintenance (hot in place recycling)—Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Services Director and Mark Miller, Transportation Services Manager. Polasek explained to the Board what this contract would entail. Motion by Courtney second by Bindas to award the contract to Cutler Repaving in the amount of $872,512.00. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) H. Review and possible recommendation of approval of Task Order SBE 16-002 for Citywide Sidewalk and Accessibility Improvements to Steger Bizzell of Georgetown, Texas in the amount of $96,672. - Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Director and Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst Waggoner gave an overview of the Task Order to the Board. Motion by Bindas second by Hesser to approve Task Order SBE 16-002 in the amount of $96,672.00. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) I. Consideration and possible adoption of staff recommendation for the appointment Troy Hellman to the Williams Drive Steering Committee. - Nat Waggoner, Transportation Analyst and Edward G. Polasek, AICP, Transportation Director Polasek explained that this is NOT a Steering Committee but an Ad Hawk working group. The Board may chose anyone from the Board but Mr. Hellmann was chosen because he is a Real Estate Agent and works in this area. There will also be a representative from Planning & Zoning Commission. There will be about five (5) meetings in a nine (9) month period. Motion by Hesser second by Bindas to appoint Troy Hellmann to the Williams Drive Ad Hawk Working Group as the GTAB representative. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) Adjournment Motion by Hesser second by Courtney to adjourn meeting. Approved 5-0-4 (Hellmann, Rankin, Johnston & Noble absent) Meeting ended at 11:15 AM Page 50 of 129 Approved: Attested: _______________________ ______________________ John Pettitt - Chair Ron Bindas– Secretary _________________________________ Jana R. Kern – GTAB Board Liaison Page 51 of 129 GTAB STATEMENT APRIL 08, 2016 AGENDA ITEM “E” AIRPORT PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT AND TIME LINES Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the GTAB board, city staff and ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Milford I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). This is the 54th presentation by ACC members to the city council and/or the GTAB since January 14, 2014. These actions are in pursuit of the public participation rights of our citizens regarding use of our federal tax funds for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In our March meeting statement we welcomed the four new members of this board and stressed the importance of this board as the information gateway to the general public on transportation and airport issues. This board submits their recommendations to City Council for consideration and approval. We stressed that those recommendations should not be limited to single undisputed staff points of view. We are confident that the new members have been briefed on city's opinion that the ACC's goal to close the airport. Of, course that assertion is not true . The only group that ever advocated that proposal was the now dismantled Airport Advisory Board, which it outlined in it's 2002 “Airport Closure Project”. That report was premised on an abrupt closure of the airport. Which would have resulted in immediate legal conflicts with federal grant requirements. Only after closure would any attempts be made to locate an alternative site at huge costs to the taxpayers and the community. That report did not consider a smooth transition of one site to another such as was done in the Mueller to Bergstrom transfer of airport operations. The real estate value of existing airport property was not considered to pay all costs of a transfer of airport operations to a new location. No consideration was given that the a transfer of airport operations to a new site, could fulfill TxDOT's duty to establish a state Central Texas airport. The bill authorizing TxDot to establish such an airport is HB 2522. It was passed by the 77th Legislature and remains in force today. Ignoring the absurdity of the “Airport Closure Project” report, the city adopted it and its conclusion, that no relocation of the airport was possible under any conditions. City leaders went further and made this nonsense study a part of the city's master plan where it exists to this day. That absurd report retains such respect, by a city that prides itself on quality, that no professional feasibility study for a superior, rural, zoned and protected site for airport operations transfer has been considered by this board or by the City Council. This failure to act may result in a dreadful and dangerous consequence for our city as the airport continues to expand. The ACC has repeatedly requested this board to conduct open workshops for public input and discussions on airport issues. All these requests have been ignored. Last month we Page 52 of 129 requested revised monthly financial reports that would show the city's total financial obligation for federal grants received, as debt for repayment. This includes the city's obligation for the federal funded airport control tower. We see no such revisions to those financial reports this month. Perhaps city staff can enlighten us with their presentations. New board members should ask for and be provided with updated versions of the TxDOT AVN document, Airport Project History. That document describes the local, state and federal costs of completed GTU grants and state funded routine annual maintenance program (RAMP) grants. Another important issue for workshop discussions is compliance with NEPA. All board members need a firm understanding of this federal law and that non-compliance by the city, TxDOT and FAA is a root cause of ACC activity. In simplified terms, NEPA requires that prior to any federal funding action the federal agency involved must determine the extent of adverse impacts that could result from its implementation. The determination is made by preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), unless an Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared that shows an EIS is not required. If the agency involved can demonstrate the proposed action fits within an agency category, that has been shown over time not to produce adverse impacts, it can categorically exclude the action for NEPA reviews. Over the past 37 years the city, TxDOT and FAA have relied on categorical exclusions on each individual grant in a systematic fashion that has transformed the once socially acceptable GTU to a public health and safety hazard while ignoring significant public opposition and controversy. City staff presentation today regarding comments on the 25-element, 1514GRGTN, grant exemplifies this pattern. Today, the Fuel Farm is presented as if it were a separate project rather than “only one” of the 25-elements of that grant. This “segmenting” of the Fuel Farm element out of the grant for an EA last year in lieu of preparation of an EA for the entire 25-element, 1514GRGTN grant is central to our appeal to higher federal authorities. The fact that TxDOT AVN prepared a categorical exclusion for the entire 1514GRGTN grant, in lieu of preparation of an EIS, is unjust and is being appealed. A full workshop discussion on compliance with NEPA and other issues should be arranged. I welcome any comments or questions. Page 53 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to award a contrac t to Cho lla Pavement Maintenanc e, o f Apac he Junc tio n, Arizona, fo r two cours e c hip s eal and Polymer Modified Mas ters eal (P MM) on streets id entified in the P avement Management Program for $1,600,719.40 – Mark Miller, Trans p o rtatio n Services Manager and Edward G. P o las ek, AICP, Trans p o rtatio n Services Direc tor ITEM SUMMARY: Bids were rec eived b y the City of Geo rgetown at 10:00 A.M. o n Wed nesd ay, Ap ril 27th, 2016 fo r the above referenc ed projec t. T here were two (2) p lan holders and o ne (1) co mp etitive b id was rec eived. A detailed bid tab ulatio n is includ ed with this item. The b as e bid cons is ted o f two (2) parts and includ ed furnishing, ins talling and p ro viding all labor and materials required for cons tructio n o f ap p ro ximately 147,500 s q uare yard s of two c o urse chip seal with fo g s eal, 127,000 s quare yard s of s ingle c ours e c hip s eal with fog seal, traffic c o ntro l, and mis cellaneo us s trip ing. The bid als o included three (3) add alternate b id s whic h c o ns isted of ap p ro ximately 115,000 s q uare yards o f two c o urs e chip seal with fo g s eal, 150,000 P o lymer Mo d ified Mas terseal (P MM) s urface treatment, traffic c ontrol, and misc ellaneous striping. T his two c o urse chip seal p ro d uc t has been applied the past two years and is p erfo rming very well in areas containing high vo lumes o f automobiles and c o nstruc tion traffic. The P PM was s uc cessfully utilized in the c ul-de-sac s during last year ’s c hip s eal c ontrac t. T he PMM is c o ns id ered a p remium p avement s ealer and is sc heduled to be ap p lied on the arterials previo usly sc heduled fo r R ejuvenatio n. Due to the trac king is sues related to the rejuvenato r ap p lic atio n in March, the produc t’s us e has b een d is continued. Staff wo uld like to get the p avements treated p rio r to the needed res trip ing and pavement marking replac ement. The p ro ject lo c atio ns are listed below: Two Cours e Treatment w/ fog seal R o ad ways : P art A – ($563,071.90): Williams Drive fro m DB Wo o d /S hell Road to Sedro Trail and Shell R o ad from Williams Drive to Bellaire Drive; P art B – ($450,565.00): Leand er Ro ad Subdivis ion P art I – Luther Drive, T hous and Oaks Bo ulevard, Greenlee Drive, Woodview Drive, Ro ckcres t Drive, Wo o d s tone Drive, Roc kmoor Drive, Pin Oak Drive, Burning Tree Drive, and Woodmont Drive. Ad d Alternate A – (425,978.00): S o utheast Inner Lo o p from FM 1460 to Hwy 29; Ad d Alternate B – ($338,582.50): Leander R o ad S ubdivis io n Part II –Tamara Drive, Tamara Court, Tanza Court, Debora Drive, Maria Co urt, Deb o ra Co urt, S us ana Drive, Linda Court, Sus ana Court, and Kris tina Drive. Polymer Mo d ified Masters eal (PMM) Roadways: Ad d Alternate C – ($248,500.00): S un City Sub d ivis ion – S un City Boulevard from Dove ho llo w Trail to R o nald Reagan Boulevard ; Cool Springs Way fro m Sun City Boulevard to P ed ernales Falls Drive; Ped ernales Page 54 of 129 F alls Drive from Davis Mountain Circ le to End . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rec ommend s award of Part A, Part B, Add Alternate B, and Add Alternate C. We are not recommend ing award o f add Alternate A – Southeas t Inner Lo o p at this time due to Williams o n County’s anticipated c ons tructio n o f turn lanes fronting their facilities at this lo catio n. T his p o rtion c an b e includ ed in future work fo llo wing the proposed cons truc tion. Staff has wo rked s atisfac to rily with Cho lla P avement Maintenance in the p as t and agrees with the Engineer ’s recommend ation of a c ontrac t award fo r Part A, Part B, Add Alternate B, and Add Alternate C to C holla Pavement maintenanc e, Inc. in the amo unt o f $1,600,719.40 FINANCIAL IMPACT: See CIP Budgetary and Financ ial Works heet SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern o n behalf of Mark Miller ATTACHMENTS: Description Type CIP Budgetary & Financial Works heet Backup Material Engineer Letter Backup Material Bid Tab Backup Material Location Map Backup Material Page 55 of 129 DATE: PROJECT NAME:1CF 28-Apr-16 Division/Department:Director Approval Prepared By:Mark Miller Finance Approval TW 05/04/16 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 1,613,270.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B) Budget Consulting 0.00 0% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 1,600,719.40 1,600,719.40 99% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 1,600,719.40 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 203-9-0880-90-076 Chip seal 300,000.00 203-9-0880-90-071 Street maintenance 1,313,270.00 Total Budget 1,613,270.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 1,613,270.00 (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 0.00 0.00 0% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 1,600,719.40 1,600,719.40 99% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 0.00 1,600,719.40 1,600,719.40 Transportation Services Chip Seal 2016 project # CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Page 56 of 129 Page 57 of 129 Page 58 of 129 Page 59 of 129 Page 60 of 129 H U T T O R O A D K E L L Y D R SHEL L R O A D AU S T I N A V E . A I R P O R T R O A D W UNIVERSITY AVE. LAK E W A Y D R . WI L L I A M S D R I V E NE I N N E R L O O P SE I N N E R L O O P LEAND E R R O A D BLUE SP R I N G S WO L F R A N C H RIV E R Y B L V D 15TH D.B . W O O D S D R I V E SER E N A D A D R . RONAL D W R E A G A N B L V D SH 1 9 5 SU N C I T Y B L V D SUN C I T Y B L V D DEL W E B B B L V D RM 2 3 3 8 PE D E R N A L E S FALLS DR COO L S P R I N G W A Y BASE BID PART A BASE BID PART B ADD ALTERNATE A BASE BID PART A PMM APPLICATION ADD ALTERNATE C ADD ALTERNATE B KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 Firm Registration No. F-510 2016 STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT LOCATION MAP ‹ 20 1 4 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 6 \ 2 0 1 6 - 1 0 6 s t r e e t m a i n t e n a n c e \ C A D \ c h i p s e a l \ P l a n s \ w o r k i n g p l a n s e t \ G E N E R A L \ C S - g e n s h e e t s - R E V 0 1 . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 4/ 2 7 / 2 0 1 6 2 : 0 6 : 0 0 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 2000 4000 N O R T H LEGEND GEORGETOWN CITY LIMITS GEORGETOWN ETJ CHIPSEAL - TWO COURSE: BASE BID PART A BASE BID PART B ADD ALTERNATE A ADD ALTERNATE B ADD ALTERNATE C Page 61 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le rec o mmendation to approve a task order with Kas b erg, P atric k and As s o ciates L.P. (“Engineer”) o f Georgetown, Texas, for the 2016 Curb and Gutter Rep lac ement and Sidewalk d es ign Projec t in the amo unt o f $117,940. – Ed ward G. P o las ek, AICP, Transportatio n Services Direc tor, Bill Dryd en, P.E., Trans p o rtatio n Engineer and Mark Miller, Transportation Servic es Manager. ITEM SUMMARY: This p ro ject invo lves Professional Engineering S ervic es to prepare p lans and s pec ificatio ns fo r the cons tructio n of ap p ro ximately 7,800 center line linear feet of s q uare top curb remo val and rep lace with s tand ard 24-inc h c urb and gutter. The streets propos ed are as fo llo ws: The non-comp liant ADA improvements identified in the 2016 CIP road improvements will be inc luded in the plans for c o ns truc tion. Curb & Gutter Replacement 7th Street (So uths ide) fro m Church Street to Myrtle S treet about 300' Cottonwood (Both Sides) fro m Co untry Club to P arker ab o ut 300' Willow (Both S id es ) from Country Club to Ranc h R o ad about 660' Parker Circle (Both Sides) fro m P o wer Road to P o wer Road ab o ut 1400' Jud y Drive (Bo th S id es ) from Mes q uite to Ranc h R o ad about 900' Spanis h Oak (Both Sides) fro m Live Oak Drive to San Gabriel Blvd ab o ut 1500' Live Oak (Bo th S id es ) from San Gabriel Blvd to S hady Oaks Drive ab o ut 1100' San Gabriel Blvd from Oakland Drive to Leander Road ab o ut 1600' Curb and gutter / Mas ter P lan s id ewalk impro vements o n the south side o f 7th S treet between Church St. and Myrtle Street. T he p ro fes s io nal engineering s ervices fo r the curb and gutter replac ement projec t inc ludes topo graphic s urveys, final design, b id d ing s ervices, c o nstruc tion ad minis tration services, and p ro ject c o o rdination. The projec t als o includes Profes sional Engineering S ervic es for the Aus tin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements from 9th S treet to Univers ity Bo ulevard . The servic es for this part of inc lude topograp hic s urvey, final d es ign, and tec hnic al s pec ificatio n d evelopment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: KPA has s uc c es s fully c o mp leted numerous C urb and s id ewalk design projec ts fo r the City in the p as t. Staff rec ommend s approval of the pro p o s ed Tas k Ord er with KPA Engineers o f Georgetown, Texas , fo r professional engineering s ervic es related to the 2016 Curb & Gutter Replac ement P ro ject & Aus tin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements . FINANCIAL IMPACT: See attached Budgetary Works heet SUBMITTED BY: Jana Kern o n behalf of Mark Miller Page 62 of 129 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Financial Budgetary Works heet Backup Material Tas k Order KPA 16-006 Backup Material Map of locations Backup Material Page 63 of 129 DATE: PROJECT NAME:5AL 28-Apr-16 Division/Department:Director Approval Prepared By:Mark Miller Finance Approval TW 04/29/16 TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET 987,000.00 (Current year only) Actual Cost Agenda Total Spent Encumbrance Item & Encumbered % Annual (A) before agenda item (B)(A + B)Budget Consulting 0.00 117,940.00 117,940.00 12% Right of Way 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0% Total Current Year Costs 0.00 117,940.00 Approved GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT NUMBER CY Budget 640-9-0880-90-005 curb and gutter 0.00 640-9-0880-90-069 storm water infrastrucutre 915,000.00 100-5-0846-52-807 curb and gutter 72,000.00 Total Budget 987,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 987,000.00 (includes all previous yrs) Prior Years Current Year Total Project % Total Spent/Encumbered Costs Costs Budget Consulting 117,940.00 117,940.00 12% Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0% Construction 0.00 0.00 0% Other Costs 0.00 0.00 0% Total Project Costs 0.00 117,940.00 117,940.00 Comments: Transportation Services/Drainage 2016 Curb and Gutter CIP- Budgetary and Financial Analysis Worksheet Page 64 of 129 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 1 of 4 Task Order In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 23, 2011 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: 2016 Curb & Gutter Replacement Project & Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements B. Description: _ Professional Engineering Services to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of approximately 7,800 LF of square top curb removal and replace with standard 24-inch curb and gutter. The streets proposed are identified in Exhibit A. The professional engineering services for the curb and gutter replacement project includes topographic surveys, final design, bidding services, construction administration services, and project coordination. The project also includes Professional Engineering Services for the Austin Avenue Sidewalk Improvements from 9th Street to University Boulevard. The services for this part include topographic survey, final design, and technical specification development. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: _________5AL_ ____________ D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: __100-5-0846-52-807 _______ E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No. __________________ F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 2016-730-MSA 2. Services of Engineer See Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: Consultant will require coordination from the City to capture locations of existing City owned utilities within the project area as well as any asbuilt/record drawings. 4. Times for Rendering Services Phase Completion Date Final Design August 1, 2016 Bidding September 15, 2016 Construction Administration March 1, 2017 Task Order No. KPA-16-006, consisting of 12 pages Page 65 of 129 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 2 of 4 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows: Category of Services Compensation Method Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Basic Services Project Coordination, Final Design, Bidding, Construction Administration A. Lump Sum $117,940.00 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP – Georgetown, Texas All County Surveying – Temple, Texas 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: 8. Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services Exhibit B – Fee Schedule Exhibit C – Project Location Map 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement effective March 23, 2016. Page 66 of 129 Page 67 of 129 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 4 of 4 Owner: Engineer: Designated Representative for Task Order: Designated Representative for Task Order: Name: Joel Weaver Name: Trae Sutton, P.E., CFM Title: Project Manager Title: Principal Address: P.O. Box 409 Address: 1008 South Main Street Georgetown, TX78627 Georgetown, TX 78626 Phone: (512) 930-7698 Phone: (512) 819-9478 Fax: (512) 930-3559 Fax: (254) 773-6667 E-Mail: Joel.Weaver@georgetown.org E-Mail: TSutton@kpaengineers.com Page 68 of 129 EXHIBIT A – DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP GEORGETOWN, TEXAS Project Description: This project involves final design, bidding and construction administration services for the City of Georgetown’s 2016 Curb & Gutter Replacement Project. This project also includes the final design for the Austin Avenue Sidewalk Project from 9th Street to University Boulevard. The location of the curb and gutter replacement is shown in the table below: Curb & Gutter Replacement Street From To Length (+/-) 7th Street (Southside) Church Street Myrtle Street 300’ Cottonwood (Both Sides) Country Club Parker 300’ Willow (Both Sides) Country Club Ranch Road 660’ Parker Circle (Both Sides) Power Road Power Road 1,400’ Judy Drive (Both Sides) Mesquite Ranch Road 900’ Spanish Oak (Both Sides) Live Oak Drive San Gabriel Boulevard 1,500’ Live Oak (Both Sides) San Gabriel Boulevard Shady Oaks Drive 1,100’ San Gabriel Boulevard Oakland Drive Leander Road 1,600’ The 2016 Curb & Gutter Replacement project will remove the existing square top curb and replace with standard curb and gutter. We will also include the evaluation of all existing pedestrian ramps that intersect the proposed project route to determine if the ramps are ADA compliant. Any pedestrian ramp that identified as non-compliant will be removed and in conjunction with this project. The Austin Avenue Sidewalk project will install ada compliant sidewalks and ramps from 9th Street to University Boulevard along Austin Avenue. The project will incorporate the Downtown Design Standards and will follow the Sidewalk Masterplan. Page 69 of 129 Scope of Services: The scope of services associated with this project is as follows: I. Design Phase a. Data Collection, Permits, and Utility Coordination i. The ENGINEER will obtain and develop detailed topographical survey for all curb and gutter replacement projects. ii. The ENGINEER will determine areas within the project that require tree pruning and care. Details and procedures will be developed, coordinated, and approved by the City of Georgetown arborist. iii. The ENGINEER will coordinate with utility companies and other City departments to identify any possible conflicts and/or proposed utility improvements on the proposed roadway rehabilitations. iv. The ENGINEER will investigate general drainage within the project area and conveyance to positive flow at the connection points of the project to existing conditions. Any areas of concern or non-conveyance will be reported to the City of Georgetown Staff and discussed. v. The ENGINEER will review curbs, driveways, etc. to determine conflicts with existing private property connections to the project. vi. The ENGINEER will conduct a review of all pedestrian ramps to determine their ADA compliance status along the project routes. vii. The ENGINEER will incorporate City of Georgetown imagery into the field surveys and integrate the two as a model. b. Develop Design Plans i. The ENGINEER will utilize the survey data and surface model to develop plan and profile sheets for the proposed curb and gutter replacement projects. The ENGINEER will illustrate all proposed slopes, typical sections, plan/profiles, and improvement locations. ii. The ENGINEER will develop plan/profiles for curb and gutter replacement projects. iii. The ENGINEER will develop erosion control/sedimentation/tree protection plans. iv. The ENGINEER will develop traffic control, striping and signing plans if required. v. The ENGINEER will develop all standard and special details for each construction method. vi. The ENGINEER will develop a quantity take-off and an estimate of probable construction cost for each roadway rehabilitation. Page 70 of 129 c. Develop Technical Specifications for the Project i. The ENGINEER will develop detailed technical specifications for the Curb & Gutter and Austin Avenue Sidewalk Project. d. Review Plans with City Staff, Incorporate Comments i. The ENGINEER will schedule a meeting with City Staff to review the plans at the 60% and 90% design stages to discuss issues and report any dilemmas that have been encountered. ii. The ENGINEER will receive all City Staff comments and incorporate into the plans. Once comments have been incorporated the ENGINEER will schedule a second meeting with City Staff to review the revised plans. iii. The ENGINEER will submit the five sets of final plans to City Staff. II. Bidding – Curb & Gutter Only a. The ENGINEER will develop the invitation to bid and deliver to City Staff for advertising the project for public bidding. The ENGINEER will also solicit bids from past contractors to acquire as competitive a bidding process as possible; b. The ENGINEER will manage and distribute bidding documents; c. The ENGINEER will prepare for the Pre-Bid Conference, develop an agenda and sign in sheet, conduct the Pre-Bid Conference, take notes at the conference, prepare minutes and incorporate into the addenda; d. The ENGINEER will receive all questions from bidders, log the questions and answer in the form of an addenda; e. The ENGINEER will conduct the bid letting, receive all bids, tabulate the bids and certify them; f. The ENGINEER will research the low bidder(s) qualifications and recommend award to the City of Georgetown. III. Construction Administration – Curb & Gutter Only a. The ENGINEER will prepare contract documents; forward those to the contractor awarded the project by the Georgetown City Council. Once the contractor has executed the contract documents, they will be checked for proper documentation and forwarded to the City of Georgetown for execution; b. The ENGINEER will schedule and conduct the Pre-Construction Conference. Minutes from the conference will be taken and distributed; c. The ENGINEER will receive and review all submittals and material samples for the project. Documentation for the submittals will be generated and distributed to the City of Georgetown and the contractor; d. The ENGINEER will hold regularly scheduled construction progress meetings. These meetings will include meeting agendas covering project specifics and schedules. Notes will be taken by the ENGINEER at the meetings. Minutes will then be developed and distributed to the City of Georgetown Staff and the contractor; Page 71 of 129 e. The ENGINEER will make periodic visits the project site. These site visits are utilized to perform a general overview of the project and answer any questions the contractor may have. The City of Georgetown will provide daily on-site representation for the project; f. The ENGINEER will develop pay estimate forms for the project. These will be distributed to City Staff and the contractor. The ENGINEER will review the pay requests with City Staff; g. The ENGINEER will conduct a final walk through of the project. Punch list items will be generated during this review. A letter addressed to City Staff will be generated discussing the findings of the walk through. The contractor will be copied on this letter as well; h. The ENGINEER will develop final record drawings for the City of Georgetown Staff. The record drawings will be presented in the form of a DVD with pdf of each plan sheet and a full 11x17 hard copy. Page 72 of 129 EXHIBIT B: FEE SCHEDULE KPA ACS TOTAL 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION 8,155.00$ 8,155.00$ 2. FINAL DESIGN a. CURB & GUTTER PROJECT 27,090.00$ 24,260.00$ 51,350.00$ b. AUSTIN AVENUE SIDEWALK: 9TH TO UNIVERSITY 34,775.00$ 6,500.00$ 41,275.00$ 3. BIDDING - CURB & GUTTER ONLY 5,200.00$ 5,200.00$ 4. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION - CURB & GUTTER ONLY 11,960.00$ 11,960.00$ PROJECT TOTAL 87,180.00$ 30,760.00$ 117,940.00$ Subconsultants: Topographic Surveying - All County Surveying (ACS) 2016 Curb & Gutter Replacement Project Summary of Professional Services Fee Estimate by Consultant April 25, 2016 COST SUMMARY Summary of Costs SUMMARY Page 1 of 3 Page 73 of 129 EXHIBIT B: FEE SCHEDULE Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical Fee Schedule 200.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 105.00$ 85.00$ 75.00$ 55.00$ 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION a.Coordination/Project Support with ACS (Topographic Surveys) 3,120.00$ 2 2 4 8 12 28 b.Project Review Meeting with Staff (60%) 1,390.00$ 1 1 2 4 4 12 c.Project Review Meeting with Staff (95%) 1,390.00$ 1 1 2 4 4 12 d.Coordinate with Dry Utilities regarding conflicts 865.00$ 2 2 1 2 7 e.Final Project Review/Submittal Meeting with Staff 1,390.00$ 1 1 2 4 4 12 Subtotal Project Management/Coordination 8,155.00$ 5 7 12 21 26 0 0 71 2. FINAL DESIGN A. CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT a.Develop Topographic Survey (Point File) into CAD Surfaces 5,420.00$ 4 4 8 40 56 b.Incorporate Utilities into CAD File 1,900.00$ 2 2 6 8 18 c.Develop Plan & Profile Sheets 8,930.00$ 4 6 6 12 60 88 d.Develop Project Details & Typical Sections 3,120.00$ 2 2 4 8 12 28 e.Develop Erosion Control Layout and Details 2,570.00$ 2 2 4 6 8 22 f.Project Technical Specification Development 2,370.00$ 2 2 6 8 18 g.Project Bid Schedule Preparation & OPC 1,050.00$ 1 1 2 4 8 h.Prepare Plan Sets for Bidding 1,730.00$ 1 1 2 4 8 16 Subtotal Curb & Gutter Design 27,090.00$ 12 20 30 56 136 0 0 254 2016 Curb & Gutter Replacement Project Summary of Professional Services Fee Estimate by Employee/Position Category April 25, 2016 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP (KPA) Total Fee Summary of Hours TOTAL Scope Items KPA Page 2 of 3 Page 74 of 129 EXHIBIT B: FEE SCHEDULE Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical Fee Schedule 200.00$ 160.00$ 135.00$ 105.00$ 85.00$ 75.00$ 55.00$ 2016 Curb & Gutter Replacement Project Summary of Professional Services Fee Estimate by Employee/Position Category April 25, 2016 Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP (KPA) Total Fee Summary of Hours TOTAL Scope Items B. AUSTIN AVENUE SIDEWALK - 9TH TO UNIVERSITY a.Develop Topographic Survey (Point File) into CAD Surfaces 5,420.00$ 4 4 8 40 56 b.Incorporate Utilities into CAD File 3,260.00$ 2 2 6 24 34 c.Develop Plan & Profile Sheets 11,180.00$ 6 8 8 24 60 106 d.Develop Project Details & Typical Sections 5,310.00$ 4 4 8 12 18 46 e.Develop Erosion Control Layout and Details 2,570.00$ 2 2 4 6 8 22 f.Project Technical Specification Development 2,790.00$ 2 2 6 12 22 g.Project Bid Schedule Preparation & OPC 1,050.00$ 1 1 2 4 8 j.Prepare Plan Sets for Bidding 2,640.00$ 2 2 2 6 12 24 k.TDLR Registration & Review Fee 555.00$ 0 Subtotal Austin Avenue Sidewalk Design 34,775.00$ 17 25 36 78 162 0 0 318 Subtotal Final Design 61,865.00$ 29 45 66 134 298 0 0 572 4. BIDDING - CURB & GUTTER ONLY a.Advertise / Solicit Bidders 750.00$ 2 2 4 8 b.Distribute plans and specifications 750.00$ 2 2 4 8 c.Pre-Bid Conference 780.00$ 1 1 4 6 d.Answer Questions and Prepare Addenda 1,460.00$ 2 2 6 2 12 e.Receive & Tabulate Bids 835.00$ 1 1 4 1 7 f.Recommend Award 625.00$ 1 1 2 1 5 Subtotal Bidding 5,200.00$ 5 9 0 20 0 0 12 46 5. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION - CURB & GUTTER ONLY a.Prepare Contract Documents & distribute to Contractor 1,120.00$ 2 2 4 2 10 b.Review Submittals 1,630.00$ 1 2 2 8 13 c.Construction Meetings/minutes/etc. 1,410.00$ 2 2 2 4 10 d.Review Construction Progress Payments 940.00$ 1 2 4 7 e.Site Review/Visits 2,610.00$ 4 4 4 6 18 f.Final Walkthrough/Develop Punch List 1,410.00$ 2 2 2 4 10 g.Record Drawings 1,990.00$ 2 2 2 2 8 2 18 h.Project Closeout Documentation 850.00$ 1 1 2 2 2 8 Subtotal Bid Documents 11,960.00$ 13 17 14 34 10 0 6 94 Total Fee Principal Senior Engineer Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION 8,155.00$ 5 7 12 21 26 0 0 71 2. FINAL DESIGN 61,865.00$ 29 45 66 134 298 0 0 572 3. BIDDING - CURB & GUTTER ONLY 5,200.00$ 5 9 0 20 0 0 12 46 4. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION - CURB & GUTTER ONLY 11,960.00$ 13 17 14 34 10 0 6 94 87,180.00$ 52 78 92 209 334 0 18 783 Summary of Labor & Associated Cost TOTAL KPA Page 3 of 3 Page 75 of 129 WO O D L A W N A V E HI G H K N O L L L N C O T T O N W O O D D R M E S Q U I T E L N PARKW A Y S T W I L L O W L N PARKER CIR W I L L I A M S D R C O T T O N W O O D D R P A R K E R C I R RIVER B E N D D R M E S Q U I T E L N DUNMA N D R C O T T O N W O O D D R GA B R I E L V I E W D R B O B W H I T E L N TIFF A N Y C I R MORS E C V TIFF A N Y L N KIM B E R L Y S T P O W E R C I R P A R K E R D R G A B R I E L V I E W D R HAG E N C T H I G H V I E W R D RIDGEC R E S T R D WHITES T O N E D R ASHWOOD LN SUNSHINE DR K N I G H T S T WATER S E D G E C I R FO R E S T S T W 19TH ST H O G G S T W UNIVERSITY AVE W 20TH ST W 21ST ST E 16TH STE 16TH STW 16TH ST W 16T H S T EL M S T TI N B A R N A L Y E 16TH ST E 21ST S T ALLEY A L L E Y FM 1460 I N D U S T R I A L A V E E 21ST ST MAD I S O N O A K S A V E B L U E B O N N E T V A L L E Y D R THU N D E R V A L L E Y T R L S U N R I S E V A L L E Y L N E N T R 2 5 9 N B WESTW O O D L N RY A N L N SAN GABRIEL VILLAGE BLVD MA R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R S T EXIT 2 6 1 S B W 13TH ST CA N D E E S T WOOD V I E W D R OAK LN RANCH R D JUD Y D R O A K L N W S A N G A B R I E L O V E R L O O K N OAK H O L L O W R D E 10TH STE 10TH ST R I V E R B O W D R E S A N G A B R I E L O V E R L O O K LEAND E R R D S C E N I C D R S C E N I C D R EN T R 2 6 0 N B S A N G A B R I E L B L V D MEAD O W B R O O K D R INNWOOD CIR AS H S T W UNIVERSITY AVE E 14TH ST S C O L L E G E S T HA R T S T W 14TH ST HA R T S T W 14TH ST SPA N I S H O A K C I R P I N O A K D R W 6TH ST W 8TH ST BR I D G E S T RU C K E R S T BR I D G E S T BR U S H Y S T E 19TH 1 / 2 S T EX I T 2 6 0 N B ENT R 2 6 0 N B S C E N I C D R W 19TH ST LIVE O A K D R D E E P W O O D D R I N N W O O D D R W 10TH ST FO R E S T S T W UNIVERSITY AVE PLEAS A N T V A L L E Y D R A P P L E C R E E K D R E VALLEY ST N M A I N S T W 18TH ST GE O R G E S T W 18TH ST E 17TH ST CYRUS A V E E 19TH S T E 9TH ST E 4TH ST E 3RD ST S T O N E C I R WE S T S T MO N T G O M E R Y S T EX I T 2 6 0 S B SI M O N R D P A R K L N R I V E R Y B L V D R I V E R Y B L V D RI V E R Y B L V D R I V E R Y B L V D WE S T S T S H I L L V I E W D R S O A K H O L L O W R D HAR M O N Y L N POW E R R D RIV E R Y B L V D RIV E R Y B L V D J O H N C A R T E R D R E 17TH ST E 9TH S T E 9TH S T WA L N U T S T E 3RD ST H I G H L A N D D R W 15TH ST RA I L R O A D A V E TI P P I T D V NO R W O O D C V MEMORIAL DR S I H 3 5 F W Y S B T A L L W O O D D R O A K W O O D D R GRE E N W O O D C T L E A N D E R S T W 22ND ST KE N D A L L S T W 24TH ST TASUS WAY WOLF R A N C H P K W Y RIDGE W O O D C V RIDGE OAK DR OAKLAN D D R SCENIC DR W 7TH ST W 4TH ST EN T R 2 6 1 N B N M Y R T L E S T MEAD O W B R O O K D R WO L F R A N C H P K W Y S I H 3 5 F W Y N B E N T R 2 6 0 S B B U R N I N G T R E E D R FRIE N D S W O O D D R WOL F R D W O L F R D EX I T 2 6 1 N B L E A N D E R R D T N S B J M P A G E L N E X I T 2 6 1 N B E 17TH ST IN D U S T R I A L A V E PA I G E S T CYRUS A V E MOR R I S D R O A K L N RIVE R Y B L V D W C E N T R A L D R EN T R 2 6 3 S B C L A Y S T FO N T A N A D R BLUE HOLE PAR K R D SIERRA ROSE LOOP BRENDON LEE LN P O R T E R S T EN T R 2 6 1 A N B W VALLEY ST HI N T Z R D HI G H K N O L L L N HERSHEY A V E TA N G L E W O O D D R TERR Y L N E MORROW ST WIL L I A M S D R T N N B E SPRING ST E C E N T R A L D R E J A N I S D R R O Y A L D R RIV E R Y B L V D A D A M S S T H I G H K N O L L L N WI L L I A M S D R CED A R D R RIV E R Y D R I V E W A Y RI V E R Y D R I V E W A Y R I V E R Y D R I V E W A Y S IH 3 5 N B E MORROW ST E 2ND ST LOW E R P A R K R D E M O R R O W S T W A T E R S E D G E C I R RO C K S T W A T E R S E D G E C I R W A T E R S E D G E C I R S I H 3 5 S B RIVER HILL S D R PI N E S T E 11TH ST WA L N U T S T E 9TH 1/2 ST WA L N U T S T GREE N W O O D D R RID G E W O O D D R W O O D S T O N E D R E 8TH ST E 6TH ST WO L F R A N C H P K W Y N O R W O O D D R RIV E R W O O D D R RIVER TR E E C V S I H 3 5 S B S H A D Y O A K D R S I L V E R V A L L E Y L N C L O V E R V A L L E Y L N VALL E Y D R INDUS T R I A L A V E W 18TH ST E 17TH 1 / 2 S T E 18TH S T E U B A N K S T E 17TH 1/2 ST E 20TH ST E 20TH S T W 19TH ST FO R E S T S T W 17TH ST QUAIL V A L L E Y D R W 5TH ST RIVER OAK S C V RIVER O A K S C V PR I V A T E R D S C H U R C H S T S M A I N S T SC E N I C D R W 17TH ST S C E N I C D R S C E N I C D R S C E N I C D R S I H 3 5 N B LEAN D E R R D THO U S A N D O A K S B L V D LEA N D E R R D S A U S T I N A V E COUNTRY C L U B R D N H I L L V I E W D R W O O D M O N T D R N A U S T I N A V E N A U S T I N A V E W MORROW ST N A U S T I N A V E W 2ND STW 2ND ST W 9TH ST M O N T G O M E R Y S T W 11TH ST E 11TH ST E 7TH S T R I V E R S I D E D R W SPRING ST W SPRING ST E N T R 2 6 1 S B SP R I N G H O L L O W EN T R 2 6 2 S B WILLIAMS D R W I L L I A M S D R W J A N I S D R M C C O Y L N SHA N N O N L N W 3RD ST W 5TH ST N A U S T I N A V E N A U S T I N A V E WIL L I A M S D R T N N B RIVE R S I D E D R W 9TH ST EX I T 2 6 1 A N B S T A D I U M D R THOMAS CT E 5TH ST AUSTIN AVENUE SAN GABRIEL DRIVE LIVE OAK DRIVE SPANISH OAK CIRCLE 7TH STREET PARKER CIRCLE JUDY DRIVE WILLOW LANE COTTONWOOD DRIVE KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 Firm Registration No. F-510 CURB AND GUTTER LOCATION MAP © 2 0 1 4 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 6 \ _ d e v e l o p m e n t \ C U R B A N D G U T T E R T A S K O R D E R \ E X H I B I T T O A C S . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 4/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 6 3 : 2 4 : 2 4 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 500 1000 N O R T H LEGEND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Page 76 of 129 WO O D L A W N A V E HI G H K N O L L L N C O T T O N W O O D D R M E S Q U I T E L N PARKW A Y S T W I L L O W L N PARKER CIR W I L L I A M S D R C O T T O N W O O D D R P A R K E R C I R RIVER B E N D D R M E S Q U I T E L N DUNMA N D R C O T T O N W O O D D R GA B R I E L V I E W D R B O B W H I T E L N TIFF A N Y C I R MORS E C V TIFF A N Y L N KIM B E R L Y S T P O W E R C I R P A R K E R D R G A B R I E L V I E W D R HAG E N C T H I G H V I E W R D RIDGEC R E S T R D WHITES T O N E D R ASHWOOD LN SUNSHINE DR K N I G H T S T WATER S E D G E C I R FO R E S T S T W 19TH ST H O G G S T W UNIVERSITY AVE W 20TH ST W 21ST ST E 16TH STE 16TH STW 16TH ST W 16T H S T EL M S T TI N B A R N A L Y E 16TH ST E 21ST S T ALLEY A L L E Y FM 1460 I N D U S T R I A L A V E E 21ST ST MAD I S O N O A K S A V E B L U E B O N N E T V A L L E Y D R THU N D E R V A L L E Y T R L S U N R I S E V A L L E Y L N E N T R 2 5 9 N B WESTW O O D L N RY A N L N SAN GABRIEL VILLAGE BLVD MA R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R S T EXIT 2 6 1 S B W 13TH ST CA N D E E S T WOOD V I E W D R OAK LN RANCH R D JUD Y D R O A K L N W S A N G A B R I E L O V E R L O O K N OAK H O L L O W R D E 10TH STE 10TH ST R I V E R B O W D R E S A N G A B R I E L O V E R L O O K LEAND E R R D S C E N I C D R S C E N I C D R EN T R 2 6 0 N B S A N G A B R I E L B L V D MEAD O W B R O O K D R INNWOOD CIR AS H S T W UNIVERSITY AVE E 14TH ST S C O L L E G E S T HA R T S T W 14TH ST HA R T S T W 14TH ST SPA N I S H O A K C I R P I N O A K D R W 6TH ST W 8TH ST BR I D G E S T RU C K E R S T BR I D G E S T BR U S H Y S T E 19TH 1 / 2 S T EX I T 2 6 0 N B ENT R 2 6 0 N B S C E N I C D R W 19TH ST LIVE O A K D R D E E P W O O D D R I N N W O O D D R W 10TH ST FO R E S T S T W UNIVERSITY AVE PLEAS A N T V A L L E Y D R A P P L E C R E E K D R E VALLEY ST N M A I N S T W 18TH ST GE O R G E S T W 18TH ST E 17TH ST CYRUS A V E E 19TH S T E 9TH ST E 4TH ST E 3RD ST S T O N E C I R WE S T S T MO N T G O M E R Y S T EX I T 2 6 0 S B SI M O N R D P A R K L N R I V E R Y B L V D R I V E R Y B L V D RI V E R Y B L V D R I V E R Y B L V D WE S T S T S H I L L V I E W D R S O A K H O L L O W R D HAR M O N Y L N POW E R R D RIV E R Y B L V D RIV E R Y B L V D J O H N C A R T E R D R E 17TH ST E 9TH S T E 9TH S T WA L N U T S T E 3RD ST H I G H L A N D D R W 15TH ST RA I L R O A D A V E TI P P I T D V NO R W O O D C V MEMORIAL DR S I H 3 5 F W Y S B T A L L W O O D D R O A K W O O D D R GRE E N W O O D C T L E A N D E R S T W 22ND ST KE N D A L L S T W 24TH ST TASUS WAY WOLF R A N C H P K W Y RIDGE W O O D C V RIDGE OAK DR OAKLAN D D R SCENIC DR W 7TH ST W 4TH ST EN T R 2 6 1 N B N M Y R T L E S T MEAD O W B R O O K D R WO L F R A N C H P K W Y S I H 3 5 F W Y N B E N T R 2 6 0 S B B U R N I N G T R E E D R FRIE N D S W O O D D R WOL F R D W O L F R D EX I T 2 6 1 N B L E A N D E R R D T N S B J M P A G E L N E X I T 2 6 1 N B E 17TH ST IN D U S T R I A L A V E PA I G E S T CYRUS A V E MOR R I S D R O A K L N RIVE R Y B L V D W C E N T R A L D R EN T R 2 6 3 S B C L A Y S T FO N T A N A D R BLUE HOLE PAR K R D SIERRA ROSE LOOP BRENDON LEE LN P O R T E R S T EN T R 2 6 1 A N B W VALLEY ST HI N T Z R D HI G H K N O L L L N HERSHEY A V E TA N G L E W O O D D R TERR Y L N E MORROW ST WIL L I A M S D R T N N B E SPRING ST E C E N T R A L D R E J A N I S D R R O Y A L D R RIV E R Y B L V D A D A M S S T H I G H K N O L L L N WI L L I A M S D R CED A R D R RIV E R Y D R I V E W A Y RI V E R Y D R I V E W A Y R I V E R Y D R I V E W A Y S IH 3 5 N B E MORROW ST E 2ND ST LOW E R P A R K R D E M O R R O W S T W A T E R S E D G E C I R RO C K S T W A T E R S E D G E C I R W A T E R S E D G E C I R S I H 3 5 S B RIVER HILL S D R PI N E S T E 11TH ST WA L N U T S T E 9TH 1/2 ST WA L N U T S T GREE N W O O D D R RID G E W O O D D R W O O D S T O N E D R E 8TH ST E 6TH ST WO L F R A N C H P K W Y N O R W O O D D R RIV E R W O O D D R RIVER TR E E C V S I H 3 5 S B S H A D Y O A K D R S I L V E R V A L L E Y L N C L O V E R V A L L E Y L N VALL E Y D R INDUS T R I A L A V E W 18TH ST E 17TH 1 / 2 S T E 18TH S T E U B A N K S T E 17TH 1/2 ST E 20TH ST E 20TH S T W 19TH ST FO R E S T S T W 17TH ST QUAIL V A L L E Y D R W 5TH ST RIVER OAK S C V RIVER O A K S C V PR I V A T E R D S C H U R C H S T S M A I N S T SC E N I C D R W 17TH ST S C E N I C D R S C E N I C D R S C E N I C D R S I H 3 5 N B LEAN D E R R D THO U S A N D O A K S B L V D LEA N D E R R D S A U S T I N A V E COUNTRY C L U B R D N H I L L V I E W D R W O O D M O N T D R N A U S T I N A V E N A U S T I N A V E W MORROW ST N A U S T I N A V E W 2ND STW 2ND ST W 9TH ST M O N T G O M E R Y S T W 11TH ST E 11TH ST E 7TH S T R I V E R S I D E D R W SPRING ST W SPRING ST E N T R 2 6 1 S B SP R I N G H O L L O W EN T R 2 6 2 S B WILLIAMS D R W I L L I A M S D R W J A N I S D R M C C O Y L N SHA N N O N L N W 3RD ST W 5TH ST N A U S T I N A V E N A U S T I N A V E WIL L I A M S D R T N N B RIVE R S I D E D R W 9TH ST EX I T 2 6 1 A N B S T A D I U M D R THOMAS CT E 5TH ST AUSTIN AVENUE SAN GABRIEL DRIVE LIVE OAK DRIVE SPANISH OAK CIRCLE 7TH STREET PARKER CIRCLE JUDY DRIVE WILLOW LANE COTTONWOOD DRIVE KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 Firm Registration No. F-510 CURB AND GUTTER LOCATION MAP © 2 0 1 4 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P K P A F i r m R e g i s t r a t i o n N u m b e r F - 5 1 0 FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 6 \ _ d e v e l o p m e n t \ C U R B A N D G U T T E R T A S K O R D E R \ E X H I B I T T O A C S . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 4/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 6 3 : 2 4 : 2 4 P M LA Y O U T : EX H I B I T A 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 500 1000 N O R T H LEGEND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Page 77 of 129 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board May 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and d irec tio n to Staff concerning Texas Dep artment of Trans p o rtatio n Draft MOBILITY35 Aesthetic Guid elines along the I-35 c o rrid o r from G eo rgeto wn to San Marc o s . – Bill Dryden, P.E., Trans p o rtation Engineer and Edward G. Polas ek, AICP, Trans p o rtatio n Servic es Directo r. ITEM SUMMARY: The Texas Dep artment o f Trans p o rtatio n is develo p ing an improvements p lan, MOBILIT Y35, for the I-35 corridor from G eo rgeto wn to S an Marc o s . As p art of that p lan, TxDOT is als o develo p ing Aes thetic Guidelines for the c orridor. Cited from the intro d uc tion to the rep o rt: “T h e Mobility35 Aesthetic Guidelines identify aesthetic concepts and solutions through treatments to struc tural and ro ad s id e c o mp o nents alo ng the I-35 c o rrid o r fro m Georgetown to San Marc o s . T he Guidelines will b e utilized to facilitate c o mmunicatio n amongst the pub lic, designers , d evelopers and contrac to rs . The aim o f this d o cument is to sup p o rt a c lear understand ing and common language regarding aes thetic treatments to the corridor as the projec t(s ) are d es igned and c o nstruc ted . “The planned transportatio n improvements vary in c o mp lexity througho ut the corridor. So me aesthetic enhancements are c o rrid o r wide. Other enhanc ements are indic ative of the s ix cities along I-35. In fo ur o ut o f the s ix c ities, exis ting inters ec tio n or interchange aesthetics are the basis for p lanned projec ts: • Geo rgeto wn – US 29 • Round Roc k – S H 45N • Buda – Main S treet • Kyle – Center Street “GENERAL AESTHETIC CONSIDER ATIONS I . Aes thetic enhanc ements s hall not negatively affec t the s tructural integrity o f any co mp o nent. I I . All aesthetic enhanc ements shall no t c o mpromis e the s afety of fac ility moto ris ts, pedes trian, and bic yc lis ts. I I I . Aes thetics will be seen from a variety o f vehicular speeds, elevations and d irectio ns. The aes thetic s sho uld emp loy s cale, level of d etail, depth o f reveal/relief and c olor befit to thos e c ond itions in whic h the mo toris ts , p ed es trians , b icyclists will b e viewing them.” A c o mp lete cop y o f the DRAF T Guidelines is attac hed. Chap ter 1 (p ages 6–10 o f 50 p ages) d is cus s es the c o rrid o r-wide aes thetic treatments; Chapter III (p ages 12–18 of 50 p ages) o f the Guidelines are s p ecific to aes thetic treatments proposed within the City o f Georgetown will be presented fo r Bo ard d is cus s io n and direc tion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 78 of 129 Staff has reviewed these DRAF T Guidelines for treatments within the City and is presenting them to GTAB fo r direc tion c o nc erning returning with s pec ific recommend ations for future Counc il ac tio n concerning treatments within the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Bill Dryden, P.E., Trans portation Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Description Type DRAFT MOBILITY35 Aes thetic Guidelines Backup Material Page 79 of 129 AESTHETIC GUIDELINESSTHE Page 80 of 129 The Mobility35 Aesthetic Guidelines identify aesthetic concepts and solutions through treatments to structural and roadside components along the I-35 corridor from Georgetown to San Marcos. The Guidelines will be utilized to facilitate communication amongst the public, designers, developers and contractors. The aim of this document is to support a clear understanding and common language regarding aesthetic treatments to the corridor as the project(s) are designed and constructed. The planned transportation improvements vary in complexity throughout the corridor. Some aesthetic enhancements are corridor wide. Other enhancements are indicative of the six cities along I-35. In four out of the six cities, existing intersection or interchange aesthetics are the basis for planned projects: • Georgetown – US 29 • Round Rock – SH 45N • Buda – Main Street • Kyle – Center Street In Austin, the Ben White Boulevard interchange is the basis for the majority of the aesthetics. There are two unique areas within Austin – US 183 and Downtown that will have separate aesthetics. Any improvements to the US 183 interchange shall complement the existing aesthetics. A separate public process will determine aesthetic enhancements for Downtown Austin. The City of San Marcos is in the process of improving their I-35 infrastructure aesthetics as evident at Aquarena Springs Drive and Yarrington Bridge Road. This document is intended to serve as a communication tool with city stakeholders. Photos and details of the existing or complementary treatments are provided within each segment of this document. GENERAL AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS I. Aesthetic enhancements shall not negatively affect the structural integrity of any component. II. All aesthetic enhancements shall not compromise the safety of facility motorists, pedestrian, and bicyclists. III. Aesthetics will be seen from a variety of vehicular speeds, elevations and directions. The aesthetics should employ scale, level of detail, depth of reveal/relief and color befi t to those conditions in which the motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists will be viewing them. MOBILITY35 AESTHETIC GUIDELINES PROJECT LIMITS e two unique areas wo uniq e US 183 interchange shall interchange shall ancements for Downtown Austin.ancements for Downtown Austin. s as evident at Aquarena Springs Drive s as evident at Aquarena Springs Drive on tool with city stakeholders. tool with city stakeholders. vided within each segment of this document.vided within each segment of this docum grity of any component. grity of any component. motorists, pedmotorists, pe Page 81 of 129 I. CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS (Pgs 1-7) • Noise Walls • Illumination • Bicycle, Pedestrian and Shared Use Path Facilites • Tree Protection • Landscape • Irrigation II. KEY MAP (Pg 8) III. GEORGETOWN (Pgs 9-15) • Bridge Bents • Bridge Details • Bridge Beams • Retaining and Abutment Walls • Safety Barriers • Hardscape III. ROUND ROCK (Pgs 16-22) • Bridge Bents • Bridge Beams • Retaining Walls • Abutment Walls • Safety Barriers • Hardscape IV. AUSTIN (Pgs 23-29) 1. City of Austin • Bridge Bents • Bridge Beams • Retaining and Abutment Walls • Hardscape 2. US 183 • The construction of the US 183 direct connectors shall complement existing aesthetics. 3. DOWNTOWN • The aesthetics of the Downtown area are to be developed through a public process at a later date and are not addressed in this document. V. BUDA (Pgs 30-35) • Bridge Bents • Bridge Beams • Retaining and Abutment Walls • Safety Barriers • Hardscape VI. KYLE (Pgs 36-41) • Bridge Bents • Bridge Beams • Retaining and Abutment Walls • Safety Barriers VI. SAN MARCOS (Pgs 42-47) • Bridge Bents • Bridge Beams • Retaining and Abutment Walls • Safety Barriers • Hardscape TABLE OF CONTENTS 42-47) tment Wallsent Wal Page 82 of 129 1 The limits of the Mobility35 corridor are from SH 130 to Posey Road. The following component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • NOISE WALLS • ILLUMINATION • BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND SHARED USE PATH FACILITIES • TREE PROTECTION • LANDSCAPE • IRRIGATION CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS 30 30 efi ned in this chapefi ned in this c EDESTRIAN AND SHARED USE EDESTRIAN AND SHARED U PROTECTIONOTECTION LANDSCAPELANDSCAPE •• IRRIGATION IRRIGATIO Page 83 of 129 16’ 19’ 20’ 2 NOISE WALL NOISE WALL Fig A.3- Noise Wall Elevation with Transition Panels - 19’ Height Wall Noise wall need, locations, height, and type shall be determined in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Where noise walls and buildings within the public right- of-way are less than 10 feet apart, concrete riprap shall be placed between the two structures. This treatment shall facilitate access to utilities and reduce maintenance concerns. Noise wall design shall consider accommodations for removable panels where conditions may not allow enough clearance for equipment access between the walls, utilities and other site structures. Any removable panels shall appear identical to permanent panels. The noise wall design shall address sloping grades. The distance between the bottom of the wall panels and the fi nished grade shall be a maximum of four inches and average of two inches. Where slopes are too steep and retaining walls would be required to meet these requirements, the fi nish grade shall meet maximum rip rap or grass slope requirements at columns. Where the wall needs to step in height, it shall step in constant intervals of four, eight or 12 inches until a level section of at least three panels is incorporated. After the level section of panels, the next slope change is addressed in constant intervals. When walls are equal to or greater than 12 feet in height, transition panels are to be installed at the beginning and end of every noise wall as seen in Figures A.1 - A.3. The shortest transition panel shall be a minimum height of eight feet, and panels will step in intervals of four feet until the overall NEPA-required wall height is met. If the required wall height can be met with less than a four- foot increment before meeting the required height, the shortest interval shall occur in the last panel before the fi nal wall height is achieved. For instance, a wall that needs to be 19 feet tall shall have an eight, 12 and 16 foot transition panel before the 19-foot tall wall panels are constructed. If a dip in the ground plane occurs, an additional panel shall be added to the bottom of the wall, regardless of the wall height determined by the noise analysis at that location. This panel shall have the same formliner texture as the retaining wall aesthetic identifi ed by the city. Fig A.2- Noise Wall Elevation with Transition Panels on Sloping Grades - 16’ Height Wall Transition Panels to Meet Overall Height 16’ Transition Panels to Meet Overall Height 16’ 12’ 8’ 8’ Transition Panels to Meet Overall Height 16’ 12’ 16’ 12’ 8’ Transition Panels to Meet Overall Height 19’ 12”12”12” Step Panels in 4”,8” or 12” Intervals Step Panels in 4”,8” or 12” Intervals 8”8”8” Maintain Wall Height a Minimum of 3 Panels Before Changing Step Interval Fig A.1- Isometric View of a Noise Wall Noise Wall Panel, Medium Sandstone Finish Noise Wall Panel, Match Retaining Wall Aesthetic Per City 12’ 8’ 19’ Page 84 of 129 3 Fig A.4- Single Arm Cobrahead Fig. A.5- Double Arm Cobrahead Use TxDOT standards for lighting fi xtures within the Mobility35 corridor. Fixture types shall remain consistent with existing lighting applications. In Figure A.7 conduit on columns, caps and slab is shown surface mounted. For new columns and caps, embed PVC conduit in concrete. Refer to TxDOT “Roadway Illumination Details” for further details. Fig A.6- High Mast Illumination With Optical Lighting Fixture Assembly Fig A.7- Mounted Cobrahead Safety Lighting Fixture Under Bridge ILLUMINATION AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS Fig A.4Fig Page 85 of 129 4 Figs A.8-A.12 Pedestrian Facilities Include ADA Ramps, Crosswalks, Sidewalks, and Hardscape Paving (clockwise from upper left) BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND SHARED USE PATH FACILITIES Fig A.17- Bicycle Paths Less than 3 feet tall in Height More than 3 feet tall in Height WALL HEIGHT Smooth Concrete Finish Complement Aesthetic/Texture of Retaining Wall in Region Table A.2- ADA Handrail Matrix Less than 30” in Dropoff More than 30” in Dropoff TxDOT Standard Type “C” TxDOT Standard Type “E” AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS Fig A.13- Shared Use Path Roadway Buffer, Less than 2 Feet, No Traffi c Barrier Present Fig A.14- Shared Use Path Roadway Buffer, Less than 2 Feet, Traf fi c Barrier Present Fig A.15- Shared Use Path Roadway Buffer, 2 Feet to 5 Feet, No Traffi c Barrier Present Fig A.16- Shared Use Path Roadway Buffer, 2 Feet to 5 Feet, Traf fi c Barrier Present Fig A.18- Bicycle Lanes Figures A.8-A.18 are representative of varying bicycle and pedestrian enhancements planned throughout the corridor. Bicycle and pedestrian facility aesthetic treatments apply to retaining walls, ADA handrails and roadway buffers, where necessary. For retaining wall applications along shared use paths, refer to Table A.1. Table A.2 specifi es treatments of ADA handrails along the shared use path; refer to TxDOT standard PRD-13 for details. Five treatments are proposed where a buffer or gap exists between the roadway and the shared use path. The varying treatments are defi ned by the distance between the two facilities and whether or not a physical barrier exists. The buffers are described as: • less than two feet from the curb with no traffi c barrier (Fig A.13) • less than two feet with traffi c barrier (Fig A.14) • equal to or less than two feet up to less than or equal to fi ve feet with no traffi c barrier (Fig A.15) • equal to or less than two feet up to less than or equal to fi ve feet with traffi c barrier (Fig A.16) • greater than fi ve feet with or without barrier Corresponding hardscape fi gures illustrate the condition, paver laying pattern and color. Where the distance between the edge of the shared use path and back of curb or traffi c barrier is greater than fi ve feet, grass seed or sod shall be used. Design and construction of pedestrian and shared use paths shall be in accordance with all applicable standards. Treatments included herein are intended for aesthetic purposes only. Curb ramps shall contain a detectable warning surface that consists of raised truncated domes per ADA and TAS requirements. Materials, width, depth and location of detectable warning surface shall be in accordance with TxDOT standards. Color shall be a dark brown or dark red in accordance with TxDOT standards. Table A.1- Shared Use Path Wall Matrix SITE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONSDROPOFF HEIGHTDDDDDRRRRDRRARDRDRn Table A.2- ADA HandraTable A.2- ADA Handra 30” in Dropoff More than 30” in Dropoff OT Stand een shall be applicable standards. standards ncated domes per ADA and TAS cated domes per ADA and TAS ace shall be in accordance with TxDOT all be in accordance with TxDO OT standards.T standards. SITE CONDITIODROPOFF HEIGHT Page 86 of 129 5 TREE PROTECTION If a tree/trees in the R.O.W. is/are determined to be protected, the contractor should follow the current City of Austin standard notes for tree and natural area protection below. CITY OF AUSTIN STANDARD NOTES FOR TREE AND NATURAL AREA PROTECTION: 1. All trees and natural areas shown on plan to be preserved shall be protected during construction with temporary fencing. 2. Protective fences shall be erected according to City of Austin Standards for Tree Protection. 3. Protective fences shall be installed prior to the start of any site preparation work (clearing, grubbing or grading), and shall be maintained throughout all phases of the construction project. 4. Erosion and sedimentation control barriers shall be installed or maintained in a manner which does not result in soil build-up within tree drip lines. 5. Protective fences shall surround the trees or group of trees, and will be located at the outermost limit of branches (drip line), for natural areas, protective fences shall follow the limit of construction line, in order to prevent the following: A. Soil compaction in the root zone area resulting from vechicular traffi c or storage of equipment or materials; B. Root zone disturbances due to grade changes (greater than 6 inches cut or fi ll), or trenching not reviewed and authorized by the city aborist; C. Wounds to exposed roots, trunk or limbs by mechanical equipment; D. Other activities detrimental to trees such as chemical storage, cement trunk cleaning, and fi res. 6. Exceptions to installing fences at tree drip lines may be permitted in the following cases: A. Where there is to be an approved grade change, impermeable paving surface, tree well, or other such site development, erect the fence approximately 2 to 4 feet beyond the aera disturbed; B. Where permeable paving is to be installed within a tree’s drip line, erect the fence at the outer limits of the permeable paving area (prior to site grading so that this area is graded separately prior to paving installation to minimized root damage); C. Where trees are close to proposed buildings, erect the fence to allow 10 feet of work space between the fence and the building. D. Where there are severe space constraints due to tract size, or other special requirements, contact the local cities arborist to discuss alternatives. Fig A.19- Chain Link Tree Protection Fence AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS t limit of line, in order line, i r storage of equipment orrage of equipmen 6 inches cut or fi ll), or trenching not 6 inches cut or fi ll), or trenching no nt;nt; ment trunk cleaning, ament trunk clea e followinge following rfrf Fig A.19Fig Page 87 of 129 6 LANDSCAPE The landscape plan shall provide landscape plantings that establish continuity along the corridor. Tree and shrub/ornamental grass planting quantities are minimums and shall be equally divided along each side of the roadway. Plant material that creates sight hazards to facility users is prohibited. Vegetation shall meet setback and sight triangle requirements. No vegetation shall be placed where pruning will be required in the future to maintain safe sight-distances. Do not place plants near merging lanes. All trees shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from back of curb. All shrubs and ornamental grasses shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of curb. If there is no curb, measure from edge of pavement. No planting of trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses or groundcover shall occur in locations that receive shade from approach or corridor bridges for more than six hours of the day during the growing season. Trees located along bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall meet all TxDOT requirements for tree clearances, tree spacing, avoiding sight hazards, planting on slopes and maintenance. Minimum on center spacing for all trees shall be 16 feet. All trees associated with bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from back of curb. If there is no curb, measure from edge of pavement. Landscape planting beds are areas that include plant material such as trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses or groundcovers. 18 inch wide, 6 inch deep mow curbs shall separate planting beds and turf grass. Two or more adjacent trees planted less than 15 feet on center are considered a tree grove and shall be contained by a mow curb as specifi ed above. Turf grass shall not be located within plant beds or tree groves. The use of steel edging is prohibited. Where mow curbs are used to separate turf grass and plant bed or tree grove, the curb shall facilitate ease of mowing. Angular mow curb are prohibited. Curvilinear mow curbs are preferred. Plantings shall be relocated in suitable locations, provided overall plant quantities remain intact when slopes exceed 4:1, when the back of curb to ROW width is less than 25 feet, or 25 foot or greater clearances are impaired by ancillary structures and/or utility confl icts. Trees shall be three inch caliper or larger. All shrubs and ornamental grasses shall be three gallon or larger. If a three gallon size is not readily available in the region, TxDOT approval will be required for an alternate installation of three one-gallon plants in lieu of each proposed three-gallon plant. Landscape design shall consider low maintenance and low water use for all projects. Prior to planting, all landscape planting/tree beds shall be treated with herbicides from TxDOT’s approved materials list. Fig A.20- Tree Plantings Fig A.21- Tree Plantings Fig A.22- Planting Bed Fig A.23- Planting Bed and Mow Curb AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS r all minimum ornamental grasses or rnamental grass and turf grass. Two or more rf grass. Two or m ove and shall be contained by a ove and shall be contained plant beds or tree groves. The use ofplant beds or tree groves. The use grass and plant bed or tree grove, the grass and plant bed or tree grove, the Curvilinear mow curbs are preferredCurvilinear mow curbs are referred uantities remain intact wheuantities remain intact wh 25 foot or greater c25 foot or grea shasha Fig A.20Fig Page 88 of 129 7 • All landscape planting beds and trees shall have drip irrigation with power controllers. All irrigation improvements shall be of operational quality for a minimum of 5 years. • The contractor shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and licenses required, and for the payment of all fees necessary for the installation and operation of the irrigation system. • Irrigation systems shall maintain a distance between trees and structures equal to or greater than the radius of the mature dripline. • Contractor shall provide TxDOT with an irrigation design and submittals for review and approval. • Irrigation controller(s) location(s) shall be approved by TxDOT. • Irrigation controller(s) shall be A.C. powered. Fig A.24- Typical Installation of Drip Irrigation at Trees Fig A.26- Typical Drip Irrigation PVC/Header ConnectionFig A.25- Irrigation Valve Assembly AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - CORRIDOR WIDE AESTHETICS IRRIGATION Fig A.Fig Page 89 of 129 8 GEORGETOWN ROUND ROCK CITY OF AUSTIN BUDA KYLE SAN MARCOS US 183 DOWNTOWN KEY MAP RAADRADRAAADDRA BUDA DOWNTOWNAAARAD Page 90 of 129 9 The limits of the Georgetown Mobility35 corridor are from SH 130 to RM 111. The following structural component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • BRIDGE BENTS • BRIDGE END DETAILS • BRIDGE BEAMS • RETAINING/ABUTMENT WALLS • SAFETY BARRIERS • HARDSCAPE GEORGETOWN Creamy Opaque Sealer, SW 7012 Camelback Opaque Sealer, SW 6122 Color Palette AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Believable Buff Opaque Sealer, SW 6120 are are sthetics defi ned insthetics defi n AILS AMSAMS NING/ABUTMENT WALLSNG/ABUTMENT WALLS SAFETY BARRIERSSAFETY BARRIERS •• HARDSCAPE HARDSCAPE rPrP Page 91 of 129 10 BRIDGE BENTS Fig 1.2- Multi-Column Bent with a Single Bell Tower Detail Bridge bents in Georgetown shall complement the opaque sealer color, texture, shape, and architectural details of the bridge bents at the SH 29 turnaround bridges. Where an intersection is constructed with separate bridge structures for main lanes and turnarounds, the main lanes bridge shall complement the multi-column bent as seen in Figure 1.1. The turnaround bridges shall both complement the multi-column bent with the single bell tower detail as seen in Figure 1.2. If an intersection is constructed with one bridge deck for main lanes and turnarounds, it shall complement the bell tower treatment of a multi-bridge confi guration. A bell tower detail shall be located on each end of the multi-column bent as seen in Figures 1.3-1.4 Fig. 1.1- Multi-Column Bent Fig. 1.4- Elevation of Bridge TreatmentsFig. 1.3- Bridge Treatments FIGURE Multi-Column Bent Multi-Column Bent with Bell Tower Detail BENT TYPES 1.1 1.2 AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Bridge Treatment: 2 Turnaround Bridges, 1 Main Lanes Bridge Bridge Treatment: 1 Contiguous Bridge Bridge Treatment: 2 Turnaround Bridges, 1 Main Lanes Bridge Bridge Treatment: 1 Contiguous Bridge Table 1.1- Bridge Bent Matrix Fig. 1.1- MultiFig Page 92 of 129 11 BRIDGE END DETAILS Fig 1.5- Square Belltower Bridge End Detail, tan and white sealer Bridge end details in Georgetown shall complement the aesthetics of those at the Highway 29 turnaround bridge. Utilize the opaque sealers to complement existing, see Figure 1.5. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Fig 1.5-Fig Page 93 of 129 12 BRIDGE BEAM Fig. 1.6- Concrete “I” Beam, Tan Sealer Along Outer Face of Beam Bridge beams in Georgetown shall complement the aesthetics of those at the Highway 29 turnaround bridge. Where concrete “I” beams are used at bridge crossings, believable buff opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 6120) shall be applied, at minimum, to the outer faces of the bridge beams as seen in Figure 1.6. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Fig. 1.6-Fig Page 94 of 129 13 RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS Fig 1.7- MSE Retaining Wall with Reveals and Concrete Columns Fig 1.9- MSE Panel Abutment Wall, Concrete Panel Bridge Ends, and Coping Retaining and abutment walls in Georgetown shall complement the aesthetics of the SH 29 turnaround bridge. Retaining and abutment walls shall have a bush hammer texture with one horizontal reveal midpanel, as seen in Figure 1.7. Believable buff opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 6120) shall be applied. Concrete columns shall have a smooth texture with reveals as seen in Figure 1.8. Camelback opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 6122) shall be applied. Abutment walls will have a smooth texture and no horizontal reveal mid-panel, as seen in Figure 1.9. Believable buff opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 6120) shall be applied. Aesthetic treatments on retaining walls shall be as stated above regardless of type of wall. Fig. 1.8- Concrete Columns Fig 1.10- Retaining Wall Reveals AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Fig 1.7-Fig Page 95 of 129 14 SAFETY BARRIERS Safety barriers in Georgetown shall complement the aesthetics of the SH 29 turnaround bridges. Concrete coping shall have believable buff opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 6120) applied, as seen in Figure 1.11. Concrete traffi c barriers with concrete coping shall have a creamy opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 7012) applied, as seen in Figure 1.12. Concrete traffi c barriers with arch openings shall have a smooth texture, as seen in Figure 1.13. Creamy opaque sealer (Sherwin Williams 7012) shall be applied. Fig. 1.13- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Arch Openings Fig 1.12- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Concrete CopingFig 1.11- Concrete Coping SITE CONDITIONS Concrete Coping (Figure 1.11) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 1.12) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Arch Openings (Figure 1.13) SAFETY BARRIER TYPES Retaining Wall, No Vehicular Traffi c Present Retaining Wall, Vehicular Traffi c Present Bridge AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Table 1.2- Safety Barrier Matrix Fig 1.11- Fig Page 96 of 129 15 HARDSCAPE Fig 1.14- Concrete Pavers at Traffi c Median At split-grade roadway intersections, concrete pavers shall be used between sidewalks and curbs and in medians. Pavers shall be terra cotta rectangular concrete units set in a herringbone pattern, as seen in Figures 1.14 and 1.15. Fig 1.15- Herringbone Pattern AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - GEORGETOWN Fig 1.14- Concrete Pavers at Traffi c MedianFig 1.14- Concrete Pavers at Traffi c Med Page 97 of 129 16 The limits of the “Round Rock” Mobility35 corridor are from RM 111 to SH 45N. The following structural component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • BRIDGE BENTS • BRIDGE BEAMS • RETAINING WALLS • ABUTMENT WALLS • SAFETY BARRIERS • HARDSCAPE ROUND ROCK AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Burnt Umber Opaque Sealer, FS 30045 Burnt Sienna Opaque Sealer, FS 30109 Color Palette French Roast Opaque Sealer, SW 6069 r arr ar sthetics defi ned insthetics defi n WALLSWALLS MENT WALLSNT WALLS SAFETY BARRIERSSAFETY BARRIERS •• HARDSCAPE HARDSCAPE rPrP Page 98 of 129 17 BRIDGE BENTS Bridge bents in Round Rock shall have ashlar texture on two faces of each column to complement those of SH 45N and I-35. Unlike SH 45N, an opaque sealer shall not be applied to the ashlar textured panels. Refer to Table 2.1 for aesthetics per bent type. Fig. 2.1- Hammerhead Bent Fig. 2.2- Multi-Column Bent with Mask Wall (Direct Connector Underpass) Fig. 2.4- Inverted “T” Bent Fig. 2.5- Multi-Column Inverted “T” Bent Fig. 2.7- Cantilever Bent (Mod.): Cantilever Bent to complement aesthetic of Existing Bents (Figure 2.1, From SH 45SE) Fig. 2.6- Straddle Bent AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Table 2.1- Bridge Bent Matrix FIGURE Hammerhead Straddle Cantilever BENT TYPES 2.1 Multi-Column (Direct Connector Underpass)2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 Inverted “T” 2.3 Inverted “T”, Multi-Column Fig. 2.3- Multi-Column Bent with Mask Wall (Standard Bridge Underpass) 2.7 Multi-Column (Standard Bridge Underpass) Fig. 2.1- HFig. Page 99 of 129 18 BRIDGE BEAMS Fig. 2.9- Existing Weathered Steel Beam Fig. 2.7- Concrete “I” Beam Bridge beams at cross bridges in Round Rock shall complement the aesthetics of those at SH 45N and I-35 in North Austin. Where concrete “I” beams are used at bridge crossings in Round Rock, burnt umber opaque sealer (Federal Standard 30045) shall be applied to the outer face and bottom faces as seen in Figures 2.7 and 2.8. Existing weathered steel beams in Round Rock are not coated with opaque sealer and as a result, have been a maintenance concern. All future weathered steel beams at cross bridges shall be painted with opaque sealer “French Roast” (Sherwin Williams 6069) to complement the weathered steel color, as seen in Figure 2.9. Opaque sealer shall not be applied to mainlane beams. Fig. 2.8- Concrete “I” Beam AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Fig. 2.7- Fig Page 100 of 129 19 RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls shall complement the aesthetic of retaining walls at SH 45N and I-35 in North Austin. MSE retaining walls shall have a random ashlar texture. No opaque sealer shall be applied as seen in Figure 2.10. Signature MSE panels shall have a random ashlar texture with a Texas graphic reveal. The Texas graphic shall have with no opaque sealer. Location of signature MSE panels shall occur in the second MSE panel column from the bridge end on both sides of the bridge. Bridge end details shall be a combination of tapered concrete cap and stone veneer column. No opaque sealer shall be applied. Stone and concrete colors, column shape and architectural details shall complement those seen in Figure 2.10. Aesthetic treatments on retaining walls shall be as stated above regardless of wall type. Fig 2.10- MSE Retaining Wall Fig 2.11- Signature MSE Panel Fig 2.12- Bridge End Detail AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Fig 2.10-Fig Page 101 of 129 20 ABUTMENT WALLS Abutment walls shall complement the aesthetics seen at SH 45N at I-35. MSE abutment wall panels shall have an ashlar texture, no opaque sealer and be framed at the top of wall by smooth textured concrete. Existing wall base panels shall be excluded from future Round Rock abutment walls as seen in Figure 2.13. Note the relationship of the bridge end details with the abutment wall as seen in Figure 2.14. Fig 2.13- MSE Abutment Wall, (Image modifi ed to refl ect the removal of the wall base panel) Fig 2.14- Bridge End Detail AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Abutment Wall (Mod.) Fig 2.13- MSFig of the wof t Page 102 of 129 21 SAFETY BARRIERS Safety barriers in Round Rock shall complement the aesthetics of SH 45N and I-35 in North Austin. Concrete coping shall not have an opaque sealer, as seen in Figure 2.18. Concrete traffi c barriers (T551) shall not have an opaque sealer as seen in Figure 2.18. Bridge rails located on concrete traffi c barriers shall have a burnt sienna opaque sealer (Federal Standard 30109) applied, as seen in Figure 2.18. Fig 2.17- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping Fig 2.15- Concrete Coping Fig 2.18- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Bridge Railing Fig 2.16- Concrete Traffi c Barrier AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Table 3.2- Safety Barrier Matrix SITE CONDITIONS Concrete Coping (Figure 2.15) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 2.17) Concrete Traffi c Barrier (Figure 2.16) Traf fi c Barrier with Bridge Railing (Figure 2.18) SAFETY BARRIER TYPES Retaining Wall, No Vehicular Traffi c Present Retaining Wall, Vehicular Traffi c Present Bridge, No Bicycle/ Pedestrian Traffi c Present Bridge, No Bicycle/ Pedestrian Traffi c Present Fig 2.15Fig Page 103 of 129 22 HARDSCAPE Fig 2.20- Concrete Pavers at Traffi c Median At split-grade roadway intersections, concrete pavers shall be used between sidewalks and curbs and in medians. Pavers shall be an array of natural colors set in a specialty pattern to complement those seen in Figure 2.19. A soldier course shall be set behind the back of curb, as seen in Figure 2.20. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - ROUND ROCK Fig 2.19- Specialty PatternFig 2.19Fig Page 104 of 129 23 The limits of the City of Austin Mobility35 corridor are subdivided into three sections: • SH 45N to US 183 • US 183 to Rundberg Ln. • Woodland Ave. to SH 45SE Aesthetic treatments shall remain consistent throughout the City of Austin project limits. The following are structural component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • BRIDGE BENTS • BRIDGE BEAMS • RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS • SAFETY BARRIERS • HARDSCAPE AUSTIN The construction of the US 183 direct connectors shall complement existing aesthetics within the limits of the interchange. The “Downtown” limits are from Rundberg Ln. to the Woodland Ave. The aesthetics of the Downtown area will be developed through a public process at a later date and are not addressed in this document. The aesthetics for the Austin Mobility35 corridor have been subdivided into three categories; City of Austin, US 183 and Downtown. Each area shall receive its own aesthetic treatments. CITY OF AUSTIN US 183 DOWNTOWN AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - AUSTIN AFTAFTTTustin Mobility35 corridor n Mobility35 cor three sections:ctions: o US 183o US 183 183 to Rundberg Ln.Rundberg Woodland Ave. to SH 45SE Woodland Ave. to SH 45SE hetic treatmentshetic treatment ghout the Cighout the ng are ng are inin Thehe havehave l receivel receiv Page 105 of 129 24 Fig. 3.5- Straddle Bent with “Longhorn” Column BRIDGE BENTS Bridge bents in Austin shall complement the texture, form, shape and architectural details of the bents at I-35 and Ben White Boulevard. Opaque sealer and Texas Seal shall not be applied to new bent construction. Refer to Table 3.1 for bent aesthetic types. Fig. 3.1- Typical Hammerhead Bent with Rectangular “Longhorn” Column Fig. 3.2- Multi-Column Bent with Rectangular “Longhorn” Column Fig. 3.3- Inverted “T” Bent, with “Longhorn” Column and Five Star Bent Cap Fig. 3.4- Inverted “T”, Multi-Column Bent, with Square “Longhorn” Columns and Five Point Star Bent Cap Table 3.1- Bridge Bent Matrix Fig. 3.6- Cantilever Bent to Match Aesthetics of Existing Bent Figure 3.1 FIGURE Hammerhead Straddle Cantilever BENT TYPES 3.1 Multi-Column 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 Inverted “T” 3.3 Inverted “T”, Multi-Column AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - AUSTIN Fig. 3.1- Ty pical HaFig. 3.1- pical H with Rectangwith ColumnColu Page 106 of 129 25 Fig. 3.7- Concrete “I” Beam BRIDGE BEAMS Bridge beams in Austin shall complement the aesthetics of the existing I-35 corridor. Where concrete “I” beams are used, opaque sealer shall not be applied, as seen in Figure 3.7. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - AUSTIN Fig. 3.7- Fig Page 107 of 129 26 PROPOSEDRETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS Retaining walls in Austin shall have an ashlar texture with no opaque sealer as seen in Figure 3.8*. Signature mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) panels shall have an ashlar texture with a Texas graphic reveal as seen in Figure 3.9. The ashlar pattern shall be approved by the TxDOT North Travis Area Offi ce. The Texas graphic shall occur on both sides of the structure and shall also be approved by the TxDOT North Travis Area Offi ce. Aesthetic treatments on retaining walls shall be as stated above whether method of wall construction is cast-in-place (CIP) or MSE. If an existing wall will be extended, exception may be taken to the proposed wall aesthetic treatment. When an existing wall is extended, the TxDOT North Travis Area Offi ce will, on a case-by-case basis, determine if an existing wall aesthetic will be continued and to what extent. Common existing treatments in Austin include ashlar MSE panels, fractured fi n MSE panels, CIP fractured fi n with concrete banding, and CIP exposed aggregate with concrete banding as seen in Figures 3.10-3.13. Construction of the US 183 direct connectors shall complement existing aesthetics within the limits of the interchange, see page 29 for further details. *The aesthetics of the downtown area will be developed through a public process at a later date and are not addressed in this document. Downtown limits are from Rundberg Ln. to Woodland Ave. Fig 3.10- Yager Ln., Ashlar, MSE Panels Fig 3.11- Ben White Blvd., Fractured Fin, MSE Panels Fig 3.8- Ashlar Texture, MSE Panels EXISTING Fig 3.12- Ben White Blvd., Fractured Fin, CIP with Concrete Banding Fig 3.13- US 290, Exposed Aggregate, CIP with Concrete Banding Fig 3.9- Ashlar Texture, Signature MSE Panel AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - AUSTIN its of the at a later date and area later date and a Woodland Ave. dland Ave. Page 108 of 129 27 SAFETY BARRIERS Safety barriers in Austin shall not have opaque sealer and shall be one of the following TxDOT standards listed in Figures 3.17-3.20. Fig 3.19- Concrete Traffi c Barrier Fig 3.17- Concrete Coping Fig 3.20- Traffi c Barrier with Bridge Railing Fig 3.18- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with CopingTable 3.2- Safety Barrier Matrix SITE CONDITIONS Concrete Coping (Figure 3.17) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 3.18) Concrete Traffi c Barrier (Figure 3.19) Traf fi c Barrier with Bridge Railing (Figure 3.20) SAFETY BARRIER TYPES Retaining Wall, No Vehicular Traffi c Present Retaining Wall, Vehicular Traffi c Present Bridge, No Bicycle/ Pedestrian Traffi c Present Bridge, No Bicycle/ Pedestrian Traffi c Present AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - AUSTIN Fig 3.17Fig Page 109 of 129 28 HARDSCAPE Fig 3.22- Concrete Pavers at Traffi c Island At split-grade roadway intersections, concrete pavers shall be used between sidewalks and curbs and in medians. Pavers shall be terra cotta rectangular concrete units set in a herringbone pattern, as seen in Figure 3.21. A soldier course shall be set behind the back of curb as seen in Figure 3.22. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - AUSTIN Fig 3.21- Herringbone PatternFig 3.21Fig Page 110 of 129 29 US 183 Fig 3.23- Single Column Bent The fl yover ramps at US 183 were installed as segmental construction. Future construction methods do not require segmental construction, but all new construction at US 183 shall complement existing aesthetics. Fig 3.24 - Straddle Bent Fig 3.25- Segmental Concrete Reliefs Fig 3.26- Retaining/Abutment Wall Fig 3.29- Traffi c Barrier and Bridge Rail Fig 3.27- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping Fig 3.28- Hardscape Pavers MATCH Single Column Bent Straddle Bent Segmental Concrete Reliefs COMPONENT Figure 3.23 Figure 3.24 Figure 3.25 Retaining/Abutment Wall Figure 3.26 Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping Figure 3.27 Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Bridge Railing Figure 3.28Hardscape Figure 3.29 AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - US 183 Table 3.3- US 183 Component Matrix Fig 3.23- SiFig Page 111 of 129 30 The limits of the Buda corridor are from SH 45SE to Robert S. Light Road. The following structural component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • BRIDGE BENTS • BRIDGE BEAMS • RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS • SAFETY BARRIERS • HARDSCAPE BUDA AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - BUDA French Roast Opaque Sealer, SW 6069 Color Palette to Rto R sthetics defi ned insthetics defi n AND ABUTMENT WALLSAND AB MENT WA S Y BARRIERSBARRIERS HARDSCAPEHARDSCAPE rPrP Page 112 of 129 31 BRIDGE BENT Complement the color, texture, shape, and architectural details of the bents at SH 45SE and I-35. Unlike SH 45SE, an opaque sealer shall not be applied to the bridge bents. See Table 4.1 for bent aesthetic types. If existing bridges are widened, all structural components shall complement the proposed aesthetics. Fig. 4.1- Hammerhead Bent Fig. 4.2- Multi-Column Bent Table 4.1- Bridge Bent Matrix Fig. 4.5- Straddle Bent Fig. 4.3- Inverted “T” Bent Fig. 4.4- Inverted “T”, Multi-Column Bent Fig. 4.6- Cantilever Bent FIGURE Hammerhead Straddle Cantilever BENT TYPES 4.1 Multi-Column 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 Inverted “T” 4.3 Inverted “T”, Multi-Column AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - BUDA Fig. 4.1- HFig. Page 113 of 129 32 BRIDGE BEAM Fig. 4.9- Weathered Steel Beam, No Opaque Sealer Fig. 4.7- Concrete “I” Beam Bridge beams in Buda shall complement the aesthetics at I-35 and FM 2001. Where concrete “I” beams are used, opaque sealer shall not be applied, as seen in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. Existing weathered steel beams in Buda are not coated with opaque sealer and as a result, have been a maintenance concern. All future weathered steel beams at cross bridges shall be painted with opaque sealer “French Roast” (Sherwin Williams 6069) to complement the weathered steel color, as seen in Figures 4.9 and 4.10. Opaque sealer shall not be applied to mainlane beams. Fig. 4.8- Concrete “I” Beam, Brown Opaque Sealer Along Underside of Beam Fig. 4.10- Weathered Steel Beam, No Opaque Sealer AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - BUDA Fig. 4.7- CoFig Page 114 of 129 33 RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS Retaining and abutment walls shall complement the aesthetic of those on SH 45SE and I-35. MSE retaining walls shall have an ashlar texture and no opaque sealer as seen in Figures 4.11 and 4.12. Signature MSE panels shall have an ashlar texture with a three dimensional star set on a smooth concrete inset panel as seen in Figure 4.13. If existing bridges are widened, all structural components shall complement the existing aesthetics. Aesthetic treatments on retaining walls shall be as stated above regardless of wall type. Fig 4.14- MSE Panels with Signature MSE Panel Fig 4.13- Signature MSE Panel Detail Fig 4.12- MSE Panel DetailFig 4.11- MSE Retaining Wall AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - BUDA Fig 4.11- MSFig Page 115 of 129 34 Fig 4.18- Concrete Traffi c Barrier Bridge End Detail Fig 4.15- Concrete Coping Fig. 4.16- Concrete Traffi c Barrier Fig 4.17- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping Table 4.2- Safety Barrier Matrix SAFETY BARRIERS Safety barriers in Buda shall not have opaque sealer and shall be one of the following listed in Figures 4.15-4.17. SITE CONDITIONS Concrete Coping (Figure 4.15) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 4.16) Concrete Traffi c Barrier (Figure 4.17) SAFETY BARRIER TYPES Retaining Wall, No Vehicular Traffi c Present Retaining Wall, Vehicular Traffi c Present Bridge Bridge End Concrete Traffi c Barrier Bridge End Detail (Figure 4.18) AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - BUDA Fig 4.15-Fig Page 116 of 129 35 HARDSCAPE At split-grade roadway intersections, concrete pavers shall be used between sidewalks and curbs and in medians. Pavers shall be an array of natural colors set in a herringbone pattern to complement those seen in Figure 4.19. A soldier course shall be set behind the back of curb as seen in Figure 4.20. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - BUDA Fig 4.19- Concrete Pavers at Traffi c Islands Fig 4.20- Herringbone Pattern Fig 4.19-Fig Page 117 of 129 36 The limits of the Kyle corridor are from Robert S. Light Road to Yarrington Road. The following structural component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • BRIDGE BENTS • BRIDGE END DETAILS • BRIDGE BEAMS • RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS • SAFETY BARRIERS KYLE Tan Opaque Sealer, FS 20152 Color Palette AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - KYLE Red Brick Sealer, FS 37769 LighLigh sthetics defi ned insthetics defi n AILS AMSAMS NING AND ABUTMENT WALLSNG AND ABUTMENT WALL SAFETY BARRIERSSAFETY BARRIERSDDolor Palette olor Palett Page 118 of 129 37 Concrete bridge bents in Kyle shall have brick texture on all faces of each column with red brick and tan opaque sealer to complement those of existing Kyle bridges on I-35 see in Figure 5.2. Each bent cap shall have a mask wall to conceal beam joints. Mask walls shall complement the architectural details and ranch symbols as seen in Figure 5.1. If existing bridges are widened, all structural components shall complement the existing aesthetics. Fig. 5.1- Bent Cap with Mask Wall Fig. 5.2- Multi-Column Bent with Mask Wall BRIDGE BENTS AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - KYLE Fig. 5.1- Fig Page 119 of 129 38 BRIDGE END DETAILS Bridge end obelisks in Kyle shall be smooth textured concrete with tan opaque sealer and ranch symbols to complement those at the existing Kyle bridges on I-35 as seen in Figures 5.3-5.4. Fig 5.4- Bridge Bent End Detail with Ranch SymbolFig 5.3- Bridge Bent End Detail with Ranch Symbol AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - KYLE Fig 5.3- BridFig with Rawit Page 120 of 129 39 BRIDGE BEAMS Fig. 5.5- Concrete “I” Beams Bridge beams in Kyle shall have brick texture on the outer faces with red brick and tan opaque sealer and include street lettering centered over the oncoming main lanes to complement the existing Kyle bridges on I-35 as seen in Figures 5.5-5.6. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - KYLE Fig. 5.6- Concrete “I” Beams Fig. 5.5- CoFig Page 121 of 129 40 RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS Fig 5.7- MSE Panels Fig 5.8- Concrete Bands AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - KYLE Fig 5.9- MSE Panels Retaining and abutment walls shall complement those of existing Kyle bridges on I-35. MSE retaining walls shall have a brick texture with a red brick opaque sealer and smooth concrete bands with tan opaque sealer as seen in Figures 5.7-5.9. Aesthetic treatments on retaining walls shall be stated as above regardless of wall type. Fig 5.7- Fig Page 122 of 129 41 Fig 5.11- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Concrete Coping Fig 5.10- Concrete Coping Fig 5.12- Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Arch Openings Safety barriers shall complement those of existing Kyle bridges on I-35. Concrete traffi c barriers shall be painted with a tan opaque sealer as seen in Figure 5.10 and 5.12. SAFETY BARRIERS Table 5.2- Safety Barrier Matrix SITE CONDITIONS Concrete Coping (Figure 5.10) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 5.11) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Arch Openings (Figure 5.12) SAFETY BARRIER TYPES Retaining Wall, No Vehicular Traffi c Present Retaining Wall, Vehicular Traffi c Present Bridge AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - KYLE Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Concrete Coping (Mod.) Fig 5.10- CoFig5.10- C Page 123 of 129 42 The limits of the San Marcos corridor are from Yarrington Road to Posey Road. The following structural component aesthetics defi ned in this chapter: • BRIDGE BENTS • BRIDGE BEAMS • RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS • SAFETY BARRIERS • HARDSCAPE SAN MARCOS Calypso Opaque Sealer, SW 6950 Blue Chip Opaque Sealer, SW 6959 Color Palette Honorable Blue Opaque Sealer, SW 6811 AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - SAN MARCOS Creamy Opaque Sealer, SW 7012 Believable Buff Opaque Sealer, SW 6120 Note: San Marcos standards pending coordination with city for refi nement and fi nalization. ringring sthetics defi ned insthetics defi n AND ABUTMENT WALLSAND AB MENT WA S Y BARRIERSBARRIERS HARDSCAPEHARDSCAPE olor Paletteolor PalettDD Page 124 of 129 Pending 30% Design 43 Fig. 6.3- Concrete Column Treatment at Bridge Widening BRIDGE BENTS Bridge bents in San Marcos shall complement the opaque sealer color, texture, shape and architectural details of the newly constructed abutment wall at Aquarena Springs Drive and I-35. If a new bridge is being constructed, the bents shall complement the multi-column bent with mask wall as seen in Figures 6.1. and 6.2. If existing bridges are widened, all structural components shall complement the existing aesthetics. A concrete column detail shall be constructed at both ends of the bents as seen in Figure 6.2. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - SAN MARCOS Fig. 6.1- Multi-Column Bent Column Symbol/Icon (Coordinate with City for Concept) New Bridge Bent to Complement Existing Aesthetic FIGURE Multi-Column Bent Column at Bridge Widening BENT TYPES 6.1 6.3 Table 1.1- Bridge Bent Matrix Existing Bents Fig. 6.2- Wall Mask Column Symbol/Icon (To Coordinate with City for Concept) Fig. 6.1- Fig Page 125 of 129 44 BRIDGE BEAMS Bridge beams in San Marcos shall complement the aesthetics of the existing I-35 corridor. Where concrete “I” beams are used, opaque sealer shall not be applied, as seen in Figure 6.3. Fig. 6.3- Concrete “I” Beam AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - SAN MARCOS Fig. 6.3Fig Page 126 of 129 45 RETAINING AND ABUTMENT WALLS Retaining and abutment walls shall complement the aesthetic of those on Aquarena Springs Dr. and I-35 in San Marcos. The wall panel types in San Marcos are as follows: • Smooth concrete panel with a full stone veneer • Smooth concrete panel with partial stone veneer • Smooth concrete panel with partial stone veneer and “blue wave” • Smooth concrete panel with “blue wave” • Smooth concrete panel Aesthetic treatments on retaining walls shall be as stated above regardless of wall type. Fig 6.4- MSE Panels Fig 6.5- Stone Veneer Fig 6.6- MSE Panels AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - SAN MARCOS Fig 6.4-Fig Page 127 of 129 46 SAFETY BARRIERS Safety barriers in San Marcos shall not have opaque sealer and shall be one of the following TxDOT standards listed in Figures 6.7-6.9. Fig 6.8- Concrete Traffi c Barrier and Coping Fig 6.9- Concrete Traffi c Barrier Fig 6.7- Concrete Coping SITE CONDITIONS Concrete Coping (Figure 6.7) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 6.8) Concrete Traffi c Barrier with Coping (Figure 6.9) SAFETY BARRIER TYPES Retaining Wall, No Vehicular Traffi c Present Retaining Wall, Vehicular Traffi c Present Bridge AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - SAN MARCOS Table 6.2- Safety Barrier Matrix Fig 6.7- Fig Page 128 of 129 47 HARDSCAPE Fig 6.11- Concrete Pavers At split-grade roadway intersections, concrete pavers shall be used between sidewalks and curbs and in medians. Pavers shall be terra cotta rectangular concrete units set in a herringbone pattern, as seen in Figure 6.10. A soldier course shall be set behind the back of curb as seen in Figure 6.11. AESTHETIC GUIDELINES - SAN MARCOS Fig 6.10- Herringbone PatternFig 6.10-Fig Page 129 of 129