INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Honorable Chairman and
Members of the Board of |
DATE: |
|
FILE: |
PMA05-033 |
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
THRU: |
|
SUBJECT: |
Route Study Final Report Coastal Design
Consultants, Inc. Realignment (from north of Drive to Task Order No. EDO04-004 |
||||
|
|
|||||||
|
FROM: |
James C. Widman, P.E.
Engineering Services Director |
REFERENCES: |
Commission District 5 W.O. No. C-2567.03 PMA04-044, PMA04-156 |
||||
The data herein presented to the Board of
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On
On
A Route Study and Pond Siting Workshop was held on
Roadway alignment alternatives were evaluated
to consider: long-range planning,
safety, costs, environmental impacts, property impacts, and other pertinent items/issues including public opinion. Pond
siting alternatives were based on the Southwest Florida Water Management
District’s (SWFWMD'S) requirements, and
analyzed proximity to the roadway, drainage outfall, floodplains and wetlands,
ability to maintain historic drainage patterns, site topography, present land
use, maintenance access, severity of impacts, potential cost including property
acquisition, and hydrology.
Throughout the study process, a “No-Build”
alternative was also considered. While
costing nothing, it also provides no solution to growing problems. It does not allow expansion of the existing
facility for meeting the needs of present users nor of others anticipated to be
moving into the area.
Alternative alignments and pond sites shall comply
with, or exceed the design criteria contained in the Manual of Uniform
Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and
Highways, May 2002, State of
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Realignment of
Alignment I would proceed northward about four
hundred feet north of Sherman Drive, curve westward through the house on lot
13, toward the rear of lots 14, 15 and 16, pass behind the Verizon building,
then curve to a point opposite Cobblestone Drive. This would require elimination of one
residence and reduce the size of another’s lot.
Alignment I is estimated to impact fourteen parcels, potentially
resulting in one residential and zero business relocations. Right-of-way costs are estimated at
$397,000.00 construction at $1,125,500.00, or a total project cost of
approximately $1,640,200.00.
Alignment II would proceed northward about five
hundred feet north, curve westward across the Verizon building on lot 14,
bisect lot 15, and then curve to a point opposite
Alignment III would begin in front of the Verizon
parcel (lot 14), cross lot 15 and the house on lot 16, and then curve to
a point opposite Cobblestone Drive. This
would require expensive relocation of Verizon’s underground facilities and
eliminate one of the newest homes in the subdivision. Alignment III is estimated to impact
fourteen parcels, potentially resulting in one residential and zero business
relocations. Right-of-way costs are
estimated at $348,000.00, construction at $1,806,300.00, or a total project
cost of approximately $2,372,000.00.
Alignment IV is the “No-Build”
alternative. While costing nothing, it
also provides nothing. It does not
provide any new or upgraded facility for meeting the needs of users existing,
or anticipated to be moving into the area.
The “No-Build” alternative remains under consideration throughout the
route study process.
Pond siting options differ with each
alignment, but can generally be accommodated within otherwise unusable remnants
of impacted parcels.
Each alignment would construct the same type of
roadway, curb and gutter, and drainage with construction cost varying with the
length. The safest, smoothest alignment
is Alignment II, but it is also the most expensive. The shortest alignment satisfying minimum
criteria is Alignment I, the least expensive.
Alignment III, developed to mitigate or reduce utility costs, is the
shortest and uses sharper curves. These
curves limit operating speed and make insuring adequate sight distance a
greater challenge. Three residents
desire a privacy wall along the rear of those residences should Alignment I,
adjacent to those parcels, be chosen.
The proposed improvements are consistent with
local long-range transportation plans, and concurrent with the Pasco County
2020 MPO Improvement Plan.
The recommended alternative is Alignment I,
avoiding the relocation of the Verizon switching station, or its feeds into
that site from the north. This
alternative displaces the fewest residents, complies with the comprehensive
plan, and provides improved transportation safety, operation, and
function. A privacy wall, 6’ above back
of sidewalk, should be included in a private easement along the east side of
lots 04-24-17-0030-00400-0010, 0020, and 0030, with the owners of those parcels
becoming responsible for wall maintenance and painting.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Some alternatives available to the Board in this
matter are:
1.
Adopt the route
study report, and approve Alignment I as presented above and in the route
study.
2.
Select another
alignment.
3.
Discontinue the
project, choosing the “No-Build” alignment.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
The Engineering Services Department recommends
that the Board approve Alternative No. 1 and select Alignment I for the
realignment of East Road.
No additional funding is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Route Study Report
2.
Location Map
JCW/JJC/ELM/RT/ph
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR
DATE: _______________________
BY: _________________________