HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140724 PW&P pktAmended
Notice of Meeting & Tentative Agenda
City of Jefferson Public Works & Planning Committee
1) Introductions
Thursday, July 24, 2014
7:30a.m.
John G. Christy Municipal Building, 320 East McCarty Street
Boone/Bancroft Room (Upper Level)
TENTATIVE AGENDA
2) Approval of the May 22, 2014 Committee meeting minutes
3) New Business
1. Building Official Plan (Steve Crowell)
2. Salt Bid (Britt Smith)
3. Vacation of Right-of-Way on Goodall Lane (James & Linda Burris, requestor) (David Bange)
4. Permissive Use of Right-of-Way at 400 West Main for Redevelopment (Capital Mill Bottom, LLC,
requestor) (David Bange)
5. Permissive Use of Right-of-Way on Jefferson Street {Central Bank, requestor) (David Bange)
6. Transit Application Filing with the Federal Transit Administration (Matt Morasch)
7. Transit Grant for Improvements on Missouri Boulevard (David Bange)
8. Highway 54/Stadium Boulevard Traffic Study (David Bange)
9. West Edgewood Drive Traffic Study (David Bange)
4) Other T epics
1. Planning & Protective Services Monthly Reports (Janice McMillan)
2. Water Main Leak Report (Britt Smith)
3. Capital Improvement Projects Update (David Bange)
5) Citizen opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works Issues
6) Adjourn
NOTES
Individuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as
required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request.
Please call (573) 634-6410 with questions regarding agenda items.
MINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
Committee Members Present:
Ralph Bray, Vice-Chairman
Glen Costales
Bob Scrivner, Chairman
Shawn Schulte
Committee Members Absent:
Rick Prather
Staff Present:
Matt Morasch, PE, Director of Public Works
David Bange, PE, Engineering Supervisor
Eric Seaman, Wastewater Division Director
Shane Wade, Civil Engineer II
Glen Miller, Building Inspector
May 22, 2014
Janice McMillan, Director of Planning and Protective Services
Jayme Abbott, Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Steve Crowell, City Administrator
Jeremy Cover, Assistant City Counselor
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Attendance
1 of 3
2 of3
3 of 3
3 of 3
2 of2
Chairman Scrivner called the meeting to order at 7:30a.m. A quorum was present at this time.
The following guests were present: Marvin Bickel, 115-B Brookdale; David Sylvester, Travis Koestner,
and Mike Dusenberg with MoDOT; Marc Ellinger, Cole County Commissioner; Brian Bernskoetter,
Heath Clarkston, Stacey Young; Residents from Georgetown Subdivision: Joan Cage, Ruth Jaeger,
Bill & Carol Bell, Joyce Lewis, and Don & Edna Zehnder; Roger Schwartze, 515 Eastland; Bob
Gilbert, 1719 Southrdige, Suite 1 00; and Madeleine Leroux with News Tribune.
1. Introductions
Those present introduced themselves.
2. Approval of the April 24, 2014 Committee meeting minutes
Councilman Schulte moved and Councilman Bray seconded to approve the April 24, 2014
minutes, motion carried.
3. Old Business
1. Building and Fire Code Appeal Commission (Janice McMillan)
Ms. McMillan explained the revisions Committee members.
Councilman Costales moved and Councilman Schulte seconded to move the ordinance to the
City Council with recommendation to approve.
There was discussion among Committee members, staff and those present regarding Commission
member make up and cost impacts.
Minutes/Jefferson City Public Works and Planning Committee
May 22,2014
2
Councilman Costales withdrew his motion and Councilman Schulte withdrew his second to the
motion.
Mr. Crowell requested those present send suggestions of alternatives, in writing, to Ms.
McMillan.
This item was tabled to the June Committee meeting.
4 New Business
1. Lafayette Interchange Presentation (Mike Duesenberg) (Matt Morasch)
Mr. Duesenberg gave a presentation on the Interchange, explaining the closing of various
sections of roadway to allow for construction. The project will be bid in September. A public meeting
with MoDOT for the public will be held on May 29.
2. Lafayette Enhancement Plan (Matt Morasch)
Mr. Morasch explained the need for a resolution for City participation in the plan.
There was discussion among Committee members, staff and those present regarding the
project cost and cooperative agreements.
Councilman Bray moved and Councilman Schulte seconded to refer the resolution to the City
Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
3. Emergency Solutions Program Grant Application (Janice McMillan)
Ms. McMillan and Ms. Abbott explained the grant.
Councilman Bray moved and Councilman Schulte seconded to refer the resolution to the City
Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
4. Covington Gardens Development Agreement (Greg Bemboom) (Janice McMillan)
Ms. McMillan explained there is still infrastructure to be completed within this development.
The agreement would give the developer additional time to complete the infrastructure.
Mr. Bray moved and Mr. Schulte seconded to refer the agreement to the City Council with
recommendation to approve, motion carried.
5. Other Topics
1. Planning & Protective Services Monthly Reports
Ms. McMillan referred Committee members to the reports included in the packet
6. Citizen Opportunity to address Council/Staff on Stormwater and Other Public Works
Issues
Gerald Kendrick,1732 Tanner Bridge Road, spoke requesting sidewalks along the even
addressed side of Tanner Bridge Road.
There was discussion among Committee members, staff and Mr. Kendrick regarding the
sidewalk master plan and requesting a neighborhood improvement project.
7. Adjourn
Minutes/Jefferson City Public Works and Planning Committee
May22, 2014
Councilman Prather moved and Councilman Schulte seconded to adjourn the meeting at this
time (9:35 a.m.), motion carried.
3
BILL NO. --=2::.;::;0..:..14-=---=-41.!,_._ ___ _
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN ----=B..:..::ra~y _____ _
ORDINANCE NO. ______________ _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AMENDING THE 2013-2014
BUDGET OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, BY CHANGING THE PERSONNEL
SCHEDULE CHANGES WITHIN PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The 2013-2014 Budget of the City of Jefferson, Missouri is hereby amended by
changing the personnel schedule by the reclassification of one position, title change of two
positions, and creation of a Building Inspector I and Building Inspector II in the Department of
Planning and Protective Services.
Section 2. The position of Building and Inspection Division Director is reclassified to Building
Official, Pay Range 19 ($46,489-$66,734).
Section 3. The positions of Plumbing Inspector and Electrical Inspector are retitled to
Building Inspector.
Section 4. The position of Building Inspector II is created and placed into a career
advancement program for Building Inspectors, resulting in no additional FTE's. Pay Range 17
($42,167-$63,251) will be utilized.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its
passage and approval.
Passed: Approved:---------
Presiding Officer Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk c~:eounselor
BILL SUMMARY
BILL NO: 2014-41
SPONSOR: Councilman Bray
SUBJECT: Amending the 2013-2014 Budget by reclassification of one position.
approving job title change of two positions. and creating career advancement
opportunity within the Department of Planning and Protective Services
DATE INTRODUCED: July 21.2014
Origin of Request: Planning and Protective Services
Department Responsible: Human Resources, Planning and Protective Services
Person Responsible: GAIL STROPE, Janice McMillan
Background Information:
In order to strengthen the professionalism of the building inspection division, and to
improve effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery, staff proposes a series of
changes. The requested change includes one reclassification and two job title changes:
Current position Current pay range Proposed position Proposed pay range
Building and Inspection 22 Building Official 19
Division Director (59.065-88,598) (46,489-69, 734)
Electrical Inspector 16 Building Inspector 16
_1_40,159-60.239) (40,159-60,239)
Plumbing Inspector 16 Building Inspector 16
_{_40,159-60.239) (40,159-60,239)
In addition, a request to implement career advancement opportunities for the inspectors,
similar to the Police Officer career ladder, is requested. The current inspectors are all in a
pay range 16. The City promotes continuing education and licensure. Therefore, if an
inspector becomes certified in at least 4 building trade areas, they will be able to promote
to a Building Inspector II at a pay range 17. This would result in a 5°/o pay increase at that
time. This career advancement program will not result in additional positions, but rather a
career advancement for current employees. The classification of the Building Official as
Grade 19 equates to other managerial positions within the department and reflects the
professional level this position previously held within the city organization.
Fiscal Information: This change will allow the hiring of one new employee in a position
with a lower pay range than currently authorized but not budgeted due to the Separation
Incentive Program. The anticipated personnel costs are $83,000 ($60,000 salary and
$23,000 taxes and benefits). Future fiscal increases of 5°/o per person could be incurred if
a Building Inspector I qualified for a Building Inspector II position.
Staff Recommendation: Approve.
TO:
FROM:
DATR
RE:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
Steve Crowell, City Administrator , J
Janice McMillan, AICP, Director of Planning and Protective ServiceJ~
July 16,2014
Building Inspection Staffing Plan
Over the past 15 months, the building inspection division has operated without a
division head as a result of the building and inspection division director (and former
building regulations supervisor) position being part of the separation incentive plan
offered in 2013. Over the course of the last six months, turnover in the remaining staff
has provided the catalyst to design a more sustainable staffing plan for the building
inspection division. Recent discussions with building division stakeholders have
confirmed that a professional building official position is needed to administer the
construction codes.
The effectiveness of local building codes has a profound effect on the physical and
economic well-being of the city and the safety of its residents and visitors. To remain
effective in the administration of building codes, the City must maintain the respect of
its customers and stakeholders, and the trust of the community. To be effective not only
requires a professional, well-trained staff, but a staffing plan that can weather staff
absences and turnover. The following plan for the building inspection division will
restore the professionalism and trust our community expects, and provides for
sustainable staffing. A bill addressing these changes is proposed for approval by the
Council. Staff recommends approval and implementation as soon as practical so that the
Building Oflicial position may be filled.
Memo, Building Inspection Stalling Plan july 16, 2014
• Restore the position of Building Otlidsl
The positions formerly known as the Building and Inspection Division Director is
proposed to be released from the Separation Incentive Plan and restored in the budget
and personnel schedule as Building Omcial Based on input from stakeholders, a
Building Official is critical to the effective administration of building codes. The position
of Building Official is mandated by the International Code Council (ICC), the source of
the City's adopted building codes. This a professional, supervisory position to administer
and interpret building codes, communicate with the development community and
design professionals on code requirements, serve as the chief plans examiner, coordinate
building plan reviews with the Fire Department, and supervise assigned inspectors. The
Building Official will be responsible for updating and proposing adjustments to codes,
and interfacing with Insurance Service Office (ISO) and other industry representatives.
The Building Official will also assign stafl' to chair the Electrical and Plumbing Boards.
The cost of this position is estimated at $90,000 ($60,000 salary, $23,000 benefits/taxes,
$6,000 professional certifications, memberships, professional development, materials,
supplies, fuel and $500 cell phone al1owance). A City vehicle is available for the use of
the Building Official.
• Building Inspection Staff.
For the past 30 years or more, individual "trade" inspectors have been responsible for
conducting separate inspections on behalf of their particular construction trade, i.e., the
building inspector performs building inspections, the electrical inspector performs
electrical inspections, and the plumbing inspector performs plumbing inspections.
Recent staff turnover has presented an opportunity to rethink staffing patterns and job
requirements to achieve more efficient operation. Two major changes are proposed:
o Building Inspectors. While the trade expertise of individual inspectors is
invaluable, the lack of cross·training left the City vulnerable when staff vacancies
occurred. In the future, building, electrical and plumbing inspectors will be cross·
trained as combination inspectors, and all will share the "Building Inspector" title.
Combination inspectors add operational flexibility to cover other inspectors on
leave or in training, reflect an efficient use of staff resources, and provide better
customer service. Current and future inspectors will be classified at pay range 16,
but will be trained to function as combination inspectors. Two incumbents are
affected by this change, the electrical inspector and the plumbing inspector. One
position is currently vacant, the former building inspector position. Currently,
inspections that are not the responsibility of the electrical and plumbing
inspectors are covered by Dan Davis, Senior Housing Inspector, on an interim
basis, and a temporary, part.time inspector.
o Career Ladder. The City will support professional development through
certification of inspection staff. National certification exams provide the means by
which individuals can achieve ICC certifications in order to demonstrate their
knowledge of various construction regulatory codes, standards and practices.
Memo, Building Inspection StaRing Plan july 16,2014
Inspectors will be offered a career ladder that provides advancement and
recognition when a series of certifications have been received. Current inspectors
will be classified as Bw1ding Inspector I, at pay range 16. An inspector would be
eligible for advancement to Building Inspector II at pay range 17, upon obtaining
certifications in four ( 4) building trade areas. The career ladder concept is similar
to that offered to police officers, in that it does not add positions, but is an
opportunity for career advancement for current inspectors. The cost to adopt the
career ladder for building inspection staff is five percent over current salary levels,
with the range approximately $2,008 -$3,012 per inspector per year. The actual
amount of the increase will depend upon the salaries of eligible inspectors. No
inspectors currently qualify for Building Inspector II, however, a new hire could
qualify if he/she possesses tour certifications, and both current inspectors could
potentially qualify within the next 24-36 months if they obtain the required
certifications.
• Other options.
In the absence of authorizing the Building Otlicial position, the alternatives may be to
use temporary staff or contracts for plan reviews.
o Temporary staff. This option is currently in development as part of the "interim
staffing plan." The availability of a qualified professional to examine plans and
mediate issues submitted by design professionals is critical to providing high
quality customer service to stakeholders. While qualified and capable individuals
may be hired as temporary staff to perform the plan review function, it probably
not reasonable to expect temporary staff to provide professional guidance for
inspectors, mediate disputes or settle disagreements pertaining to code
interpretation.
o Contract for plan review. Use of a private contractor or company to provide plan
review services to the City is also an option, however, to ensure that no conflict of
interest exists, local firms that submit construction drawings and site plans would
not be eligible to examine their own plans. This would necessitate contracting
with multiple firms to review building plans, unless a non-local firm was selected
to perform this service. A contracted firm would only provide the services that
were specified, potentially leaving the City without professional support during
critical project discussions.
Neither approach presents a long term solution for the resolution of all issues identified
by the stakeholders. Stakeholders were particularly concerned that a building official be
available for code interpretation, mediation, supervision of inspection staff and
coordination with the Fire Department, in addition to performing building plan reviews.
Department of Public Works Memorandum
320 E. McCarty Street ·Jefferson City , Missouri 65101 • P 573-634-6410 • F 573-634-6 562 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
July 21, 2014
Public Works and Planning Committee
Britt E. Smith, P.E.¢
Winter Chemical Bid
Recently, bids were received for our annual road salt supply. Due to supply issues the
bid received is approximately 70% higher than the previous year. Due to this increase ,
staff is recommending acceptance of the bid and requesting a supplemental
appropriation within the current budget of $25 ,000.
Due to last year's severe winter weather across the Midwest, salt supplies within our
region have been severely impacted, resulting in limited supply and increased prices .
Attached is the bid received , as well as letters from other suppliers declining our
invitation to bid.
The bid price received reflects an increase of more than 70 % from last year's cost.
Staff has discussed this issue with the low bidder, suppliers who have not bid , and with
MoDOT. Through those discussions, we have learned that some agencies and /or areas
have not received any bids for salt supply and those that did get bids have seen similar
cost increases .
As the supply issue is related to the extreme demand placed on the supp ly chain during
last year's winter, it is hoped that the issue will resolve itself as the mine production
eventually catches up with the current demand by various agencies. However, from
our conversations we bel ieve that will not occur until at least the 2016 winter season.
As a result, we have made plans to deal with the increase in cost for the coming winter.
Our supplier has required that we estimate our maximum usage for the year and we
agree to purchase at least 80% of that amount, regardless of winter weather activity . As
a result we propose the following funding:
Source Amount Description
FY2014 $175,000 These funds were supplementary appropriated by the
Remaining Council in recent months to fund filling our supply prior
Chemical Budget to winter.
FY2014 $25,000 Additional amount required to reinforce our supply prior
Additional to winter beginning.
Supplement
FY2015 $225,000 Although not approved, this amount is the staff
Chemical Budget recommendation for funding next budget year.
$425,000 Total
To arrive at this funding level, staff compared the usage from recent history looking at
three possible scenarios: average (over the past 9 years), mild (FY2012), and severe
(FY2007). Each case was evaluated in ensure the following questions were met:
A. Average winter -Will the proposed budget level meet the expected need with the
minimum order requirement (80°/o of the maximum)?
B. Mild winter-Will our current storage be adequate to handle the minimum order
with only minimal usage of a mild winter?
C. Severe winter-Will the maximum order be sufficient to meet the needs of the
community in a severe winter?
In scenario A, we found that the proposed funding would be sufficient to provide for the
average winters we've experienced. In fact this funding level would meet the needs for
all of the past nine years with the exception of FY 2007 which will be addressed in
scenario C.
In scenario B, it was found that the minimum order would require some additions to our
current storage plan. However, staff does believe those changes can be made with
little, if any cost to the City.
Looking at scenario C, we again found the levels sufficient to meet the needs
experienced by the community in our highest usage winter, however to meet that need
we would have to purchase supplies up to our maximum order. The highest usage
experienced was in FY2007 and was due in part to two major storms (one high snow
accumulation and one multiday ice event). In addition to those storms we also had six
other winter storms for a total of eight. It is noted that to purchase the maximum order,
additional funds within the FY2015 budget would be required.
In conclusion, it is the staff's belief that with the funding outlined above we can continue
to meet the expectation of the community in reference to snow removal. We request the
committee move this issue forward to the full Council for approval of both the
supplemental appropriation and acceptance of the bid during the August 4 meeting.
cc Matt Morasch, P. E.
Attachment
Memorandum_
320 East McCarty Street • Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 • P: 573.634.6410 • F: 573.634.6562 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date: July 16, 2014
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From: David Bange P.E., City ~ngineer
Subject: Vacation of an Unimproved Section of Lafayette Street Right of Way
City staff is recommending the committee accept the request made by James and Linda Burris
concerning the vacation of a section of unimproved Lafayette Street right of way.
The section of Lafayette Street in question is the southerly most portion of Lafayette Street that was
dedicated in the original City plat. This portion of the right of way has not seen any improvements nor is
it apparent that any such improvement would occur in the future based on the topography, ownership,
and development of the surrounding properties.
If you need additional information please contact me.
DB: db
U:\Public Works\Engineering\dbange\PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING\2014\7-22-14\Vacation of Lafayette Street near Goodall Lane.docx
M . TODD MILLER.
tmiller@ lo ddmi llc rlow.co m
1305 So ulhwes l Blvd., Sui te A, Jellerson C ity, M issou ri 6 5 109-5 6 14
(573 ) 634 -283 8 Fo x: (5 7 3) 6 34-7642
wW\v.toddm i llerlow.com
City of Jeffers on
Department of Public Works
320 East McCarty Street
Jefferson City, MO 6510 I
Thursday, June 12 ,2014
Re: Application for Vacation of Right-Way/ Alley/Easement; James and Lim/a Burris
To Whom It May Concern:
DANIEL fiNDER.
dli ndcr@ toddmil le rlow.com
Please find enclosed the following documents to be filed with your office at your earliest convenience, to wit:
I . Application for Vacation of Right-of-Way/ Alley/Easement;
2. Colored Exhibit to Application-Map of Road Section sought to be conveyed to clients;
3. Firm Check No. 2710 for $130.00 (application fee).
For clarification, my clients respectfully request the city convey to them free and marketable title to the
portion of the abandoned road identified in the attached exhibit. After recent productive discussions with city
representatives, I am left to understand that the conveyance would not cause the city an inconvenience
and it would increase the tax roll.
Please notify me when my clients and I will b e caused to appear on the matter. As always, I remain
available to discuss any questions or concerns that may arise a t the information listed. Your continued
consideration is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
M . Todd Miller
LAW OFFICE OF TODD MILLER, LLC
Enclosures
TMB
cc: Burris
APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY/ALLEY/EASEMENT
PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING COMMITTEE
City of Jefferson -Department of Public Works
3"20 East McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Phone (573) 634-6410 Fax (573) 634-6562 ,
Date of application: ____ s-_,.,/_t--J../_;_{ _________ _
We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the City Council to vacate the following right-of-way/alley/easement:
5£ £ A TTY-1 GH (~ cot. o tL ~ r-rP t>P a.o~t~ ) ~ c:. i\ 0 ,.J r" r..J z t+-r ,..o l3 ~ <:;> I\) tJ & 't e-.o JO
(Attach legal descnption of property to be vacated)
PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NO.
ABUTTING VACATION
T ~~~ -4-(..,I tv C> A (1UIU-i5 uc.~F ~~ #lfe>£8 (:; '"'Z.. 1 Cf ()C {) ti.( 14_...., /..tJ. ~J'I-28?S
P . C t ( ) "7't'> 64 ;&A I ~;L (.~ ~'1}'\>· f'frlV~ L'"~ #.v frf' /' {...,/ C~) nma~ onacts, __________ , ___ v _____________ ~~'~"-------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address: I 1 6 -·;-) ~ 8 '-v!J , f r~ .. ~ JM o h \1 o <7
Telephone Number(s), __ ___;;,r;-_,_1_-_b_1_'f_-__ 2_8_3_8 _________ ...,-_M_t~A-_~_n-_tP_...,-o __ &_~ _''l.{_'_£.._"e_~_t--l'l_~_· _c_c •_(A ____________ _
VACATION ROW
Section 35.5.8. Vacations .. A~ n §.!ll out in Aependix Y. !ill!!! J2!!. paid .Qy all persons or corporations
submitbng requests mrvacat1on of easements .Q! raghts:ol-way.
Appendix Y
Chapter 33-5.8. Vacation of Easement or Rlght-of-wav.i130.00
~evised September 9, 2013
Individuals should contact tile ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or altemative fonnats as required finder the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Please allow three business days to process the request.
Print Preview
MidMoGIS, MO
Disclaimer: Nap and parcel d a t a a re belie v ed t o b e accura t e, b ut accuracy is no t gu;;rant eed . lnis is n o t a
legal d oc ume nt and ~ho u ld not be subs titu t e d for a title search,appraisal. survey, or for z on ing
verificatio n .
Page l of 1
r•lap Sc al e
1 inc h = 1 16 feet
5 /1/2014
http ://www .midrnogis .org/colesl/WebF o rm s/Pr int.aspx?img=http ://w ww omidmo gi s.or g/arcgo 0 0 511/2 0 14
Memorandum
320 East McCarty Street • Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 • P: 573.634.6410 • F: 573.634.6562 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date: July 16, 2014
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From: David Bange P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Permissive use of Right of Way at 400 West Main Street
City staff is recommending the committee accept the request made by Capital Mill Bottom, LLC
concerning the permissive use of right of way at 400 West Main Street.
The area in question is the site of the old electrical plant of which the City was the past owner and
retains interest in its redevelopment. Plans have been presented for the reuse of the facility. The
drawings indicate the need to install doors and metal staircases on the side of the building that faces
the West Main Street in order to meet current egress requirements. The staircases will encroach on the
City right of way and the public sidewalk. Review of the submitted drawings indicate that the staircases
would project a few inches into what is an eight foot wide sidewalk and as such are not seen to create
an issue with the continued use of the public walkway. Because of this and the benefit that may be
realized from allowing this permissive use Staff supports the approval of this request.
If you need additional information please contact me.
DB:db
U:\Public Works\Engineering\dbange\PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNJNG\2014\7 -22-14\Permissive Use 400 W. Main.docx
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSIVE USE OF CITY PROPERTY AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY
PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING· COMMITTEE
City of Jefferson -Department of Public Works
320 East McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Phone (573) 634-6410 Fax (573} 6~2
The undersigned hereby request a permissive use of City property and/or right-of-way adjacent to the
following described real estate: , ~ Ei? {YJ /taO Jd. #4.,'>1 3/.. J.e. t?O'YI .0
(List the address of the request)
This property is currently zoned ?U D
Present use of property 't'' c: AlA:! 1 bp ·"'"'-reA.eu e lcyec) ~
Describe exactly what is being requested and the purpose of the request
SEE 1977'1941E'b
(Attach drawing, plan, etc. if applicable)
The undersjgned understands that if this application is approved by both the Public Works & Planning
Committee and the Council, the use is a permissive use subject to termination by the City at any time.
and the undersigned certify that they own the above described property.
~-Date: ~~=o/~
Property OWner(s) Signature(s) ~4.11a..) <"'8~~~ :.__C
~··
Printed Name of Property Owner(s) &_ aizh.l 1!21/!1 Zolbrvt, l.L c I I
Address of Property Owner(s) 9d Q No':? l/; II , \ellJ. V-jC/111 C; {'! tl1. D
Phone Number(s) 57 .$ -6 9o ~ 6' 9'0 cJ
Name of Applicant (if different from property owner>~---------------
Address of Applicant:.....--------------------------
Phone Number(s>---------------------------
(FOR CITY USE ONLY)
ACTION BY THE PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING COMMITTEE
[]Approved
[ ] Approved with Conditions
[ ) Disapproved
Conditions of Permissive Use:, ______________________ _
PetmlssiYe Use ROW Revfsed March 2012
Individuals should contact the ADA Coorclinatpr at {573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or altematlve fonnats
as requited under the Americans with DisabUitles Act Please allow 72 business boutS to process the teqUest.
Application for Permissive Use of City Right of Way
Capital Mill Bottom, LLC
400 West Main Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
CMPS JOB # 80-240
7/8/14
This request relates to the permissive use of right of way along West Main Street.
Capital Mill Bottom, LLC has submitted plans to the City of Jefferson for the site at 400
West Main Street. The existing buildings located on the site will be remodeled to allow
for commercial use. Existing buildings are located within approximately 1 foot of the
property line. This request asks that City right of way be utilized for two metal stairways
and walk ways to exist as a means of ingress/egress for the buildings. The entrance ways
proposed will be secondary access to the buildings. The main entrance for the businesses
will be located on the north side of the buildings.
I I
II
IIW
I I::
ICX)
II
II
I I
II
.,......
I~P.
--
-~I ~ 0\
'-;fl&.o<:-1--L.....-------..._-{tj-)---I
_f ""' :
1 --I
I
~
\
\
FF 557.64 ~ ---'\ Capital Mill '86tt._.om, LLC
400 W. Main\St.
FF 568.63 _j
Ex.
Build in g
Basement
FF=544.84
~=3 ,--~----------------------------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .... :
'
60
+2.65'
Approximate
Utility Locations
P ermissive Ues of
1 I I
I 'X..:.-I
\ ~--~ \ \
\
~~\
Pt. lnlots 60,62,6~,69,
All lnlots 63,64..
Bk. 552, Pg. 373 \
Use: Vacant Lot
\_
FF 553.89 _}
FF 553.79
\
II
II
II Q_
I I (_)
II IY
West Main Street
80' R/W , 56' Street Width
I
I
I
I
Ul
I
I
~~
~~
UlN I.-
I
I
I
Ul
I
-.._Of,
_ot.l
I
Ul
t I
I
I
I
, ' _1,..;..'1-----.... ,
Ut il ity
Ma n hol e
Memorandum
32 0 Eas t McCarty Street • Jefferson City, Mi ssouri 6510 1 • P: 573.634 .6410 • F: 57 3.63 4.6 562 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date :
To :
-From:
Subject:
July 21, 2014
Public Works and Planning Committee
David Bange P .E ., City Engineer
Permissive use of Right of Way adjacent to the Property Addressed as 101 W.
High Street
City staff is recommending the committee accept the request made by Central Bank concerning the
permissive use of right of way adjacent to 101 W . High Street.
This request is being made to allow the installation of a new electrical service line from an electrical
transformer located along Wall Way to the Merchants Bank building . This use is not unlike many other
installations in which utility service lines come from the main line and branch across the right of way in
order to reach the property they intend to serve .
The area in question is shown Ofl the attached drawing .
If you need additional information please contact me .
DB : db
U:\Public Works\Engineering\dbange \PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING\20 14\7 -22-14\Permi ssive Use Jefferson Street\Permissive Use
Memo.docx
1-
(/)
I
(.')
I
w
1-
(/)
I
(.')
I
~
. '
Cenltal Missouri Professiona l Services
2500 East ~Carty Street
Jefferson City, 1.10 65101
573-034-3455
Note:
Pa rcel Unes are for lax purposes only,
not in tended for conveyances,
nor are a legal document
MERCHANTS BANK
PERMISSIVE USE OF R/W
Aerial Photography -Spring 2011 A;?
0 7.5 15 30 45 60 -tf%. ••-=••-=---c:==:=l---Feet
RESOLUTION
RS2014-
Sponsored by Councilman Scrivner
A CONTINUING RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON AUTHORIZING THE
FILING OF APPLICATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, AN
OPERATING ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, FOR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. CHAPTER 53; AND ANY OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES
ADMINISTERED BY THE
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administrator has been delegated authority to award
Federal financial assistance for a transportation project;
WHEREAS, the grant or cooperative agreement for Federal financial assistance will
impose certain obligations upon the Applicant, and may require the Applicant to provide
the local share of the project cost;
WHEREAS, the Applicant has or will provide all annual certifications and assurances to
the Federal Transit Administration required for the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JEFFERSON, MISSOURI.
1. That the City Administrator or the Transit Division Director of the City of Jefferson
is authorized to execute and file an application for Federal assistance on behalf
of the City of Jefferson with the Federal Transit Administration for Federal
assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 or any other Federal statutes
authorizing a project administered by the Federal Transit Administration.
2. The City of Jefferson, Missouri has received authority from the Designated
Recipient to apply for Urbanized Area Formula Program assistance/a "Direct
Recipient.
3. That the City Administrator or Transit Division Director of the City of Jefferson is
authorized to execute and file with its applications the annual certifications and
assurances and other documents the Federal Transit Administration requires
before awarding a Federal assistance grant or cooperative agreement.
4. That the Transit Division Director of the City of Jefferson is authorized to execute
the grant and cooperative agreements with the Federal Transit Administration on
behalf of the City of Jefferson.
5. That the Finance Director of the City of Jefferson is authority to draw against
available grant funding using the ECHO web system.
6. This Resolution shall continue until terminated by this or a future Council
Adopted this day of _____ , 2014.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Counselor
Memorandum
320 East McCarty Street • Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 • P: 573.634.6410 • F: 573.634.6562 • www.jeffcitymo.org
Date: July 15, 2014
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From: David Bange P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Highway 54 and Stadium Boulevard Traffic Study
City Staff would like to take this opportunity to provide an update to the Committee and receive
feedback on the preliminary. findings of the Highway 54 and Stadium Boulevard traffic study.
This project had its origins in a safety concern caused by the queuing of traffic out onto Highway 54 as
they attempted to exit the highway onto Jefferson Street and ultimately Stadium Boulevard. This issue
remains and now is coupled with the desire for better access to Capital Regional Medical Center as
they begin an expansion of the hospital. George Butler and Associates (GBA) was retained to perform
a traffic study of this interchange and surrounding area. Current volumes were collected and entered
into a traffic model. Anticipated future demand from the potential new hospital was added as was an
overall rate of growth to establish a traffic volume for year 2035.
With this information the engineers at GBA began to look at scenarios that would be capable of
handling the future traffic demand. As the explored these scenarios one option had a distinct advantage
over the others. This included the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson and
Stadium with some lane widening to the west and south of the intersection and some geometric
improvements, lane widening and the addition of a signal at Stadium and Monroe, as well as the
expansion of Monroe Street to accommodate two-way traffic.
This concept was presented to the the public at a meeting held on June 26th. We received several
questions/comments concerning the volume of traffic on Christy Drive, the effects on access, and
overall appearance of the project particularly as it pertains to the property owned by Trinity Lutheran.
At this point City staff is looking for any additional feedback concerning the traffic report before it is
finalized. When it is finished staff will return to ask for you acceptance of the report and soon thereafter
the approval of a consultant contract to begin the design of the Stadium and Monroe portion of the
project so that we will be able to meet the commitments made to Capitol Region concerning their
access.
If you need additional information please contact me.
DB:db
U:\Public Works\Engineering\dbange\PUBLIC WORKS & PLANNING\2014\7-22-14\Hwy 54 and Stadium Blvd Traffic Study.docx
50 FEET Inch =
100
( Gr e pble Sc alo _ Poet )
160
·:
cr ..
<
tf.; .•
I
L
!
I !fr/ .., / f!i /
/ ~;' : (/): : ii!: : ;:c : :0 :.
l
I
! ' l '
/,
' .
' I
/
z
~ a: w u.. u.. w -,
u..
0
~
(.)
Of 2 SHEETS
\ 1 inch = 50 FEET 1
(. 25 50 100 150 '
u
--····-·-~--·--'"'---~---.. _____ .._ __ ...., __ ,.,._ .J
• ADAMS STREET ['··..:.:-r·--'--'-'<~--------~----.:.:.:.:.J -------------~
PR•PITS ISSUED
6/23/14
RE VISI ONS:
7/3/1 4
Pa..l Somson. 1'£. _,
MDI PE-2002016730
z
0 en a: w u. u. w -,
u.
0
~
(.)
a:
::>
0 en en ~
~ z ::>
0
(.)
w
...J 0
(.)
~ u
z
0 en a: w u. u. w ..,
PROPOSED
IMPROVEM ENTS
SH EET tM/BER
2
Of 2 SH EETS
Memorandum
320 East McCarty Street • j effer son C i ty, Missouri 65101 • P: 5 73.634.6410 • F: 573.634.656 2 • www.jeffci tym o .or g
Date : July 15, 2014
To: Public Works and Planning Committee
From : David Bange P.E ., City Engine e r
Subject: Edgewood Drive Traffic Study
City Staff is asking the committee to accept the findings of the Edgewood Dri ve traffic st ud y and
endorse the selection of the preferred alternative .
In the process of real igning Frog Hollow Road , w hich is now under construction , it was determined that
a traffic study of the area would be prudent to investigate the effects of the realignment and model
future growth and traffic demand . George Butler and Associates (GBA) was retained to perform a traffic
study along the Edgewood Corridor from Stadium Boule vard to Highway 179 . Current volumes were
collected and entered into a traffic model. Anticipated future demand from the potential new High
School and the Stoneridge development were th e n added as was an overall rate of growth to establish
a traffic volume for year 2035.
With these traffic volumes in hand several scenarios capable of accommodating it were developed.
This is included a series of signals and two others that made use of roundabouts . These options were
then examined and compared based o n nin e criteria . This process led to the selection of what is now
the preferred alternative wh ich cons ists of dual lane round a bouts at the intersection of Edgewood with
Stadium , Creek Trail , and the future extension of Stoneridge Parkway.
This three roundabout con ce pt along with the ot her alternatives were presented at a public meeting
which was held on May 22nd. The public response to the preferred alternative was positive and based
on comments from those in attendance was preferred over the signalized option .
The cost of the preferred alternative w as preliminarily estimated to be 4 .6 million inclusive of design ,
right of way , utility relocation, and constr uction costs. As indicated in the study not all of these
improvements would need to be constructed at this time.
Gi ven the results of the analysis and the response from the public Staff is recommending t hat the
preferred alternative be endorsed by the committee.
If you need additional information please contact me .
DB :db
U:\Pub li c Works\E ng in eering\dbang e\PUBLI C WORKS & PLA NNI NG\2014\7-22-1 4\Edgewood Drive T raffic Study.docx
GB~
architects
engineers
creat1ng remarkable solutions
for a higher quality of life
9801 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa Kansas
66219-g745
913.492.0400
913.577.8200 fax
GSA Companies
Lenexa, KS
Kansas City, MO
o·Fallon. MO
St. Louis, MO
St. Joseph, MO
Omana, NE
Rock Island, IL
Broomfield, CO
www.gbateam corn
July 8, 2014
Mr. David Bange, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Jefferson
320 E. McCarty Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
SUBJECT: West Edgewood Drive Corridor Study
Summary of Findings and Recommendatio ns
As requested, GBA has prepared this letter report to summarize the traffic
engineering evaluations that have been completed on th is very important
project for the City of Jefferson . This letter report details the current traffic
conditions along the West Edgewood Drive corridor between the intersections
with M-179 Highway and West Stadium Bouleva rd, and describes the traffic
projection process completed in order to provide the requ ired evaluation of
improvement alternatives during the projected Design Year 2035 traffic volu me
conditions. Based upon the completed assessments of the traffic operations ,
expected benefits and costs, and other important impacts for each of the
conceptual alternatives developed, this report also provides a recommendation
for the geometric and traffic control improvements that should be carried
forward into design and construction at the intersections along this critical
roadway corridor. With this corridor study now completed, the City wi ll be able
to proceed with the implementation of these recommended improvements.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
West Edgewood Drive is an important east-west arterial ro ute through
Jefferson City, and is expected to serve increased traffic volumes in the future
due to its proximity to several large on-go ing and planned developments.
Along the northern frontage of this roadway corridor, the Stoneridge Vi llage
mi xed -use commercial development continues to progress. It is expected that
this significant development will continue to infill southwardly as the existing
limestone quarry operations are completed, and West Edgewood Drive will
eventually serve as a primary access route for a large portion of the
development-related traffic.
To the south of this study corridor, several other i mportant de velopments wi ll
be expected to impact the future traffic operations in the vicinity of the West
Edgewood Drive corridor. First, th e new St. Mary 's Hospital campus will
generate additional traffic within this portion of the City , based on its re location
from the downtown central business d istrict. Similarly, the traffic impacts
associated with a second high school campus to serve t he City 's school district
have been included for the purposes of this corridor traffic study.
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The current traffi c con ditions at the existing intersections along the West
Edgewood Drive co rridor were fully evaluated during th is traffic engineering
study. First , City personnel collected and provided Average Daily T raffic (ADT)
volume data for the road ways within the area , as depicted on Figure 1.
GB~
architects
engineers
Page 2 of6
As shown on Figure 1, West Edgewood Drive currently serves over 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd)
between the intersections with M-179 Highway and West Stadium Boulevard, and about 6,000 vpd to the
east of West Stadium Boulevard. West Stadium Boulevard also currently serves nearly 15,000 vpd to the
north of the study corridor, and over 12,000 vpd to the south of West Edgewood Drive. Other minor
roadways in the study area, such as Creek Trail Drive and Frog Hollow Road, current serve less than
2,500 vpd. The ADT volume data was obtained by City personnel in mid-November 2013, prior to the
Thanksgiving holiday.
In addition, peak period turning movement counts were performed at the existing intersections along the
West Edgewood Drive study corridor by Central Missouri Professional Services (CMPS) personl)el.
Intersection counts were performed at the study intersections on Thursday, December 12, 2003 and
Tuesday, December 17, 2013. Turning movement data was collected at the intersections of West
Edgewood Drive with M-179 Highway, Frog Hollow Road, Creek Trail Drive, and West Stadium
Boulevard. Based upon the completed traffic counts, the morning and evening commuter peak hours
were determine to occur from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m., respectively. A set of
"balanced" design volumes was then developed by GBA for the West Edgewood Drive corridor during
these existing peak hours, as shown on the attached Figure 2.
GBA's traffic engineers also reviewed the historical crash records along the West Edgewood Drive
corridor for the previous five-year period (i.e., from 2008 to 2012). There were about two dozen total
crashes reported along the study corridor during this time period. More than half of the crashes along the
corridor were related to lane change maneuvers or turns into I from the numerous private commercial
driveways and minor streets to the west of the Creek Trail Drive intersection. The remainder of the
crashes occurred within the vicinity of the signalized intersection of West Edgewood Drive with West
Stadium Boulevard. Seven of the reported crashes involved minor injuries to vehicle occupants, while
the rest of the crashes involved only property damage to the vehicles involved.
FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTION
An extensive traffic projection process was completed for the purposes of this corridor study in order to
develop an appropriate set of design traffic volumes used to evaluate the future geometric and traffic
control needs along West Edgewood Drive. Engineers from GBA and CMPS have previously completed
numerous traffic studies and roadway I intersection designs in association with the adjacent Stoneridge
Village mixed-use commercial development. The latest site plan and traffic study for this ongoing
commercial site were utilized to determine the projected amounts of development-related traffic that
would be expected to access the West Edgewood Drive corridor in the future. It is anticipated that this
commercial development will provide an eventual southward extension of Stoneridge Parkway to a
primary access intersection with West Edgewood Drive, while a secondary access driveway located
farther east is also likely (potentially aligning with the existing Frog Hollow Drive intersection).
The traffic projection process for this project also included a specific hand-assignment of the expected
traffic associated with the planned second high school campus to serve the City. Based upon direction
from City and school district staffs, trip generation was included for a high school with a future enrollment
of approximately 2,000 students based upon typical Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates.
While much of the traffic associated with this future high school would be expected to utilize the M-179
corridor for its primary access, there would also be some additional traffic impacts expected along the
West Stadium Boulevard corridor. Specifically, traffic from the north along West Stadium Boulevard
would be expected to turn westward onto West Edgewood Drive in order to access the future school
campus via the Creek Trail Drive intersection and planned roadway connections.
GBA's traffic engineers also utilized the available City-wide TransCAD travel demand model (TOM) to
determine the background traffic growth that would be expected on the roadways within the study area
GB~
architects
engineers
Page 3 of6
for the Future Year 2035 design horizon. A "select zone" analysis was performed to remove any
projected traffic volumes within the City's future model from both the Stoneridge Village development and
the planned high school site, since traffic from these specific generators was hand-assigned during this
projection process. Then, a comparison was made between the existing 2010 base model and the
Design Year 2035 traffic projections to determine the appropriate amounts of background traffic growth to
include for the design horizon.
The calculations of the projected morning and evening peak hour turning movements at the study
intersections along the West Edgewood Drive corridor for the Design Year 2035 traffic scenario are
summarized on the attached Tables 1 and 2, respectively. As shown on these tables, it was determined
that an annual background traffic growth rate of one percent per year was appropriate for use along the
study corridor. Similarly, the model comparisons indicated that a two percent annual growth rate could
be expected along the M-179 Highway corridor and for portions of the City to the west of this roadway.
The projected background traffic growth, as well as the hand-assigned traffic· volumes from both the
Stoneridge Village and the high school development sites, was added to the "balanced" existing traffic
volumes in order to determine the projected future turning movements along the study corridor. Figure 3
depicts the "balanced" intersection turning movements during the Future Y~ar 2035 peak hour conditions.
CAPACITY ANALYSES
Detailed volume I capacity analyses were completed during this traffic engineering evaluation of the West
Edgewood Drive study· corridor, utilizing various Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) compliant
methodologies and computer softwares. The attached Exhibit A lists the standard HCM-based Level of
Service {LOS) criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersection control types.
Existing Conditions ... The latest version of the Trafficware SYNCHRO software program was utilized
to evaluate the existing traffic operations at the intersections along the West Edgewood Drive study
corridor, using the current traffic volumes, lane configurations, and traffic controls. The results of the
completed volume I capacity analyses for the current morning and evening peak hour traffic conditions
are shown on the attached Figure 4. It should be noted that the existing traffic signal timing data and
phasing patterns were obtained from both the City and the Missouri Department of Transportation
(MoDOT) for use in these completed analyses.
As shown on the figure, most of the overall intersections and individual vehicle movements along the
West Edgewood Drive study corridor currently operate adequately at LOS "D" or better, with acceptable
amounts of vehicle queuing. During the morning peak hour, the signalized intersection of West
Edgewood Drive with West Stadium Boulevard is indicated to operate at an overall LOS "E," with a poor
LOS "F' provided for the eastbound shared through I right-turn maneuver. MoDOT district traffic staff
also indicated that they are aware of some existing concerns regarding the vehicle queuing for
northbound left-turning vehicles on M-179 Highway during the morning peak hour, and have plans to
restripe this approach to provide additional vehicle storage length in the near future. During the evening
peak hour conditions, several individual vehicle movements currently experience LOS "E" or "F"
operations, including the westbound shared through I right-turn movements and the southbound
right-turn movement at the West Stadium Boulevard intersection and several of the left-turn maneuvers
at the M-179 Highway intersection.
Future Conditions... Based upon conversations with City staff, there was a desire for this study to
evaluate the future traffic operations at the intersections along the West Edgewood Drive study corridor
with either traffic signal or roundabout intersection controls. Due to the close spacing of the study
intersections between the existing West Stadium Boulevard and planned Stoneridge Parkway locations,
the project team did not feel that it would be appropriate to combine these two traffic control types along
GBr.\
architects
engineers
Page 4 of 6
the corridor, given the potential for "grid-locked" roundabout operations caused by vehicle queues from
nearby traffic signals.
It should be noted that the intersection of West Edgewood Drive with M-179 Highway is currently under
MoDOT jurisdiction. For the purposes of this traffic study, it was assumed that this intersection would
remain under traffic signal control for the foreseeable future so that a system of coordinated traffic signals
with the nearby Missouri Boulevard and US-50 interchange ramps could eventually be provided by
MoDOT. The provision of dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane on each approach
to this major intersection was assumed to be the "maximum" geometric improvement that could be made
at this location while keeping its current at-grade configuration.
Signalized Alternative: Again, the latest version of the Trafficware SYNCHRO software program was
utilized to evaluate the future peak hour traffic operations at the signalized study intersections along the
West Edgewood Drive corridor, as shown on Figure 5. During the morning peak hour, all overall
intersections and most individual vehicle movements would be expected to operate at LOS "D" or better.
The two major study intersections with M-179 Highway and West Stadium Boulevard would both operate
at an overall LOS "E" during the future evening peak hour condition, and several individual movements
would also operate at LOS "E" or "F," with some vehicle queues in excess of 500 feet in length.
The completed volume I capacity analyses indicate that the West Edgewood Drive study corridor would
generally be expected to serve these projected future peak hour traffic volumes with a five-lane roadway
cross-section, providing two through lanes in each direction and exclusive east-west left-turn lanes at the
intermediate study intersections. However, in order to achieve these adequate future traffic operations, it
would be necessary to make several more significant geometric improvements, especially at the
intersection with West Stadium Boulevard. At this location, it would be necessary to construct dual
left-turn lanes on both the northbound and eastbound approaches. In addition, exclusive right-turn lanes
would be required on the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. It would be
recommended to provide a minimum of two north-south approach lanes at the other intersections along
the corridor; however, southbound dual left-turn lanes were also indicated to be necessary at the planned
Stoneridge Parkway intersection.
Roundabout Alternative: The SIDRA software package was used to preliminarily evaluate the use of
roundabout controls at the study intersections along the West Edgewood Drive corridor. The results of
the completed roundabout analyses for both the future morning and evening peak hour traffic conditions
are depicted on Figure 6. As shown on this figure, all overall intersections and individual vehicle
movements would be expected to operate at LOS "C" or better under the projected future traffic
conditions. Dual-lane roundabouts will generally be required at all four of the study intersections. At the
intersection with West Stadium Boulevard, the completed analyses indicated that it will also be necessary
to construct both eastbound and southbound right-turn "bypass" lanes in order to better facilitate these
two heavy turning volumes and improve the overall roundabout operations by removing these
movements from the circulatory roadway. In general, single-lane north-south approaches would be
expected to be adequate at the other study intersections, except on the southbound approach of
Stoneridge Parkway where two approach lanes will be required.
Operational Comparisons: In order to provide a more direct comparison of the expected future traffic
operations along the West Edgewood Drive study corridor, the PTV Group's VISSIM software program
was utilized to perform multiple runs of computer simulation analyses for the two traffic control
alternatives during the critical future evening peak hour conditions. The averaged results of these
comparative simulation analyses are shown on the attached Figure 7. As shown on this figure, with
signalized control at the four study intersections, overall LOS "C" or better traffic operations would be
expected along the study corridor with the geometric improvements described previously. At the
intersection with West Stadium Boulevard, the eastbound dual left-turn movement would be expected to
GBr-\
orch1tects
ung1neors
Page 5 of 6
operate at LOS "E" and significant vehicle queues would be expected on the north-south approaches.
The completed VISS IM simulations indicated that very good LOS "A" operations would i nstead be
expected along the study corridor with the use of roundabout intersection controls .
CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the results of the capacity analyses completed fo r the purposes of this study . th re e
conceptual improvement alternatives for the West Edgewood Drive corridor were developed by the City
staff and project team. The first improvement alternative, attached as Concept 1, depicts the required
roadway and intersection configurations if traffic signals were util ized to control the four study
intersections between West Stadium Boulevard and Stoneridge Parkway. Concept 2 shows the
recommended corridor configuration if roundabout intersections were instead used at each of these four
study intersections. As shown on this exhibit, the presence of severa l existing commercia l developments
along the south side of the West Edgewood Drive corridor creates difficulties in maintaining th e existing
roadway a li gnment and sh ifts several of the potential roundabouts northward . In addition, an existing box
culvert drainage structure located just to the east of the existing Frog Hollow Road intersection requires
that roundabout to be shifted westward. For these reasons, Concept 3 was developed to slightly shift
the Creek Trail and Stoneridge Parkway roundabout locations in order to reduce the i mpacts of the
adjacent commercial properties on the east-west intersection geometries. Also , the roundabout at the
Frog Hollow Road intersection was eliminated with this concept. It is expected that this roadway , as well
as any future Stoneridge Village access drive from the north , cou ld be expected to operate adequately
with only stop sign control on these min o r street approaches.
In order to further evaluate the various improvement alternatives for the West Edgewood Drive study
corridor, the project team utilized the comparison matrix shown on the attached Table 3 . This matrix
provided a subjective means of evaluating the relative differences between the three conceptua l
improvement alternatives based on a number of critica l factors , which included : Traffic Operations ;
Construction Costs ; Road User, Operations, and Maintenance Costs ; Constructability; Right-of-Way
Requirements; Property Displacements ; Utility Impacts ; Safety; and Local Access. The project team
collaborated to assign the scoring for these alternatives , and City staff provided the weighting factors
shown on the table in order to establish their priorities for these future corridor improvements. Based on
this evaluation and comparison process , Concept 3 (which includes the addition of three roundabout
intersections along the West Edgewood Drive study corridor) emerged as the "preferred" improvement
alternative to carry forward into design and construction .
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the completed operational ana lyses , conceptua l design layouts, and alternative eva luations,
it is recommended that Concept 3 be considered by the City for implementation to serve the future traffic
and access needs along the West Edgewood Drive study corridor. This improvement concept has
emerged th rough the evaluation process as the "preferred" alternative on the basis of its expected good
traffic operations, low construction and road user costs, safety benefits , and minimal i mpacts on local
access and the adjacent utilities.
It should be noted that this conceptual improvement alternative includes the geometric configurations and
intersection traffic controls required to serve the projected Design Year 2035 traffic cond itions along the
study corridor. However, it is not necessary for the City to design and construct these improvements at
once in their entirety; there are a number of improvements shown that could be more appropriately
provided as part of a phased implementation plan for the corrido r :
• The provision of roundabout intersections at the West Stadium B oulevard and Creek Trail Dr ive
locations cou ld be considered as the first phase of this overall co rridor improvement concept. It is
GB~
architects Page 6 of 6
engineers
recommended that these two roundabouts be constructed in tandem due to their close proximity
and interdependent traffic operations . To the west of the proposed Creek Trail Drive roundabou!,
the existing four-lane roadway cross-section could either remain as it is currently marked or 1t
could revert back to "standard" operations with two normal travel lanes in each direction . Based
upon the limited crash history over the past five years and the existing daily traffic volume of
around 15,000 vpd on West Edgewood Drive, the current roadway width should be expected to
adequately serve the necessary turning movements along the corridor up to its capacity of nearly
25,000 vpd.
• The planned extension of Stoneridge Parkway southward to its recommended roundabout
intersection with West Edgewood Drive , as well as any secondary connection to the existing Frog
Hollow Road intersection, can be deferred until a certain level of development occurs within the
Stoneridge Village site so that access via only Missouri Boulevard and West Stadium Drive can
no longer adequately serve the development's traffic . At that t ime, it will be necessary to
construct this westernmost roundabout location shown on Concept 3. In addition, it may be
necessary to widen the West Edgewood Drive corridor to a five-lane cross-sectional width from
this location westward to the M-179 Highway intersection in the future , based upon the completed
operational analyses for that intersect ion . This future five-lane roadway section could improve the
access and safety for the existing commercial properties along the south side of the roadway, as
well as accommodate any future access needs on the north .
• The additional lane widening shown on the conceptual layout along the west side of West
Stadium Boulevard between the West Edgewood Drive and Hard Rock Drive intersections can
also likely be postponed for five to ten years, unless developments on the adj acent properties to
the east of Wears Creek accele rate the need for th is improvement. Whenever ul timately
warranted , this roadway widening on West Stadium Boulevard , and any additional turn lanes
needed to provide access to the future adjacent developments, can be constructed.
We_ appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and the City of Jefferson on this very important
proJect. If you shou ld have any questions or need additional information , please do not hesitate to
contact us. We look forward to future discussions with the City to determine the final corridor designs
along West Edgewood Drive.
Sincerely,
G :\ 12971\Admin\Reports\Edgev.ood l etter Re port Hl·2014.docx
Paul M. Bertrand, P.E., PTOE
Firm Principal I Vice President
Exhibit A
Concept1
Concept2
Concept3
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
APPENDIX
Level of Service Definitions
West Edgewood Drive Corridor (4 Signals)
West Edgewood Drive Corridor (4 Roundabouts)
West Edgewood Drive Corridor (3 Roundabouts)
Traffic Volume Projections (Future A.M. Peak Hour)
Traffic Volume Projections (Future P.M. Peak Hour)
Improvement Alternatives Evaluation Matrix
Existing 24-Hour Counts (ADT Volumes)
Existing Traffic Volumes (A.M. & P.M. Peak Hours)
Future Traffic Volumes (A.M. & P.M. Peak Hours)
Existing Levels of Service (A.M. & P.M. Peak Hours)
Future Levels of Service (SYNCHRO)
Signalized Alternative (A.M. & P.M. Peak Hours)
Future Levels of Service (SIDRA)
Roundabout Alternative (A.M. & P.M. Peak Hours)
Future Levels of Service (VISSIM)
Signalized and Roundabout Alternatives
(P.M. Peak Hour Comparison)
(f) <II
c~ o:.=
~0
0 >. <fl_
<~~= -ro {il :::J
~c:r ro ._ E <II
(IJ..c
'-Ol
Ol..C c ·.;:: ro
ro ._
<II 0 ()~
I GBr.\ ___ _ _____ _j
EXHIBIT A
Level of Service Definitions
Level of service criteria are outlined in the 2010 edition of the "Highway Capacity
Manual" (HCM) for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The HCM
defines the level of service as a measure of the quality of traffic flow. There are
six different levels of service for each facility type, each representing a range of
operating conditions. Each level of service is designated by a letter from "A" to
"F", with "A" being the most desirable condition and "F" being the least desirable
condition. The level of service criteria, as reported by the 2010 HCM, for both
signalized and unsignalized intersections are listed below:
Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Average
Service Control Delay
(sec/veh)
A s 10
B > 10 and s 15
c > 15 and s 25
D > 25 and s 35
E > 35 and s 50
F >50
Signalized Intersections
Level of
Service
A
B
c
D
E
F
Control Delay
per Vehicle
(sec)
S10
> 10 and s 20
> 20 and s 35
> 35 and s 55
>55 and s 80
>80
creating remarkable solutions
for a higher quality of life
'®·
EET ,·; ' 1 inch =lOO .F ""' .
' 2clo ,;300 60 100 0
' ( Graphic Scale r eel )
"'f'
~
(
<.
.J/
I
~
··.,.
f
' .. If
I .' ) /
I
'
!,;
TITlE
CONCEPT 1
4-SIGNALS
OF 1 SHEET S
0:
:::>
0
C/)
C/)
5E g
:::>
8
w
...J
0
()
~
()
~
C/) a: w
LL
LL w ...,
FUTURE STONERIDGE ~
PARKWAY EXTENSION. . I'
.,
W"
41'01
t < • • r ...
f -,.e
I ~ t'
t 1 "
'r<
f
.. If
Paul Samson. PE . Eng'ntef
MOl P E-2002016730
Oa: oo Oo ~a: Wa: <.9o oo
ww ..... > Cf)_
wa:
~0
z
0 en a: w u.
LL w ....,
LL
0
~
()
a: => ~
~ g
=> 0
(.)
w
...J
8
~
(.)
~ w u.. u.. w ....,
CONCEPT2
4-ROUNDABOUTS
1
Of 1 SHEETS
(j
I
W' II flO
t
"" ct"' -
If
~-... e
l
I .p ~,I
., f I ...
I
~
,.
'
·· ...
I
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
0.2447
0.5460
Intersection
M-179
Stone ridge
Frog Hollow
Creek Trail
Stadium
TABLE 1
Traffic Volume Projections-West Edgewood Corridor {Future A.M. Peak Hour)
With Main Stoneridge Access Drive at Western Location and Secondary Drive at Frog Hollow
Growth Factor@ 1.0% for 22 years {2035)
Growth Factor@ 2.0% for 22 years {2035)
NBL
335
183
0
28
546
5
1
0
0
6
25
6
0
0
31
35
9
28
0
72
215
53
108
0
376
NBT
530
289
0
124
943
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
37
38
0
225
NBR
230
56
47
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
55
13
0
0
68
50
12
1
41
104
10
2
0
0
12
SBL
290
71
52
0
413
0
0
40
0
40
0
0
21
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
70
17
4
0
91
SBT
325
177
0
263
765
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
22
22
0
134
SBR
275
150
0
0
425
0
0
41
0
41
10
2
20
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
95
23
4
59
181
EBL
75
41
0
0
116
0
0
93
0
93
10
2
47
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
180
44
7
28
259
EBT
225
55
47
0
327
685
168
53
0
906
665
163
46
0
874
630
154
55
0
839
130
32
8
13
183
EBR
100
55
0
59
214
60
15
0
0
75
10
2
0
0
12
90
22
12
0
124
370
91
41
0
502
WBL
55
13
20
0
88
90
22
0
0
112
20
5
0
0
25
85
21
1
88
195
10
2
0
0
12
WBT
195
48
20
0
263
380
93
23
0
496
345
84
109
0
538
330
81
133
0
544
105
26
22
29
182
WBR
135
33
24
0
192
0
0
106
0
106
0
0
52
0
52
0
0
0
0
0
45
11
8
0
64
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
· Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneri dge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
Balanced Existing
Background Growth
Stoneridge Traffic
High School Traffic
Future Totals
0.2447
0.5460
Intersection
M -179
Stone ridge
Frog Hollow
Creek Trail
Stadium
TABLE 2
Traffic Volume Projections-West Edgewood Corridor (Future P.M. Peak Hour)
With Main Stoneridge Access Drive at Western Location and Secondary Drive at Frog Hollow
Growth Factor@ 1.0% for 22 years (2035)
Growth Factor@ 2.0% for 22 years (2035)
NBL
150
82
0
14
246
65
16
0
0
81
20
5
0
0
25
65
16
59
0
140
345
84
178
0
607
NBT
525
287
0
62
874
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
325
80
136
0
541
NBR
125
31
100
0
256
85
21
0
0
106
35
9
0
0
44
65
16
4
21
106
10
2
0
0
12
SBL
210
51
113
0
374
0
0
232
0
232
0
0
116
0
116
0
0
0
0
0
55
13
29
0
97
SBT
630
344
0
56
1,030
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
295
72
144
0
511
SBR
135
74
0
0
209
0
0
236
0
236
10
2
118
0
130
0
0
0
0
0
330
81
25
12
448
EBL
190
104
0
0
294
0
0
196
0
196
0
0
98
0
98
0
0
0
0
0
290
71
23
14
398
EBT
225
55
100
0
380
555
136
117
0
808
605
148
251
0
1,004
580
142
296
0
1,018
125
31
46
7
209
EBR
290
158
0
12
460
5
1
0
0
6
35
9
0
0
44
60
15
71
0
146
230
56
231
0
517
WBL
260
64
120
0
444
0
0
0
0
0
45
11
0
0
56
60
15
4
18
97
15
4
0
0
19
WBT
300
73
120
0
493
795
195
139
0
1,129
765
187
203
0
1,155
745
182
235
0
1,162
130
32
36
6
204
WBR
300
73
135
0
508
0
0
182
0
182
0
0
91
0
91
0
0
0
0
0
70
17
27
0
114
Corridor Improvement Alternative Traffic Construction
Operations 1 Costs 2
Table 3
West Edgewood Drive Corridor-Jefferson City, Missouri
Improvement Alternatives Evaluation Matrix*
Road User, Constructability 4 Right-of-Way Property
O&M Costs 3 Requirements 5 Displacements 6
Utility Safety 8 Local
Impacts 7 Access 9
Concept General Description
1 =Worst Operations 1 = Highest Cost 1 = Highest Cost 1 = Most Difficult 1 = Most Needed = No. Displaced 1 = Severe Impacts 1 = Least Safe 1 = Greatest Imp act
*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No. 10 =Best Operations 10 =Lowest Cost 10 =Lowest Cost 10 = Least Difficult 10 = Least Needed or Affected 10 =Minimal Impacts 10 =Most Safe 1 0 = Least Impact
1 Signalized Corridor from Stadium Drive to Stoneridge Parkway 6 8 6 8 8 0
2 Four Roundabout Corridor from Stadium Drive to 9 5 8 4 6 1 Stoneridge Parkway
3 Three Roundabout Corridor from Stadium Drive to 10 7 9 5 5 1 Stoneridge Parkway
Weighting Factors 10 7 10 5 5 4
The assigned scores are subjective in nature and are intended to represent relative differences between the various improvement alternatives .
Indicates the expected traffic operations, including the levels of service, delays, vehicle queuing, and safety provided with the proposed corridor configuration and traffic controls.
Indicates the anticipated construction costs associated with the proposed corridor configuration.
Indicates the anticipated road user costs for travel time delays, fuel consumption, and crashes; and expected operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Indicates the expected ease of construction of the proposed corridor configuration , including the ability for adequate traffic handling during construction.
5 5
7 8
8 9
4 9
Indicates the expected cost impacts to real property in order to accommodate the proposed corridor configuration, including acquisition of permanent rights-of-way and both temporary and permanent easements.
Indicates the number of adjacent properties (commercial, public, or residential) displaced by the proposed corridor configuration to penalize alternatives which have these impacts. (Used as a negative value in scoring equations.)
Indicates the anticipated impacts and relocation costs for adjacent utilities that are required to accommodate the proposed corridor improvements.
Indicates the overall traffic safety effects for the various intersection control types, based on the number of potential conflict points and the expected crash frequencies and severities .
Indicates the expected impacts to access for existing properties (commercial, public, or residential) adjacent to the proposed corridor, as well as a ny local street system modifications or closures.
9
9
8
6
(April 2014)
Unweighted Weighted
Score Score
All Selection Weighting Factors Overall
Criteria Equal Applied Ranking
55 375 3
55 405 2
60 446 1
GB~
architects
engineers
N
®
N.T.S.
15,408
-5 ,870
9,538-
622
-322
300-
PROJECT NUMBER
12971.00
DATE
5/2/2014
~I § I -~ I ~ .....
..:
0
EXISTING 24-HOUR COUNTS
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES
W. EDGEWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR STUDY
LEGEND:
5 ,000
-2,500
00
C')
00
rxi
5,712
-2,200
3,512 -
Two-Way ADT Volume
Directional ADT Volume
W. Edgewood Dr.
Note: All counts are in vehicles per day (vpd}.
FIGURE 1
A .M. PEAK HOUR
l()l()O
,..._NO>
N('()N
W. Edgewood Dr. Jjl
75 _j
225-
100 I
P.M. PEAK HOUR
W. Edgewood Dr.
GB~
ar c hite c ts
engin e ers
lOOO
('()('()...-
..-coN
Jjl
190 _j
225-
29 0 I
L 135
-195
I 55
llr
lO OO
('() ('() ('()
('()l()N
0> ,..._
......
I
~
L 300
-30 0
I 260
llr
OlOlO
lON N ..-l()..-
N
®
N .T .S .
-380
10
685-
60 I lr
lOO
(/)
(/)
Q) u u
<(
(ij
'13 ...
Q)
E
E
0
0
-795
10
555-
5 I lr
l()l()
(/)
(/)
co <X)
Q) u u
<(
(ij
·~
Q)
E
E
0
0
PROJECT NUMBER
12971 .00
DATE
5/2/2014
500 LEGEND
"--Total Peak Hour Traffic Volume (vph)
Q) L ·E: Vehicle Movement
Cl
~ ro
::J a
0 ..-oo LO
Jjl -345 -330
I 20 I 85
10 _j llr 630 -lr 665-90 1
10 I l() l() lOO
NOlO ('() l()
-o ..:
~ Cl
~ 'e! .Q
0 1-
:r: ..:.::
Q)
C) ~ e 0 u..
Q) > ·c:
Cl
~ ... ro
::J
0
0 ..-o o LO
Jjl -765 -745
I 45 I 60
0 _j llr 580-lr 605-60 1
35 I 0 l() l() lO
NO('() co <0
..: '0
~ Cl
§ 'e!
0 1-
:r: ..:.::
Q)
0> ~ 0 0 ... u..
EXISTI NG TRAFFI C VOLUMES (BALANCED)
A .M . & P.M. PEAK HOURS
W. EDGEWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR
-o > (0
E
::J
:0 ro -(/)
lOOO
0>0>,..._ L 45
Jjl -105
I 10
180 _j l lr W . Edgewood Dr.
130-
370 I l() 0 ...... l() 0
N..-..-
'0 > (0
E
.~
'0 ro -(/)
Ol() ('()O)l()
('()Nl() L 70
Jjl -130
I 15
290 _j llr W . Edgewood Dr.
125-
2301 l()l()
oo::tNO
('() ('() ...-
FIGURE 2
A .M . PEAK HOUR
I{) I{) I{)
N<O ...-
-.:tt---.:t
W. Edgewood Dr. Jjl
120 _j
330-
2151
P.M. PEAK HOUR
W. Edgewood Dr.
GB~
architects
engineers
0 0 (V) I{) ..-or--N..-(V)
Jjl
295 _j
380 -
460 I
0> r--T""
I
~
L 195
-265
190
llr
0 I{) 1.0
l{)'<t(V) 1{)0)(")
0> r--T""
I
~
L 510
-495
1445
llr
0 I{) 0
I{) r--<0
NOON
N
®
N.T.S.
_...... -1/)
(])
?; -(])
C)
"0 ·c
(]) c
0 -(/)
1{)00
-.:t..--.:t L 110
Jjl -495
1110
95 _j llr 910-
75 I 00
..-..-I{)
1/)
1/)
(]) u u
<(
ro
'(3 ....
(])
E
E
0
(,)
I ~
I(])
I ?; 1-
I(])
I C) l:g
I(])
IC
1.£
I{) 0 I (/)
M 0 M I
NT"" N : L 185 J I L:-1,130
I 110
195 _j llr 810-
10 I 0 1{)0 ..-<X)"<"'" ..-
1/)
1/)
(]) u u
<(
ro
'(3 ....
(])
E
E
0
(,)
PROJECT NUMBER
12971.00
DATE
5/2/2014
500
LEGEND
~ Total Peak Hour Traffic Volume (vph)
_...... L Vehicle Movement v; ro w -(])
C)
"0 ·c
(]) c
0 -(/)
001{)
-.:t..-N L 55
Jjl -540 -545
125 1195
60 _j llr 845-l r 875-1251
20 I I{) 0 0 I{)
I{) 0 (V)...-t--r--..-
-o ...:
0:: 0
3: ·~ ..Q
0 1-
~ I (])
C) ~ e (,)
LL..
_...... -1/) ro w -(])
C)
"0 ·c
(]) c
0 -0 0 (/)
"<tON "<"'" "<"'" ..-L 95
Jjl -1,155 -1,165
160 1100
100 _j ll r 1,020 -l r 1,005-150 I
45 I 001{) 1{)0
M"<"'""<t -.:t..-..-..-
-o ...:
0:: 0
~ ·~
0 1-
~ I (])
C) ~ 0 (,) ....
LL..
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES (BALANCED)
A.M. & P.M. PEAK HOURS
W. EDGEWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR
"0 > co
E
::1
:0 ro -(/)
01{) <X) (V) I{)
..-..-0> L 65
Jjl -185
115
260 _j llr W. Edgewood Dr.
185-
5051 I{) I{)
t'-NlO (V)N..-
-o > co
E
::1
:0 .s
(/)
01{)0 1{)..-0
'<ti.O"<"'" L 115
Jjl -205
120
400 _j llr W. Edgewood Dr.
210-
520 I 01{)
..--.:tl{)
(OI{)T""
FIGURE 3
LEGEND
A (100')
\___ ~ Required Storage Length
Movement Level of Service
Signalized Intersection
Level of Service
A.M. Peak Hour Stop Sign Contro l
A* Capacity Per Demand
-ln
N ._
<(00
J jjl
r T -0
~ (")
0
._
0
ro
~
I-
~
Q)
Q)
~
0
P.M. Peak Hour
<(OW
J jj L
..........
"'0 >
co
E
:J ....................
0 ln ~ "'0 ocno ro
-r-C'?L{) ....
L ........................... (j)
A (85') 0 LL 0 0
ln
N -
===c (130') I ..! A* A* J j L .! E (250')
tE (305') _;t tA (25') w. Edgewood tA (25') to (25')
------~~or-------------------+--------------=--~------------------~or--------
0 ( 1 05')_j f 11 A (25')_j -t_._ A* __.__ D (260')_j t_.
o (115')===== l 1 A*-A*-----.--o (340') ,. l 1
A (70')-y s~~ A*____,.,-. &; ~s
ONN . I.{) <DC'?
NN._ "'0 ._ C'?C'? ._._<( ~ LL ._._ wo 00
~
0
0
I
0)
0
~
. LL
' ·. N .PROJECT NUMBER
12971.00 GB~
architects
engineers
®
N.T.S.
DATE
5/2/2014
EXISTING
LEVELS OF SERVICE
A .M . & P.M. PEAK HOURS
F IGURE 4
A.M. PEAK HOUR
...........................
bioi{)
CO'<t..-L ~~~ D (65')
o o w := D (85')
w. Edgewood Dr. J I I ll-D r D (40')
_j 45 .5
D <65) ~ l~ I I r
D (145') == ~ .........
D (40') 1 ~ ~ f;
N'<tCO ---000
P.M. PEAK HOUR
..................
::--iob
10<0o L ~~~ D (425')
W. Edgewood Dr.
oow :=D(210')
J !I ll-r E (245')
E
5 .
E (205 ') =:!J l~ I I r
E (245 ') == ~-.........
E (275') 1 ~ g ~
..-'<t..-
GB~
architects
engineers
___
000
N
®
N.T.S.
I~ 1(/)
IQl I ~
I Ql
1 0>
1 -o
I ·.::
I Ql
..-.. ......... I c
iob 1.8 ~ ~ 1(1)
{) (.) I _L
: A (45') ~ ll-~ I c (25')
c (85') _j 7·7 I-
A(180')-ll 1..-....-..
(/) in in
(f) N N
Q) --g {) {)
<(
ro ·e
Q)
E
E
0
(.)
~ ~
Q)
0)
'0 ·.::
-Q) ......... b c
b C'\1 (1).8 co ..---<( 0 I
-l-A (655') ~ ll-B I D (25')
D (235') _j .li-
A(190')-........ I
I in::--
(/) .... 10
(f) .-N
~ ·;;-;;-
:t
n; ·e
Q)
E
E
0
(.)
PROJECT NUMBER
12971.00
DATE
5/2/2014
:~
l <ll lw I';'
10)
1'0 I ·.:;
I Ql ..-....-.I c
inb1.8 ~~I (f)
{) {) : I
I -l-A (85') ~ L ~ I c (45')
c (100') _j 3•6 I-
A(40') -ll 1 ..-....-..
bit> -o ~~
a:: {) {)
;:
..Q
0 :r:
0> e u..
~
<ll
!!!.
Q)
0>
'0 ·.::
......... Q)
::--b c 0 '<t .8 t:::. ~ (f)
0 0 _L
I L _A(610')
-t A I D (95')
D (185') _j .li-
A (180')-I I:;:---.~
1.{)10
ION
'0 --a:: 0 0
~
0 :r:
0> e u..
:=A (25 ')
B I c (195')
10.
A(45') -
1 l r
..................
it> in
...: ~~ 0
·~
1-
~
Q)
~
{)
00
LEGEND
Overall Signalized Level of Service
Average Delay (sec I veh)
A(65')-
I
:=A (100')
A I~ (90')
7.3
l r
.........
io::--
1'-10 ...: .... 1.{)
0 --
·~
1-
~
Q)
~
()
00
FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE (SYNCHRO)
SIGNALIZED ALTERNATIVE
W. EDGEWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR
co o o L c (25')
J I L -c (165')
c I c (25')
c (100') _j 4•2 I-
A(25') ~ ll1
A(25') I S S <D ....
..-N ......... -
0 {)
o w o L B (25')
J I L -F (305')
E I D (40')
E (250') =:!J
D (135')-
D (25') I
.il r--......... b b <D C')
C') 10 --w 0
W. Edgewood Dr.
W. Edgewood Dr.
FIGURE 5
A.M. PEAK HOUR
I _.... len
1<1> I~
1-<1>
1<1> ~
I~ ~
I ;Q <1> 1 '-
1 ~ -§ r;;-r;;-l .8 ln U5 ~ ~ I (f) ~ <{ <{ <{
___ w __ .E_d~g_ew_o_o_d_D_r·--------r--------------------J~~~_L_~r ____ A{4_o_·> ______________ -I~;~~T·: ___ A_<4_o_·> ______________ ~~~·r ___ A_<_so_·> _________ A_(_25-')-~-_j~~~~(----~-~~-~-:~ __ w~.E~d~g-ew_o_o~d~D-r.
A (75') =:; -=--A (60') ----.---A (75') ' T A (25) =t_ l r-
1 ~' ~ I ~ ~ A (60') -........."' ;::;:::--0-
P.M. PEAK HOUR
1/) ln ln r;;-' .. , ~ ~ ~ ~ !£.~
~ <{ '0 <{ <{ <{
<{ ~
ro ~ ~ ~
<1> I
E ~ E ._
0 ~ (.)
·-len
1<1> I~ 1 -
1 <1>
I ~
1:2
1'-........
ln .--
........ -1/) m
UJ -Q)
~
'0 ·;:::
Q) c
0 -
LEGEND
L A(500')
''-_ 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) ~ ~ Movement Level of Service
Vehicle Movement
Overall Roundabout Level of Service
Average Delay (sec I veh)
~
iii
E
.~
'0
-----$ bi:nb (/)
(\I (\f.-1 ~ s r;;-1.8 ~ ~ I (/) <{ <{ <{
(/) .---
J I i _L c (195') +(.) _L A (120') -A (125') ~I ~ ~ ~ ~~~:~ W.Edgewo~Dr. ~~~~--------------------~, ~~~T------------------~~2 ~~--------------------~~~------~~~--~~ -------=---------------t----------------------~ .-~~-~ A (55') _j ~ W . Edgewood Dr.
A (105') =:; --!-A (110')----,--A (95 ')----.--T A (55') =t_ ll-
1 I I I A (95') ~ -~
GB~
architec t s
engineers
N
®
N.T.S.
-1/) b 1/) CX) Q) -0 <{ 0
<{
ro 'Q
Q)
E
E
0
(.)
PROJECT NUMBER
12971.00
DATE
5/2/2014
r;;-
~
'0 <{ ~
-b
....: CX) -0 <{
?:
.Q
~
I
·~
1-
~
Q)
~ e
~
Q) ...
(.)
FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE (SIDRA)
ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE
W. EDGEWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR
bb LON
~~
(.)(.)
FIGURE 6
SIGNALIZED ALTERNATIVE
................
:::--i'ni'n
li)«>N L ~~~ A(360')
W. Edgewood Dr.
<( 0 0 == c (250')
J II LL " D (255') c
24.7
D (200') :::!J l~ II r
D (225') =:_ ~ ........
A (230') ~ 0 i'n ........ I 1'--<0 ln
T"""C')J'-.. ---00<(
~
1/)
i
Q)
0>
"0 ·;::
........ ........ Q) oro c:
'<til) .9 ss (/)
0 0 I _L_ A (420')
ILL : -A(415')
1 s r D (50')
D (265') _) 11 ·7
A (210')-l r-
A (220') I &;' S
1/) '<t '<t
1/) T""" T"""
~ --u 0 0
<(
(ij
·~
Q)
E
E
0
0
........
Vi ro w -Q)
0>
"0 ·;::
........ ........ Q)
i'n 0 c:
T""" CJ) (/).9
T""" T""" --0 o _L_ A (265')
I L -A(260')
1 r D (1oo·)
D (150') _j 12·3 1-
A(320')-ll
A (335') I r;;-r;;-
-o ~~
0:: 0 0
5:
.2
0
I
0> e
LL
:=A (305')
A I D (170')
A (495')-6·3
A (515')1 l r
........ ro..-.. <Oi'o
...: T""" (()
0 --
·~
1-
.::t:
Q)
Q) u
LEGEND
0<(
L A (500')
ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE
CJ) ,._
T""" •
I
~
~~ :! I fQ}
tO> I~
..-... ...-... I Q; ,-.... -roo r;;-1 c: o
OCOC') N 10 N
t::. ~ ~ L A (230') T""" i U5 ~
........
Vi ro w -Q)
0>
"0 "i::
Q)
c:
m
"''-_ Maximum Queue Length (ft) ~ ~ Movement Level of Service
Vehicle Movement
Overall Signalized Level of Service
Average Delay (sec I veh)
Overall Roundabout Level of Service
Average Delay (sec I veh)
<( o o L A (250')
J I L -D (250')
c r c (250')
E (340') _) 33·0 1-
C (325') ~ ll1
B (340') I &;' &;' 0 CJ)
C')CJ)
........
0
(()
C') -
--00
W. Edgewood Dr.
<( 0 0 == D (235') <( I I <( I <( L
___ w_._E_dg_e_w_oo_d_D_r. __ J __ I_I_~+l~c~ft __ D_(_2s_o_') ___________ J __ ~~~~rf __ A __ (3-50-')------------~~~~r---A-(2-30-') __________ ~tA36 rf ___ A_(2_5_5'_) __________ ~-~~~~ ~~-A-(_1_60-') __________ _
D (200') :::!J 25 .3l~ II r A (240') ==:;: ~ -t-A (55') =!:~ -t-A (255') I ~T A (70') _jl r;gl 1-w. Edgewood Dr.
D(220')=:_ ~................ I I ~ 1 ........
i'n A (250') 1 ~ ~ g f2
GB~
architects
engineers
N
s~s ~ ...: T""" 0 -00<(
N
@
N.T.S.
PROJECT NUMBER
12971.00
DATE
5/2/2014
·~ <(
1-
.::1!
Q)
~
0
FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE (VISSIM)
P.M. PEAK HOUR COMPARISON
SIGNALIZED AND ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVES
W. EDGEWOOD DRIVE CORRIDOR
<(
FIGURE 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
Public Works and Planning Committee
Janice McMillan , AICP , Director ~
July 24, 2014
PPS Monthly Reports
Please find attached reports for building permits and food service inspections for May & June
2014
Permit Type June May Apr Mar 2014 YTD 2013 Actual
2014 2014 2014 2014
Nonres identia l -New 0 2 1 0 3 14
Nonresidentia 1-Add iti o ns , Alt e ration s 9 6 14 8 64 131
Res idential -New 4 2 8 11 32 74
Residential -A lte rati o ns , A dd itions 2 3 19 15 18 98 182
Total Building Permits* 36 29 38 37 197 401
Demolitions -Nonresidential 0 0 1 0 1 9
Demolitions -R e sid e ntial 10 4 1 1 18 14
*Does not mc/ude e/ectrr ca l, p lumbm g or s rg n p erm rt s rssued
Number of Food Inspections Violations
Period AI/ Inspections Food Service Critical Noncritical
June 2014 54 54 1 30
May 2 014 41 41 10 37
Apr 2 014 4 9 38 5 4 2
Mar 2014 50 39 2 67
Feb 2 014 39 2 8 3 49
Jan 2014 6 2 52 0 36
Year to Date 295 252 21 261
Date work Date Date Days
done called in Completed Active
11 14113
1114113
1115113
11 113113
11 113113
11113113 11115113 5114113
11 114113
11114113
11119113
11127113
11 128113
1213113
1213113
1218113
12110113
12110113
12110113
12111 113
12111113
12118113
12118113
12123113
12126113
111114
111114
112114
113114
115114
117114
111211 4
1112114
1120114
112011 4 1120114 5/611 4 106
214114
213114
2/11 114
2113114
2/18114
21181 14
2/211 14
2/24114
2128114
317114
3118114
412/14
412114
417114
41 16114
4116/14
4116/14
4 /23/"\4
Missouri American Water
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
November 1 , 20 13-Present
Location
2207 Schell Ridqe
1822 Cedar Ridqe
Satinwood Drive I Melody
3032 Oak Valley Drive
1901 Bassman
316 Ash Street
603 Meir
Westwood I Wood Cliff
1310 East H igh Street
1210 Edqewood
636 Belmont
2109 Edgewood Drive
1119 Darlene
71 9 Wicker Lane
709 E McCarty Street
2107 Rear Mo. Blvd.
200 Blk Filmore
1306 Emmience
623-625 W McCarty Street
1505 Southwest Blvd.
Maril yn I Oakview
1122 East Atchison
1504 Bald Hill Road
McCarty Street I Manilla
Pierce I Edwards
7 10 Wicker La ne
708 Wicker Lan e
1515 Rosewood
1120 Carol Street
Douglas I Wayne
130 Boonvill e Road
1314 Moreau Drive
3 11 E H igh Street
138 Forest Hill
1225 Hiqh Cliff
1551 Bald Hill Road
216-2 18 McKin ley Street
1408 East Hi qh (Alley)
3 17 Stadium
100 Blk East Ash ley
306 N Li ncol n
Pondarosa Street
2708 Twin Hills
Edmonds I Dulle
Locu st I Walsch
HiberiaiMoka ne Road
104 W. Franklin
1215 Edgewood
1801 Notre Dame
2940 Valley View Drive
2107 Buehrle Dr
1010 Holly
Maryland and Lowell
606 Washinqton Street
Page 1 o f 2
Permit Description No
20720 Closed
20721 Closed
20722 C losed
20723 C losed
20724 Closed
20725 Closed -New Main
20726 Closed
20727 Closed
20728 Closed
20729 Closed
20730 Open-Yard Continue to Wash
20731 Closed
20732 Closed
20733 Closed
20734 Closed
20735 Closed
20736 Closed
20737 Closed
20738 Closed
20739 Closed
20740 Closed
20741 Closed
20742 Closed
20743 Closed
20744 Closed
20745 Closed -N ew Main
20746 Closed -New Main
20747 Closed
20748 Closed
20749 Closed
20750 Open -Waitinq hot mix placement
20751 C losed
20752 Closed
20753 Closed
20754 Closed
20755 Closed
20811 C losed
20812 C losed
20813 Closed
20814 Closed
20815 Closed
20816 Closed
20817 C losed -Driveway question
20818 C losed
20819 C losed
20820 C losed
20821 C losed
20822 C losed
20823 Closed
20824 Closed
20825 Closed
20826 Closed
20827 C losed
20828 Closed
Date work Date Date Days
done called in Completed Active
4/24/14
4/28/14
4 /26/14
4 /28/14 4 /29/14 5/15/14 17
4/28/14 4/29/14 5/1/14 3
4/28/14 4/29/14 5/6/14 8
4/29/14 4/29/14 5/6/14 7
5/1/14
5/8 /14 5/13/14 5/14/14 6
5/12/13 5/13/14
5/13/14 5/14/14
5/20 /14 5/20/14 6 /4 /14 15
5/21 /14 5/21/14 6/4 /14 14
5/27/14 5/28/14
5/30 /13 6 /3/14 6/4/14 370
6/4/14 6/5/14
6/6/14 6 /9 /14
6/11 /14 6 /9/14
6/20/14 6/23/14
6/30 /14 7/1/14
6/30/14 7/3/14
7/1/14 7/3/14
7/5/14 7/8/14
7/7/14 7 /8/14
Missouri America n Wa te r
Street Cut and Right-of-Way
Nove m ber 1, 20 13 -Present
Location
300 Block East High
700 Block SW Blvd
206 John St
102 Vista
1308 Cottage Lane
22 15 Hill sd ale
421 Ladue Rd
505 Meier Dr
Hillsdale and Binder
2600 Jason Road
1101 Industri al Drive
4411 Industrial
321 W il son Drive
Industrial and Jaycee Dr
2212 Oakview Drive
West Ma in and MO Blvd
32 7 Fox Creek
619 Houchin
1505 Stadium
400 Blo ck J ackson
1306 West Main
1120 Lee Street
114 Ridgeway
1502 Greenberry
Page 2 of 2
Permit Descripti on No
20829 Closed
20830 Open -W aiting asphalt replacement
20831 Clo sed
20832 Closed
20833 Closed
20834 Closed
20835 Open -Driveway Issues
20836 Closed
20837 Closed
20838 Closed
20839 Closed
20840 Closed
20841 Closed
20842 Closed -New Ma in
20843 Closed
20844 Open -Await ing street repairs
20845 Closed
20846 Closed
20847 Closed
20848 Cl osed
20849 Closed
20850 O pen -Awaiti ng Street Repairs
20851 O pen -Awaiting Stree t Repairs
20852 Closed
Roadway
Engineering Division
Active Capital Projects Status Report
July, 2014
Projects Completed Since
November 2013 Report ($17,580,995)
I . Proj ect Name : Edgewood Tra m e S tud v Co s t: $47.984.00
Project S ummary: This stud y in c lu ded the Edgewood cor r ido r from S tad ium to Hi g h way 179. T he pre fe rred a lternative arising from
th e st ud v in c lu ded th e construction of r o undabouts a t Stadium. Creek Trail. and the future connection of S to neridge Parkway.
E n gi n ee r:_,G""'B~A'-'----
Critical Path/Action Items: Approval of Studv and adoption of preferred alternative.
Funding Source: Ci tv 1h cent sa les tax and Countv 1h cent s ale s tax
Sidewalk/Greenway/Neighborhood Improvement (NIP)
2 . Project Name: Missouri Blvd S id ewa lks Phase II Cost: $4 7 1.244 .36
Project S ummary : Project cons tru c ted ne w s id e wal ks a long th e s o uth s id e of Mo Bl vd fr om Heis in ger Road to Koh l's
En g ineer: C itv s taff Co ntractor: J.C. In du s tri es
Funding Source: C ity 1/2 ce nt sa le s ta x a nd MoDOT Gran t
Othe r ite m s of interest or s ig nifi ca nce: G r a nt a mount is $37 1.000
3. P rojec t Name: S id e wa lk Re pa ir C o s t: $165.903 .5 1
Project S ummary: Pro je c t in c luded various s id e wa lk re pa irs t hro ugho ut th e C itv.
E n g ineer: C itv Staff C ontractor: Ka uffma n Ente rpri ses
Funding Source: C itv 1/2 ce nt s a les ta x
Other ite m s o f interest or significance: Th is contract wa s te rminated due to lack of s ignificant prog ress b y the contracto r.
4. Project Name: Greenw a y T rail. M c Ka y La k e to South west Blvd. C ost: $137.544 .70
Project S ummary: Pro ject cons tru c ted a g r eenway trail fr om the da m a t McKav Lake thro ugh th e prope r ty of th e Lutheran C hurc h
and terminated a t So uth west Bo ul e vard.
Engineer: C itv s taff Co ntra ctor: Sam Ga in es C ons t ruction
Funding So urce: Departme nt of N atura l Reso urces G r a nt w it h matching fund s c o ming from the donation of th e easeme nt b v th e
Luth era n C hurch .
Other item s of interest or s ig nifica nce : A ribbon c uttin g c e re mon v w ill be he ld on J ul v ?6'11 at 6:00 P.M .
5. Project Name: Moreland AveN I P Cost: S> 197.963 .50
Proj ec t S ummary: Pro ject incl ud ed co ns tru ct io n of new s id ewa lks a nd c urb a nd gutte r ala n!! th e I ?00 a nd 1300 bloc k of Moreland
Ave
Engineer: C itv s taff Con tractor: Ap le x . In c .
F undin g So urce: C itv 1/? cent sa les ta x . G e ne ral F unds . and owne r participation
Other items of interest or s ign ifi ca nce: Tax bill s have been fill ed fo r prope rti es th at did not p re pa v or pa v following cons truction.
6. Project Name: As h S treet C D BG Cost: $57,072.0 0
Project S ummary: Proj ect constructed new s id ewalks a nd c urb and g utte r in th e 300 b lock of Ash Street
Engineer: C itY sta ff Contractor: Aplex. In c .
Funding Source: C DBG fund s
Stormwater
Wastewater
7. Project Name: Hunte rs Run S a ni tary Sewer Repa irs Cost: $3 0 .000
Project Summary: Project r econstructe d th e sanitarv sewe r a lon g Hunters run alo ng w ith the Co le Countv s to rm sewer work .
Engineer: C itv S ta ff Co ntractor: Do n Sche iders
Funding Source: Wastewater Funds
8 . Project Na me: C ole J u nction Pump S tat io n Cost: $6.500.000
Project Summary: Proj ect in cl udes reconstru ctio n o f th e Co le Junction Pump Stati on. The force ma in was re-ro uted to inc lu de a bo re
beneath ri ver and then pipe directl y to th e plant.
Engineer: Donahue Co ntracto r: Goodw in Bros
Funding Source: Wastewater Fu nds
Other items of inte r est or significance: An open house is b e in g planned , no date h as b een set.
9. Project Name: C ole Junctio n Force Ma in Cost: S5 .000 .000
Project S ummary: Pro ject constructed a n ew force main from th e n ew pump s tation to the Wastewate r Treatment Plant. T he new l in e
run s a lo ng th e nort h s id e of th e Mo Ri ve r.
En g ineer: Donah ue Contractor: Rosetta
F unding Source: Wastewate r Fu n ds
I 0 . Project Name: Route B and Tanne r Bridge Pump S tati o n Cost: $1.12 1.46 5
Project S ummary: Proj ect cons tructe d a n ew pump s tati o n a nd for ce m a in to se r ve a rea near th e Rickman Center.
Engineer: Bartle tt a nd West Contractor: Hut chin s Telecom L LC
F undin g Source: Wastewater Funds
II. Project Name: A lgoa UV Di s infe ctio n Syste m . Cos t : $341.953
Project S umm a r y : Pro jec t in s ta ll e d a UV di s in fection svstem for the A lgoa lagoon syste m.
Engineer: Grede l! Engi neerin g Co ntractor: M id -S ta te P ipel ine Mai n tenanc e. LLC
Funding So urce: Wastewater Funds
12. Projec t Na me: A s hl ey Street a n d M o re au V iew Sewer C ost: S56.981 .50
Project S ummary: Proj ect cons tructed sewe rs in th e 300 bl ock of E . Ash lev and th e 700 b lock o f Moreau View Dri ve .
Engineer: C ity Staff Contractor: Ke n Kauffman & Son s
Funding Source: C DBG Funds
Facilities
13. Project Name: Fire S tat ion No 3 Cost : $1 .?83 .000
Project S ummary: Project constru c ted a new tire stat io n o n 1-fi g h wav 179 a t th e C he rry C r eek propertY.
Engineer: Peckha m a nd Wright Archi tect s I C it v s taff C ontractor: Prost B ui lders
Fundin g Source: 1/2 cent s a les tax an d sale ofpr opertv to Wate r Company
Other item s of interes t or s ig nificance : The re a re a few re maining punch li st it ems that rema in to be comp leted. It is a nti c ipated tha t
the bu ildin g wi ll be occupi ed b y the e nd o f July .
2
14 . Project Name: A irpo rt Elec tri ca l Upgra des Cost: $3 75 .000
Project Summary: Pro ject re placed th e e lec tri ca l tran s form e rs. co ntr o ll ers. a nd trunk lin es to fee d r unwav field lighting.
Engineer: Burn s & McD onnell Contractor: Me ve r Elec tri c
Funding Source: C itv 1/2 cent sa les ta x/ grant s funds
Other it e ms of interest or s ignificance: Pro je ct was partia ll v fu nd ed with a $3 00 .000 grant.
15. Projec t Na me : T ra ns it Roo f Re place me nt Cost: S 16 .883 .00
Project Summary: Proj ect included the in s tallati o n of a new roof on th e T rans it office building at 820 Mi lle r Stree t.
Engineer: Citv staff Contractor: Weat her C raft
Funding So urce: C itv 1/2 ce nt sa les tax
16. Proj ect Na me : Demo lit io n o f Buil d in gs o n Mulbc ny Stree t Cost: $2 78 .000
Project S ummary : Included th e d emol iti on of th e thr ee apartmen t buildings in th e 600 b lock of Mulberrv in addition to the old
commerc ia l buil d in g in th e sa me block and a residential ho use in th e 700 b lock of Mulberrv.
Engineer: Citv staff Contractor: Ahr ens
Funding Source: Va ri ous Grant s
Currently Under Bidding/Construction
Ten Projects ($14,560,000)
Roadway
I. Pr oject Na me: Frog Ho ll ow Ro ad and Br id ge s Cost Es timate: $1.4 53.00 0
Project Summary: Pro jec t in c lud es co nstru ctio n of two new box c ul verts on Frog Ho ll ow Road. the re mo val of the exist ing bridge
and th e co nn ect io n of Frog Ho llow to Creek Trail Dri ve.
Engineer: Bartl ett and West
Current Project Phase: Construction
Critical Path/Action Items:
Co ntracto r: J .C. Ind ustri es
Percent Complete : 50%
Funding Source: C it y/Co unty 1;2 Ce nt Ca pital Imp rove me nt Sa les Tax
Other items of interes t or s ig nificance: Cit Y Co unty Coo per ati ve Pr o ject. The Countv bid the proj ect and will perform th e
construction in s pect io n. Th is pro ject will a lso upgrad e th e sewe r lin es in th e area.
2. Proj ec t Nam e: La fa ye tt e and Dunk lin Intersec ti on C os t Es tima t e: $1.0 87 .707 .35
Project S ummary : Project inc lud es the const ru ction of intersec tion im proveme nt s at Dunklin and Lafavette.
Engineer: CM PS Contractor: J.C. In dustr ies
Current Project Pha se: Des ign Percent Co mplete : 50%
Critical Path/ Action Items: Reopen r oadway by the s tart of school yea r, August 14 .
Funding Source: C itv/Count Y 1;2 ce nt sa les tax
Other items of interes t or s ig nificance: Ci tY Co unt y Cooperative Project. Sewe r lin es are a lso be ing re pl aced in the area.
3. Proj e ct Na me: Int e rse c t io n a nd Ac ce ss Improve me nt s to th e a rea o f Hwy 54 a t Jeffers on. C hr isty. Sta dium an d Monroe
Co t Es tim a te : $3 .300.000
Project Su mmary: Pr o ject includes a tr affic s tud y of the area. th e formation of th e pl ans. and the co nstru ctio n of improvemen ts to th e
area in a nd around Hwy 54 a nd Stadium Bo ul evard.
Engineer: GBA
Current Project Phas e: Draft Traffic St ud y Report has been pr e pared Percent Co mplete~ 80%
Ri g ht-of-Wa y Status: Proj ec t will ha ve ri ght of way imp acts to at leas t eig ht pr ope11ies with two being total takings.
Critica l Path/Action Items: Enter into contract with Consultant to begin design of Monroe Street and Intersection o f Monroe and
Stadium.
Funding So urce: C ity/Countv 1;2 Cent Cap it a l Impr oveme nt Sales Tax and $787 .707 of Federa l STP funds.
3
Other items o f interest o r s ignifi ca nce: Ci tv/Countv Coope ra ti ve Pro jec t
~. Project Name: Amtrak Plaza a nd Water S treet Recons tru c t ion Cost Estimate: .$38.5.000 . . .
Project S ummary: Project in c lud es th e reco nstruction of Water Str eet. as well as lt !!.htm!L parkm!!. a nd pedestn an rmproveme nts. The
proj ect is pa rt ia ll y fund ed by a $473 .000 t ra ns portation e nhance ment !!rant. ..
E n g inee r: C itv S taff C ontractor: Stockm a n Cons truc ti on
C urrent Project Phase: Cons truc tion Percent Co mple te: 0 %
C ritical Path/Action Ite ms :
Funding Source: C itv '/z cent sales tax .
O th e r items o f interest o r significance: A r c heologica l in ves t iga tion w ill take place in th e course of the excavat ro ns of th e o ld
roadway.
Sidewalk/Greenway Trail
5. Project Name : C lay S treet Parkin!!. an d Bike Plaza Cos t Estimate : $149.600
P r oject Summary : Pro ject includes constru c tin g pa rkin g s paces a nd a plaza a rea a t Mai n/Clav to improve th e e ntra nce to th e new
M issouri R iver Brid ge Ped estri a n Bridge. T he proj ect is pa r1i a ll v funded bv a $72.800 trans portation enhancement grant.
E ng in ee r: C ity S taff Co ntrac t o r: Sam Ga ines Constru c ti o n
C urrent Proj ect Phase: Cons tru c ti o n Percent Co mplete: 0%
C ritical Path/Action Item s :
Funding So urce : C itv Y2 cent sales tax a nd C DBG funds
Other items of interest or s ig nifica nce:
6. Project Name: Clar k Ave. a nd Moreau Drive S idewalk CDBG Cost Es timate: $320.000
Proj ect Summary: Pro ject in c ludes cons t ru c ti o n c urb and g ull c r a lon g th e weste rn s id e of t he s t reets fr om D un klin to Fa ir moun t a lo n g
w ith new s idewalk a nd th e repa ir o f th e s id ewa lk a I o n!! th e easte rn s id e between th e same s treets.
E n g ineer: Ci tv s taff C ontractor: Ap lex. In c.
C urrent Project Phase: Cons truction Percent Complete : 30%
C ritica l Path/Action Ite ms :
F undin g So urce: CD BG fund s
Other items of interest o r s ig nificance: T hi s proj ect w i ll be funded th ro ug h t he C ity allo tme nt o f CDBG fun ds .
Stormwater
7 . Project Name: Sch e llri d!!.e S to rm watcr and Va ri o us Sanitarv Sewer Improvemen ts . Cost Estimate: $370.000
Project S umm ary: Project in c ludes constru c tin g a storm wate r d ra inage svs te m in Schell ridue at JC Drive. Old Gibler and 90 degree
corn e r. It a lso in c ludes sewer repairs in s ix locat io ns in c lu d in g Roseva l lev and Darlene.
E n g ineer: C it v s taff Contractor: S tock ma n Cons t ruction
C urre nt Project Phase: Cons truc ti o n Percent C o mple t e: 95%
C ritical Path/Action Items :
Funding Source: C itv 1/2 cent sa les tax and wastewater fund s
Other items of interest o r s ig nificance:
Wastewater
8. P roject Name: Bas in 5/6 Rehab Cont ract for Laravellc Int erc han ge Work Cost Estimate: S 1...100.000
Proj ect S umm a r·y: Pro ject in c lu des th e cons truc t io n of a 36'' d ia. sewer fr om Marsha ll and McCartv to Lafa ye tte S treet at th e Lin co ln
Uni ve rs itv ROTC b ui ldi ng.
Eng inee r: Bartl ett a nd West C ontractor: J .C . Indu s tries
C urre nt Pro jec t Phase: Cons truct io n Percent C o mpl ete: 0%
C ritical P a th/Action Items : C itv s taff workin g to p re pa re a contrac t lor Coun ci l approval.
4
Funding So urce: Wastewater Fu nd s
Other items of interest o r s ig nificance:
9. Project Name : Bas in 12 Re ha b w ith c ure in place p ipe . C ost Est im ate: $900.000
Project S umm a r y: Project in c l udes t he repair of old a nd lea king sanitary sewe r main s in Bas in 12 w ith tre nch less c ured in p lace p ipe
soluti on.
E ng ineer: C itv Staff Co ntractor:
C urre nt Project Phase: B id Evalua ti o n
Critical Path/Action Item s:
F und ing Source: Wastewater Funds
Other items of interest or s ignifica nce:
Facilities
10. Project Name: A irpo rt Runway Re-S urface. Fi e ld Li ghtin g Cost Est i mate: $5 .200.000
P roject Summary: Project includes resurface o f ma in runway at a ir port
Engineer: Burns & Mc Do nn e ll Contractor: Le hman Cons truction
C urrent Proj ec t Phase: Con s tru ctio n Percent Co mplete: 0%.
Critical Path/Action Items: C itv s taff is waiting for MoDOT Approva l and obl igation of funding .
Funding Source: C itv 1/? cent sales ta x I g ra nt fun ds
Other items of inte r est or s ig nificance: Proj ec t w ill be partiall y fund ed wi th a $4. 9 milli o n do ll a r g ra nt
Roadwa
Currently in Planning and Design
Nineteen Projects ($30,000,000 estimated)
I. Project Name: Wild wood Ex te ns io n C ost Es timate: $3 .000 .000
Project S ummary : P ro ject in c lud es co ns tructin g the exte ns io n of W il dwood fi·om Edgewood to Ro ck Ridge Rd.
Engineer: CMPS Contractor:
C urre nt Project Phase: awa itin g funding for constru c tion A nticipa ted Bid Date: not vet dete rmin ed Pe r cent Co mplete: 95%
Critical Path/Action Items: Plans have been completed.
Fund in g So urce: C ity/Co un tv Y2 ce nt sa les tax
Other items of interes t or s ig nifica nce: Project is li ke ly to be put on ho ld pend in g discuss ions w ith th e Countv concern in g other
pro ject pri o riti es .
2. Project Name: La faye tt e S treet Inte rc ha nge a t H wv 5 0 /6 3 C ost Estimate: $22.000.000
Project S ummary: Proj e ct in c lud es the cons truction of a new in te rc han ge a t Lafaye tte to improve access to the pri s on redeve lopme n t.
L in co ln Un ive r s ity and JC Hi g h School.
Engineer: MODOT Staff Contractor:
C urrent Project Phase: Des ign Anticipated Bid Date: Septemb er 201 4 Percent Co mplete: 95%
C ritical Path/Action Items: Plans have been sent to FHWA fo r review.
F undin g Source: MODOT
Other items of interes t o r s ig nificance : A ll but o ne property ha s bee n acquired for th e proj ect.
3 . Project Name: Dunklin S treet C ros swa lk Cost Es timate: $40 .000
Project S ummary: Proj ec t includes the con stru c ti o n of a m id-b lock c ross ing in th e 400 b lock of East Dunklin St reet.
E ng ineer: C itv Staff Contractor:
C urrent P roject Ph ase: Desig n Anticipate d Bid Date: August 20 14 Percent Co mplete: 95%
5
Critical Path/Action Items:
Funding So urce : State of M issouri
Other items of interes t or s ignificance: Proj ec t w ill be funded by th e State of M issouri
Sidewalk/Greenway
-t Project Name : Cap ita l Ave. St ree tscape Improvem e nt s (O ld Town e Pro ject) C ost Es timate: $600.000
Project Summary: Projec t inc ludes s id ewa lk. curb and I ighting impro ve ment s a long Ca pita l Ave fr o m Adams Stree t to Lafayerte.
E ngineer: C itv s taff Contractor:
C urrent Project Phase: Pre limin ary d es ign A nticipa ted Bid Date: 2 01 5 Percent Complete: 25%
Critical Path/Action Items/Perce nt Complete: T h is p ro ject ha s be en p ushed back to he lp ba la nce s a les ta x cas h Oo w.
Funding Source: C itv/Count y 1/2 cent sales tax
Other it e ms of interest o r s ignificance: This pro ject is a C ity and Countv cooperative project.
Stormwater
5. Project Nam e : Satin wood a nd Brand v C o s t Estim a t e : S 150.000
Project S ummary : Pro ject includes constructin g a storm water drainage sys tem at the inters ection of Sat inwood and Bradv and may
include inl ets o n Buehrle Drive.
Engineer: C itv staff
Current Project Phase: Des i!.!.n
Critical Path/Action Items:
Funding Source: C ity 1/2 cent sa les tax
Other items of interest or significance:
Co ntractor:
A nticipa ted Bid Date: Fall 20 14 Percent Co mplete : 75 %
6. Proj ect Name: We stwood a nd Bassm an C os t Estim a te : $50 .000
Project Su mmary: Pro ject includes construct in g a storm wate r d rainage s vstem near th e intersection of Wes twood Dr ive a nd Ba ssman
Road and add itional inl ets in th e 900 block of Wes twood.
Engineer: Citv staff
Current Project Phase: Survey
C ritica l Path/Action Items :
Funding Source: C itv 1/2 cent s ales tax
Other items of interest or significance:
Co ntractor: __
A nticipated Bid Date: S prin g ?0 15
7 . P r oj ect Na me: Li nde n Dr ive a t South Sc hool C ost Estimate : $3 5.000
Percent Comple t e: 0 %
Project S ummary: Project includes constru c tin g inl ets a nd a crossroad pipe in th e 700 Blo ck of Lind en Dri ve.
Engineer: C ity sta f f C ontractor:
C urrent Project Phase: S urvey Anticipated Bid Date: Sprin g 20 15 Percent C omplete: 0 %
Critical Path/Action Items:
Funding Source : C itY 1/2 cent sa les tax
Other items of interes t or s ignifica nce:
8 . Project Na me : E lm Stree t at Ve tt e r Lan e Cost Estimat e : $3 0 .000
Project S ummary: Pro ject in c ludes constructing inl e ts a nd a c ro ssroad pipe in the 1400 block of East Elm Street.
Eng in eer: Citv s taff Contra c tor : __
C urrent Project Phase: Su rvey A nticipat ed Bid Date: Sprin g 20 15 Percent Complete: 0%
Critical Path/Action Ite ms:
Funding Source: C itv If? ce nt sa les tax
Other items o f interes t or s ignificance:
9 . Project Name: Be lmo n t S treet Ke rm ac to G le nda le Cost Es tim a t e: S 150.000
6
Project S umm a r y : P ro ject in c ludes cons truct ing inl ets a nd pipe to int e rcept wate r pri or to it jumpin g dri vewavs a nd r unnin!!. towards
hom es.
Eng in ee r: CitY staff
C urre nt Proj ect Phase: Sur vey
Critical P a th/Action Ite ms:
Funding So urce: C itv 1/2 cent sa les tax
Other items of interest o r s ig nific a nce:
Co ntract o r:
A nticipa t e d Bid Date: S umm er ?Q 15
10. Project Name: A ir S treets Pha se II: $150.000
Percent Complete: 0 %
Project S ummary: Project in c ludes con s tru cting inl e ts a nd piping fro m the e nd of th e fir st phase of th e proj ec t to th e int ersecti o n of
Be la ir Drive a nd O rc ha r d La ne .
Engineer: C itv staff Contractor:
C urre nt Project Phase: Design A nticipate d Bid Date: S pring 20 15 P e rcent Co mplete: 20%
Critical Path/Action Items :
Funding So urce : Citv 1/2 cent sa les tax
Other items of inte res t or s ig nific a nce:
II. Proj ect Name: S torm Wate r Man a!!e me nt Pl a n s for Ci ty O p erat io ns S it es Cos t Estimate:
Project S ummary: Proj ect in c lud es d eve lo ping s to r m wate r man a!!.e ment p la ns for the C it y's operati ons s it es in c luding Hyd e Park .
M ill e r Street a nd Pa rks Main tena nce. These si tes were n o ted in the E PA in s pection r e po rt as a hi g h pri01·irv.
Engineer: Citv S taff Contractor:
Cu rrent Project Phase: Awaiting scheduling A nticipated Bid Date:_ Percent Complete: 0%
Critical Path/Action Items/P e r c ent C omple te: C it v sta ff ha s c hosen to und e rtak e th e deve lo pment of these plan s w it h o ur own
en g in eer in g s tafT.
Funding Source: Citv 1/2 cent sales tax. Genera l Fu n d a nd Parks Fund s are a ll poss ibl e so u rces
Other items of interes t or s ig nificance:
Wastewater
12 . Proje ct Nam e : G r een Meadows Pump Stat io n F lood Proofi ng Cost Es tim a te : SJOO.OOO
Project S ummary : Pro ject in c lud es the flood proofing of the pump s tat ion to protect fr o m fla s h nooding.
E n gi neer: Bartl e tt and West C ontractor: __
C urre nt Project Ph ase: ROW Anticipated Bid Date: Depend s o n ri ght-of-way Percent C omplete: 90%
C ritical Path/Actio n Ite m s : C ity s taff wo rking to o bta in p ro pc n v a pprova ls.
Funding S ource: Wastewater F und s
Other items of inte res t o r s ig nifica n ce:
13. Project Name: Hays leton P u mp Stat io n Cost Es t i mate : 5288.000
Project Summary: Pr o ject in cl ud es cons tructi o n of a new pump s tat io n and forc e ma in to rep lace t he current s tati o n .
E ng ineer: Horner and S hriffrin Contractor :
Current Project Ph ase: Des ig n A nticipated S chedule: Percent Complete: I 0 %
Critical Path/Action Items : C ons ult ant is wo rking to com p le te the de s ign .
Funding So urce: Wastewater Fu n ds
Other items of interest o r s ig nifica nce: ROW to construct is s t ill needed
14 . Proj e ct Name: Bas in 5 a nd 6 Re li efScwers Phase II Cost Es timate : S I.SOO .OOO
Project S ummary: Proj ect in c ludes construc ti on of re lief sewer to e limina te con structed wet w ea ther overfl ows. The sewer w ill b e
pl ace d a lo n!! W ears C r eek fr o m th e RO T C b uilding to Rosevall ey and pote nti a ll y a long stad ium to Hi gh way 54.
E n g ineer : Bartl ett and West Contra ctor:
Current Project Phase: Design A nticipated Bid Date: S pring 2015 Percent Complete: 50%
Critical Path/Action Items : Cons u lt ant is wo rki n g to comple te th e d es ign .
Funding So urce: Wastewater Funds
7
15. Project Name: Woodward Sewer Rep lacem e nt (Co le Coun tv Publi c Wo rks)
Project Summary: Project includes cons tru ct io n of sewer in conjunction w ith Co le Countv Pub li c Works storm water and road
improveme nts.
Engineer: C itv Staff Contractor:
Funding Source: Wastewater Funds
16. Project Name: Conve n Abando ned Cole Junct ion fo rcemain to Un il eve r c fnu e nt sewer. C ost Estimate:
Proj ect S ummary: Pro ject in c ludes cons tru c ti on of re li ef sewer to e limin a te con s tru cted wet weat h er over tlows.
Engineer: Engineering Sur vev's a nd Services Contractor:
C urrent Project Phase : contract negotiations Percent complete: 0%
C r it ica l Path/Action Items:
Funding Source: Was tewater Fund s
17. Project Name: E limina te Woodward Pump S tati o n . Cos t Est imate :
Project S ummary: Pro ject in cludes the con s tru ction of an interceptor sewer from the east side of B inder Pa r k to S h aron Drive.
Eng ineer: C itv S taff C ontractor:
Current Project Phase: des ign Percent Co mplete: 0%
C r itica l P ath/Action Items:
Fundin g Source: Wastewate r Funds
18 . Project Name: Replace ABB Pump Station and Forcemai n. Cost Est imate:
Project Summary: Project inc lu des th e replacement of th e existin g pump stati o n a n d the forceman from th e ai r port to the head wo r ks
of th e treatm e nt pla nt.
Engineer: C itv Staff Contracto r:
Current Project Phase: des ign
C r itica l Path/Actio n Ite m s :
Funding Source: Wastewater Fu nd s
Facilities
Perce nt Co mplete: 0%
19. Project Name: J efferso n C it v Police Station II VAC Cos t Estimate: $5.200
Proj ect Su mmary: Project in c lud es evalu a ti on. reco mm endatio n and co~ate fo r t he HV AC system in the Police Station.
Engineer: MECO Engineerin g
C urrent Proj ect Ph ase: Await ing contract approva l Perce nt Co mple t e: 0 %
Critical Path/Action Items :
Funding Source: Citv I /2 cent sales tax
Other items o f interest or s ign ilica ncc:
8