-f-+-+-+-+-+ --1--1--+-+-++-1-+-++-+-+-+-+--+-+-1--1 I r 􀁦􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀀱􀀧􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀼􀀷􀁲􀀫􀀭􀀱􀀬􀁊􀁩􀀧􀁴􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀺􀁬􀁦􀀭􀀫􀁭􀀽􀁴􀀽􀁾􀀷􀁢􀁾􀁾􀁾 zf·.... l---r:; I I. c 􀁦􀀭􀀭􀁁􀀭􀁾􀁾 I
?ft 1-4 1J. 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁉􀀧􀀹􀂷􀁾􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁈􀀭􀁈􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁉 I , ,
LAND SUMMARY FEBRUARY 8, 1991 SUB-BASIN TOTAL STREET DEVELOPABLE AREA ROW AREA (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) A-I 67.48 7.70 59.78 A-2 80.75 10.90 69.85 A-3 208.46 50.26 158.20 A-4 326.09 53.86
272.23 A-5 267.55 20.93 246.62 A-6 181.19 18.29 162.90 A-7 193.89 34.62 159.27 TOTALS 1,325.41 196.56 1,128.85
I \' 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 -------------------------------------------------------------􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁴􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁌􀁌􀁕􀀻􀁬􀁟􀁾.... --------------------...f----i-.rkci'f 􀁾􀀨􀁊􀁥􀁪􀁥􀀭􀀵􀀭􀁾􀀧􀀧􀁌􀁡􀁤􀀿􀀮􀁵􀀭􀁰􀀲􀀬􀁫􀀭�
�􀀭 .. -------l-----r---------------------------------------------: --------".-----------------------------________ 􀁟􀁲􀁾􀀦􀀮 __􀁾􀁴􀁌􀁥􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 . _ -------------􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁥􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀵􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭----------"-------. .-------1-􀀯􀀭􀀯􀁾􀀮􀀴􀀴􀁌􀁺􀁡􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 I _ ! ----_.------"..---.--t-..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..􀀭-----.-----
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀮􀁾 ADDisoN CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE (214) 450·7027 -Post Office Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 MEMORANDUM January 2, 1991 5300 Belt Line Road TO: Ron Whitehead, City
Manager FROM: John Baumgartner, 􀁅􀁮􀁧􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁥􀂣􀀲􀁾􀁾 Don Preece, Director of Utirtties SUBJECT: Sewer capacity in the Fanners Branch Sewer Drainage Basin The unallocated capacity of
the Farmers Branch sewer drainage basin is approximately 51,749,560 gallons per year. There are 412.8 undeveloped acres within this basin with 126 acres in the Les Lacs area bordered
by Marsh Lane, Beltway Drive and Proton Drive. On a per acre basis this capacity is equivalent to 125,362 gallons per year per acre or 343 gallons per day per acre. 343 gallons per day
is a rough equivalent to one single-family detached house or two medium to high density (greater than 20 units per acre) apartment units. If the entire 51,749,560 gallons was allocated
to Les Lacs, a total of 810 medium to high density apartment units or (405 singlefamily detached houses) could be constructed. If the flow was allocated on an acreage basis, a total
of 247 apartment units (or 124 single-family detached houses) could be constructed in the 126 acres of Les Lacs defined by Marsh Lane, Beltway Drive and Proton Drive. If you need additional
information or have any questions, . please call. JB/DP:mc
CARROLLTO I· • .-'6, DALLAS-'
MAXIMUM RESERVED CAPACITY April 1, 1991 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Single-Family Residence; Modular Home; Mobile Home Duplex Triplex; Four Plex; Condo 􀁕􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁾 P.U.D. Unit (6 to 24 Units/Acre)
Apartments (24+ Units/Acre) Hotel or Motel COMMERCIAL Office Office Warehouse Retail, Shopping Center Restaurant, Cafeteria Hospital Rest Home Church (Worship Services Only) School (Includes
Gym & Cafeteria) Supermarket Discount Store *ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNITS 141 Units 164 Units (82 Duplexes) 201 Units 282 Units 282 Rooms 429,000 S.F. 567,000 S.F. 235,000 S.F. 28,180
S.F. 141 Beds 282 Beds 9,863 Seats 1,973 Students 759,000 S.F. 897,000 S.F. *Based on reservation of 18,000,000 gallons per year of wastewater. EXHIBIT C
APPORTIONMENT OF AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY BASED ON LAND USE LAND USE UNDEVELOPED SEWER ALLOCATION APPROXIMATE PROPERTY GALLONS PER YEAR NUMBER OF UNITS Multi-Family 25.4% 13,321,792
175 Single-Family 21.1% 11,066,528 87 Commercial/Retail 53.5% 28,059,680 ** Total 100.0% 52,448,000 **Sewer requirements for Commercial/Retail varies greatly depending on use. EXHIBIT
D
CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE Post Office Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 (214) 450-2886 16801 Westgrove MEMORANDUM February II, 1991 To: Ron Whitehead, City From: John Baumgartner, Manager (J
fjf5 Ci ty Engineert 􀁾􀀧 ('?' Cf I Subject: Sewer For The Farmers Branch Drainage Basin Development in the Farmers Branch drainage basin (see Exhibit A) is controlled by available sewer
capacity. In 1987 the Town of Addison and Farmers Branch agreed that the Town's sewage flow would not exceed 105 percent of the 1986 base flow, which entitles the Town to 615,408,255
gallons per year. When the land in this basin is completely -developed and fully utilized, it is estimated that 2,278,330,000 gallons of sewer capaci ty (Addison Drainage Basin Analysis
-Ginn, Inc. Consulting Engineers, June 1990) will be required to serve this basin. From the year 1984 to 1990 the Town's sewer flow in this basin has averaged 562,960,410 gallons per
year. This leaves approximately 52,448,000 gallons per year of sewage flow (see Exhibit B) available available for existing unoccupied development and new development. Sewer requirements
vary based on the use and density of development. 'Exhibi t C provides an analysis of typical sewer requirements based on living units or square footage. It is estimated that 50 to 65
acres of undeveloped/unoccupied property can be developed and/or uti I i zed unti I the sewer capaci ty is expanded. The next steps in obtaining control of the sewer capacity situation
are as follows: 1. Staff needs to determine an equitable way to apportion the available sewer capacity. It is anticipated that this can be accomplished in 30 to 60 days. 2. The Town
and Farmers Branch need to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of the sewer tunnel prior to beginning design. Staff is currently working on draft agreements and hope to have
them complete for council action within 30 days.
Memo Page 2 February 11, 1991 3. The funding, design, land acquisition, and construction of the sewer tunnel is anticipated to take from 3 to 6 years to compl ete, if nothing develops
to hinder progress with regard to design, funding and land acquisition. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me. /rp Attachments cc: Don Preece, Director
of utilities Carmen Moran, City Secretary
􀀮􀁟􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬 ---_.-. 􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀮􀀺􀀢􀀮􀁟􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀬􀀬􀁟􀀬􀁟􀀮􀀭􀀬􀀺 __ ,:---.,:,:_,:_._-----LAND SUMMARY FEBRUARY 8, 1991 SUB-BASIN TOTAL STREET DEVELOPABLE AREA ROW AREA (ACRES)
(ACRES) (ACRES) A-I 67.48 7.70 59.78 A-2 80.75 10.90 69.85 A-3 208.46 50.26 158.20 A-4 326.09 53.86 272.23 A-5 267.55 20.93 246.62 A-6 181.19 18.29 162.90 A-7 193.89 34.62 159.27 TOTALS
1,325.41 196.56 1,128.85 Undeveloped Multi-Family 95.12 Acres (25.4%) Undeveloped Single Family Residential 78.96 Acres (21.1%) Undeveloped Commercial/Retail 199.88 Acres (53.5%) Total
Undeveloped 373.96 Acres (100%) Total Developed 754.89 Acres Total Land Less R.O.W. 1128.85 Acres EXHIBIT A
WASTEWATER FLOW SUMMARY FOR FARMERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN YEAR 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91* 6-Year Average Annual Flow 1986 Calendar Year Allowable Sewer
Flow WASTEWATER FLOW (GAL) 576,502,070 582,788,100 574,323,100 510,538,800 549,991,000 583,619,390 188,355,806 562,960,410 586,103,100 gallons 615,408,255 gallons Available *4 Month
Summary 52,447,845 gallons/year (143,693 gpd) EXHIBIT B
'" L ••••_·. __ -----'"f' __,_ ._--. -.----'"--'-_'.c -". '\i '1/* Update Servic0 Information * JMl2392 􀁕􀀱􀀯􀁾􀀿􀁾􀀿 􀀱􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀩􀀺􀀰􀀹 :!/-., " j'ViANAGEd Z.l.P Codc! /5244.... 􀁾􀀿􀁲􀀮􀁬􀀱􀀶
:=.;uffix Apt I:m 􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀱􀀧􀀮􀁲􀁥􀁆􀂷􀁾􀁴􀀮 1\lame B[:I....·T 1.... I I\IF: 1 .. 10 ::; t.r 􀀨􀀧􀁅􀁾 t 1\10 F' r 􀁲􀀭􀁾 fix 45:::;;S ::coun1'. J16!::i!::; :art Dt Fr Book SqNo Alt Rt
1 Alt Rt 2 Dwell Seq Cl Rd Stand Water 􀁾􀀯􀀲􀀵􀀯􀀧􀀩􀁕 t1 :?O 􀀱􀁾􀀿 1 (.\ 69:.')00 Miscellaneous Information -Ion ran :f}b 1ar \pt.. lay run ru.l \,uq ;C}P lc t. Water Consumption
Odd Year Even year 232/00 264700 􀁾􀀻􀀩􀀴􀁾􀀿􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁕􀁏 􀁾􀀿􀁾􀀬􀀻􀁾 1. HOO 􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀶􀀷􀀰􀀰􀁕 29660[1 2F:15UU ;:Sl1.!:iUU ;506:300 􀁾􀀿􀀹􀀶􀀹􀁕􀁕 ::>4')[:00 Water Information Lt(
t. : Pump: t1aj.n: 􀁁􀁴􀀢􀀨􀂷􀁾􀁡 : Pi p(!: Refuse Information (.rea;· 19 Sewer Information Area: Dl t'1a in: I"lode: 􀀺􀁬􀁬􀀺􀁬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁩􀁮􀀨􀀧􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀺􀁬 Reader Alert Information
OOJ. 04 DOt·1E::::;·TIC Assessor's Parcels DOl 01900000UI0000 IiJV 􀀩􀁆􀁾􀁃 􀁾􀀿􀀯􀁛􀀺􀀵􀀰􀀰 􀁾􀀿 􀀿 􀁾􀁪 ;:::: F; CJ CJ ::>1(,6UO 􀁾􀀿􀁏􀁏􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁏􀁏 1"11 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀻 C 1\ : 􀁴􀀧􀀱􀁩􀁾􀂷􀀺􀀻􀁣􀁂
:: 3,004,2(J() Y.fff fL ft/l()l1ih
􀁃􀁾􀁉􀀯􀁉 JAN23S2 ," -' ';;5 CC:::;UB 1 . .1 0 * Update Service Information * ::count )0:5:3!:'i Street No Prefix 􀀴􀀵􀁾􀀿􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀩 ::; t r 􀁃􀀧􀁾􀁆􀁾 t 1\1 􀁡􀁭􀁣􀁾 BE:I,... '1" 1...11',1
F: Suffix Apt Zip code RD 75244-2416 Cl Rd Stand Water o Assessor's Parce.Ls 001 01900000004000 :art Dt Fr Book SqNo Alt Rt .1 Alt Rt 2 Dwell Seq , /'1 ["" '...... f 1 ,..,(" 1 .' I
A ·1· ..•:)/;}(..J v,:.. ..J .. to .'. . 􀁬􀁾􀁡 􀁴􀁴􀀿􀀩􀀿􀀻􀀨􀁾􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀻􀁵􀁭􀁰 t..i.on I 79/J 􀁬􀁾􀁡 􀁴􀀺􀀮􀁆􀁾􀁴􀀮 Tn 'f:orma tion ion Odd Year Even year Lat : fan .162400 152800
Pump: :eb 152900 Main: 1ar 146200 Area: \pr 165600 Pipe: 1ay 166000 Refuse Information fun 172100 Area: rul 165700 Sewer Information 􀁾􀀱􀀰􀁤􀁆􀁾 : 􀁒􀁥􀁡􀁤􀁣􀁾􀁉􀀢 001 􀁯􀀯􀁾 :1:1:
1.... i n􀀨􀀧􀀮􀁾 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀻 : .1. Alert Information 􀁄􀁏􀁾􀀱􀁆􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀧􀁲1C \1..1<::,1 ;C'P lct. ·Iov )(,'C 􀀱􀁾􀁪􀁾􀀿􀀷􀁕􀁏 􀀱􀀵􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀩􀀮􀁉􀀮􀀰􀀰 􀀱􀀺􀀵􀀯􀁾􀀴􀁕􀁏 147C:00 147100
􀁁􀁲􀁆􀁾􀁡􀀺 F' t"la i.n : t1:i. r.;c /" :: tv1.1 􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀻 cD:: MiscelJ,aneous Information 􀁾r􀀯t6t6􀀧gOOD '/eJffL I ) /􀀭􀀾􀀭􀀵􀁾 folob 􀀱􀁦􀁊􀁾􀁁􀁊􀀡􀁾
􀁆􀁅􀁂􀀭􀀱􀀲􀀭􀁾􀀱 TUE 16:48 Addison-Service 􀁃􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁲 APPORTIONMENT OF AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY BASED ON LAND USE P.02 LAND USE UNDEVELOPED SEWER ALLOCATION APPROXIMATE PROPERTY
GALLONS PER YEAR NUMBER OF UNITS Multi-Family 25.4% 13,321,792 175 Single-Family 21.1% 11,066,528 87 Commercial/Retail 53.5% 􀁾􀀰􀀵􀀹􀀨􀀶􀀸􀀰 ** Tot2'1 100.0% 52,448,000 **Sew· cements
for Commercial/Retail varies greatly depending on use. "IT 0
. 􀁾 ·C.'.' _ ...•• ' _.__.... '.'._'.•• '•• __􀁾􀁟􀁾 •.• 􀁾 􀁾􀁟􀀬__􀁾 ,. __ 􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮 ,-._.-, •.....:__'_....: _:_,__' ,.:..' _:•.__, ' ....:_._ •. ....:__' ' __' •. _'._ ...
_',__ .__. . ,__ 􀁾 --=_:",',': .• e _ TOTAL FUNDING FOR WASTEWATER TO TRA Cost presented in this table were compiled from Freese &Nichols, M l8' FM 1400.00 100 $75.00 $105,000.00 $0.00
LIFI STA 1.00 100 $214, 100. DO $214, 100.00 $0.00 L 24' , 5300.00 100 $170.00 $901,000.00 $0.'00 : K 24' 1830.00 100 $110. DO $311, 100.00 $0.00 J 15' 1560.00 100 $140.00 􀁩􀁾􀀧 $218,400.00
$0.00 15' 3036.00 51.2 $140.00 $217, 620 .48 $201,419.52 H 18' 711. 00 42.78 $150;00 $45,624.87 $61,02S.13 ':,-A\//,. G 21' 409.00 31 $160.00 $20,286.40 $45, 153.60 F 27' 1327. 00 26.4
$170.00 $59,555.76 $166,034.24 ·fi';' E 27' 3371.00 21.85 $185.00 $136,506.18 $488.?U· 22 . 􀁾􀀧􀀮 D 30' 1634.00 34.89 $215.00 $122,572.06 $228::1'$t.94 C 15' 3330.00 0 $140.00 $0.00
$466,200.00 B 24 • 4725.00 0 $170.00 $0.00 $803,250.00 . 􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁩 A 30' 2900.00 28.12 $215.00 $119, 069.20 $444,430.80 APPURTENANCE COST 47 .$759,500.00 $356,965.00 $402,535.00 ======================
================================= NON-IUNNEL CONStRUe/ION COS I SUB TOIAL $2,888,400.55 $3,313,024.45 $6,201,425 $2,013,000 LAND AND RIGHI-Of-wAY SURVEYING &EASEMENT PREP. ADMINISTRATION
COST ENGINEERING FEE SEUIEeA/GEOlOGICAL SluelES CONTINGENCIES &FIELD INSPEC. NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS -SUB TOTAL 47 $100,000.00 $47,000.00 $53,000.00 47 $100,000.00 $47,000.00 $53,000.00
47 $125,000.00 $58,750.00 $66,250.00 47 $421,700.00 $198, 199.00 􀀤􀀲􀀲􀀳􀀬􀀵􀀰􀁌􀀮􀀰􀁾􀀰􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 _ 41 $150,000.00 $70,500.00 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀷􀁾􀁏􀁏 47 $1,116,300.00 $524,661.00 $591,639.00
============================================================ $946,110.00 $1,066,890.30 ================================== o $2,091,242 J FUNDING FOR<NON-TUNNEL WORK (FROM F&N REPORT)
=--==========================--=== $3,834,510.55 $4,379. 􀀹􀀱􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀴􀀵 $2,091,242.40 $8,214,425 TOTAL NON-TUNNEL COST $5,925,152.95 $4,379,914.45 $10,305,667 .". 􀀼􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀧􀀻􀀧􀀺
. CT&A ESTIMATED TUNNEL COST 56.79 $17,984,730.00 $10,213,528.17 \ ,,;.-:"'.--;:'.; $7,771,20L83 $17,984,730 ==============:=================== 􀁾 TOTAL FUNDING ======================================
============== $16,139,281.12 $12,151,116.28 $28,290,397 57. 05 ;4.2.95 ftL·
\ CONCEPT PLAN: LESLACS Special District Design Standards MXR ZONING DISTRICT TIiOROUGHFARE BOULEVARD/PARKING PLAZA LARGE STREET EXISTING SIDE STREET POTENI1AL STREET POTENTIAL ACTIVE
COMMUNl1Y FOCUS OPEN SPACE 1\:11{J..I ---I_
RESOLUTION NO. R91-111 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $9,000.00 WITH ADS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR METERING OF THREE LOCATIONS IN THE EXISTING FARMERS BRANCH SEWER SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the town is rapidly running out of sewer capacity
in the Farmers Branch Drainage Basin; and WHEREAS, discussions with Farmers Branch resulted in their request for Addison to monitor the actual flows at three locations in their existing
system to provide an indication of the present capacity; and WHEREAS, ADS Environmental Services, Inc. has submitted a proposal to provide the flow monitoring services for a fee not
to exceed $9,000 based on a 30-day period; and WHEREAS, if a significant rainfall does not occur additional monitoring will be required; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS: THAT, the City Council does hereby approve an agreement with ADS ADS Environmental Services, Inc. in the amount of $9,000 for metering of three locations
in the existing Farmers Branch sewer system. OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. R91-111
,i DULY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁾􀁓􀁏􀁎􀀬 TEXAS, this the 10th day of September, 1991. ATTEST: 􀁦􀀿􀁴􀁩􀁾 CITY 􀁓􀁅􀁃􀁒􀁅􀁔􀁾􀁁􀁒􀁾􀁙􀁾􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 OFFICE
OF THE CITY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. R91-111
RECEIVE TRANSACTION REPORT FEB-7-91 THU 13:20 # DATE s. T. NAME TIME PGS NOTE DP 01 FEB-7 13 : 1 8 2149607684 1'28" 2 OK
\ 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭 TO: FROM; DATE; RE: KBJlQaA.lfDUll Via Fax TransmllAiQD Carmen Moran, City Secretary Larry MoCallum, 􀁃􀁩􀁾􀁹 Attorney City of Addison Terry Morgan 􀁆􀁾􀁢􀁲􀁵􀁡􀁲􀁹 6, 1991
Moratorium Resolution se 5 rt Attached hereto is a proposed resolution extenaing the moratorium. on building permits, site plan and d.evelopment plan approval for the Las Lacs area.
The resolution also establishes a moratorium on plat applications. The term of the 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁵􀁭 is three ( 3) 1l1onths, , The moratorium on building permits may terminate sooner,
if the City adopts an allocation scheme. The moratorium on applications for zoning and subdivision approvals terminate sooner than three (3) months upon aaoption of the comprehensive
􀁰􀁬􀁾􀁮 and implementinq regulations .. 􀁐􀁉􀁑􀁡􀁳􀁾 note that the reoitals now indicate the necessity to allocate building parmit.s basad on limited. sewag-e capacity, and that SUCh
allocation sehame may extend to the entire o:rainage basin, rather than 􀁪􀁾􀁳􀁴 the Les Lacs area. In In 􀁯􀁲􀁤􀁾􀁲 to facilitate your review of this document, I have assumed that a
study will be undertaken within the drainage basin to determine 􀁨􀁾􀁷 much capacity remains. You should immediately review this mattar with 􀁴􀁨􀁾 City Engineer. On February 12th, the
engineer should be prepared to tell the Council at least the following: (1) (2 ) (3) (4) Present unallocated capaoity of the Farmer f s Branch sewer drainage basin and the number of
undeveloped acres which would be sUbject to any allocation scheme; The status of contract negotiations with farmer's Branch to increase allocation pending actctitional improvement; An
expected date for additional capacity to be available to Addison; and Identification of approved subdivision lots or other development approvals which could apply 􀁡􀁮􀁾 receive an allocation
of capacity within the drainage baain in the absence of an allocation scheme. Please review this resolution and advise 􀁾􀁑 of any changes needed. TOTRL P.02
􀁴􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀧􀁽 " >' FEB-07-1991 14: 15 FRCIM T041N OF ADDISON TOWN OF ADDISON, TLX.A.S I , FA.'.X NO: (214) 960..7684 TO 9316643 P.01 TO: 􀁃􀁏􀁩􀁬􀀧􀁾􀁾 􀁾ACQ'{70)-..1 􀁆􀁾􀀭􀁜􀀮􀀮􀁾 NUL\'IBER:
( ) 􀁾 3(-FROM: cJDHfJ 􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁇 DEPT: 􀁾􀁗􀁉􀁾 OF 􀁾􀀱􀀱􀁙􀁊􀁲􀁩 '2 PHONE: (214) 450-70 i8 DATE: NUMBER OF SHEETS (including cove1-sheet): COI\'L.)IENTS:
_ UNDEVELOPED PO FAR 2.1:1 􀁾􀁾􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁭􀁾􀀱 􀁾􀁾􀀢􀁵􀁾􀁾􀁅􀁄 PO ACTUAL BLDG. [ ..,... ·:.::.,.::..1 RESIDENTIAL 'PM .EXHIBIT IIAll FARMERS BRANCH SEWER BASINS & LAND USE
PO SPECIAL USE LI FAR 2:1 o .UFAR1:1 􀁾􀁛􀁑􀀩􀁛􀁑􀀩􀁉􀁊􀂮􀀨􀁑􀀩􀁛􀁍. . . . '. 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀡􀁉􀁉􀀮􀁾􀁔===1;:::[􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁌􀁗􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀮􀁊􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀺􀁮􀁲􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀺􀁾
I _BAT 􀁉􀁉􀁾 􀁾􀀮􀀢 i
FARKERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN ANALYSIS PREPARED BY: FARMERS BRANCH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
.: ... FARMERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Farmers Branch East Side Sewer basin was re-analyzed to reflect the standards used in the study completed by the Town
of Addison. The revised projected wastewater flows from Farmers Branch to the tunnel interceptor are projected to be 6.323 MGD average day and 12.248 MGD peak day. The following criteria
were used in determining the revised flows: 1. The Sub-basins were re-aligned to conform to city boundaries and coincide with existing sewer mains. 2. The residential area shown on the
F & N study as Basin F-6 was removed. 3. The Farmers Branch comprehensive plan densities were -used to calculate maximum building square footage in the basins with Light Industrial zoning.
4. Actual building square footage was used for all buildings over 4 stories in height, all buildings, regardless of height, built in accordance with an approved Planned Development and
all buildings shown on approved site plans for a Planned Development. 5. Population projections were based on 100% of actual net acreage minus Right-of-Ways instead of 95% of gross acreage.
This method corresponds to the Addison study. If the Town of Addison study and this revised study are accepted by both cities, the -projected wastewater totals collected by the tunnel
system are as follows: Addison Farmers Branch TOTAL 2 16.099 MGD 12.248 MGD 28.347 MGD 56.79% 43.21% 10Q.00%
PARMERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN ANALYSIS PROJECT HISTORY In March 1987, Freeze and Nichols, Inc. submitted a report to the Town of Addison and the City of Farmers Branch. The report, FARMERS
BRANCH/ADDISON WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR STUDY, presented alternatives Ior transporting projected wastewater flows from the Town of Addison and the Farmers Branch East Side Industrial Area
to the Trinity River Authority 􀁾􀁡􀁳􀁴􀁥􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲 trunk 􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁳 located in the West side of 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁭􀁥􀁲􀁳 Branch. In addition, the report analyzed existing population, land use
and future population growth to determine ultimate wastewater flows from the study area. The projected peak flows from Farmers Branch and Addison were 15.40 MGD and 16.95 MGD respectively.
The total flow from both cities to the TRA trunk lines was 32.34 MGD or 47.6% contributed by Farmers Branch and 52.4% contributed by the Town of Addison. The firm of Consoer, Townsend
,& Associates was retained by both cities to study the F&N alternatives and prepare a preliminary engineering report outlining the most efficient and cost effective alternative. The
report, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR SANITARY INTERCEPTOR SEWER, submitted in July 1989, dealt with the preliminary design of a 4.2 mile wastewater interceptor tunnel from the
Marsh Lane/Spring Valley area to the TRA trunk lines. The Consulting Engineering firm Ginn, Inc., conducted a study and submitted a preliminary report in April, 1990 to modify the wastewater
flows outlined in the initial report 'provided by F&N. The basis for the modifications was to address the removal of subbasins from the overall drainage basin and equitably reapportion
the wastewater flows. In the course of their study, several other discrepancies requiring adjustment were discovered that necessitated further change. OBJECTIVE The objective of this
report is to remove the residential area (F&N basin F-6) from the drainage basin, readjust the sub-basins in the F&N report to more accurately conform to the Farmers Branch city boundary
and existing sewer collection lines (Exhibit A), and project ultimate wastewater flows based on the criteria established in the Ginn study. The limits of each sub-basin were outlined
on 1"=200' scale maps generated by the city's geoprocessing system. The ultimate building densities established by the city's comprehensive report were overlaid and acreage totals for
each land 3
FARMERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN ANALYSIS use were calculated for the eight sub-basins (Exhibit A). METHODOLOGY In order to conform to the criteria established in the Ginn report, Right-of-ways
were calculated as a separate land use in this study. The F&N study reduced the land area by 5% in the commercial and industrial areas and by 15% in the residential areas to account
for Right-of-ways. It was found that throughout the drainage basins Right-of-ways account for from 5% to 26% of the total land area. The, exception was sub-basin FB-6, the' Mobil Oil
Planned Development. The city approved site plan building footages and population. densities were used; therefore, the total site acreage included the Right-of-ways. For Inflow and Infiltration
(I&I) rates the Right-of-ways were included in the gross land area and calculated at 14.02 persons per acre. Total I&I was based on a rate of 84 GPCD over the total drainage basin area.
Development densities within the Farmers Branch study area were calculated based on current zoning and FARis established by the cityls comprehensive plan. Population for High Rise structl,1res,
as well as all 'structures built under an approved Planned Development, were calculated based on actual square footage. In addition, actual square footage was used to project population
densities for Planned Developments with approved site plans that tabulated proposed building square footage. The population projection for all other PDls was based on an FAR of 2.1:1.
Results derived from this figure correlate with currently developed PD's regardless of FAR; furthermore, an FAR of 2.1:1 factors out uninhabitable square footage such as parking garages.
One exception should be noted. The area for Brookhaven College, sub-basin FB-8, is a special use PD and can only be used. for the college. ·According to the college I s pUblic information
staff, the current population for Brookhaven College is 5000, 4000 full time equivalent .students (FTE), and 1000 (300 full time and 700 part time) employees. The projected growth, based
on thecollegels expansion program, is a total popUlation of 6300 (5000 FTE students and 1300 employees). In summary the following FARis were utilized in this study: 1.00:1 2.00:1 2.10:1
3.00:1 Light Industrial Commercial/Retail High Rise Office, High Density PD Single Family (Residents/unit) 4
. ; PARMERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN ANALYSIS DRAINAGE BASrN ANALYSrS Basin PB-1 Basin FB-1 (130.9 ac) is currently populated with a mixture of Light Industrial (8.12 ac), Commercial/Retail
(17.9 ac) and High Rise Office structures (10.7 ac). The ROW totals (34.5 ac) and the remaining 59.6 acres is undeveloped High Density PD. The basin includes a portion of land not included
in the F&N study between Dallas North Pkwy and Inwood Road between the Farmers Branch City limits and Spring Valley Road. The balance of land was part of F&N basin F-5. . Basin FB-2
Basin FB-2 is made up of a portion of basin F2 and F5 from the F&N study. Light industrial is 82.6 ac of the 134.0 total acres for the land area. undeveloped High Density PO (24.2 ac)
and ROW (27.3 ac) are the balance of land area. Basin FB-3 Basin FB-3 is the balance of land of basin F2 from the F&N study. The northern limits of this basin were adjusted to correspond
to the Farmers Branch City limits. A small land area East of Inwood, not included in the F&N study, was added. This basin has 250.3 acres of land area divided between Commercial/Retail
(35.3 ac), Industrial (142.0 ac), Undeveloped High Density PO (31.6 ac) and 41.5 acres of ROW. Basin PB-4 This basin conforms to F&N basin Flo The northeastern boundary was moved to
include a portion of basin F2 and the segment extending into the Mobil oil PO was removed. The basin totals 151.6 acres. The greatest portion is Light industrial (113.5 ac). Existing
High Rise Office (8.9 ac), Commercial/Retail (8.61 ac) and ROW (20.6 ac) make up 􀁴􀁨􀁾 remaining land area. Basin PB-S 5
FARKERS BRANCH DRAJ:NAGE BASJ:N ANALYSJ:S Basin FB-5 conforms to F&N basin F4. The basin has a total of 165.8 acres. Light industrial, accounts for 122.8' acres, Commercial/Retail (6.2
ac), undeveloped High Density PD (4.1 ac) and the remaining 32.7 acres is ROW. Basin FB-6 Basin FB-6 is a High Density PD to be developed by 'Mobil oil. The approved site plan permits
6,500,000 square feet to be used for Office/Retail and 2,000,000 square feet of residential development. The total land area for this PD is 153 acres. The F&N report 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁬􀁾􀁤􀁥􀁤
a portion of this land in the 􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁯􀁾 drainage basin. Basin FB-7 Basin F3 of the F&N study corresponds to this basin; however, the major portion of F3 lying in the Brookhaven
College PD, basin FB-8, was removed. Basin FB-7 has a total of 194.1 acres. Existing High Rise offices acres and undeveloped High Density PD utilize 105.9 acres and 62.4 acres respectively.
ROW totals 15.3 acres and the remaining acreage (10.4) is in the Brookhaven Special Use PD. Basin FB-S Basin FB-8 encompasses most of basin F3 in the F&N study. A residential area in
the Northwest corner, formerly included in the Addison drainage basin, was deleted because it will feed into a different collection system. The portion lying in the Mobil PD was removed.
Brookhaven College occupies 184.3 acres of the drainage basin.. 'l;'he remaining acreage is .divided among floodway and Municipal use (Farmers Branch Police Station and elevated water
storage facility). The total basin is 205.6 acres. The drainage basins were analyzed based on the information above. The results are tabulated and presented in Appendix A. 6
FARMERS BRANCH DRAINAGE BASIN ANALYSIS APPENDIX A 7
CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH June 4, 1990 PROJECTED LAND USE Drainage Area Basin FB-1 Comm./Retail Ex. Office Undeveloped PD Industrial 􀀮􀁾 .. R.O.W. I/I SUBTOTAL Basin FB-2 Industrial Undeveloped
PD Undeveloped PD* R.O.W. I/I SUBTOTAL Basin FB-3 Comm./Retail Industrial Undeveloped PD Undeveloped PD* R.O.W. I/I SUBTOTAL Basin FB-4 Ex. Office Comm./Retail Industrial R.O.W. I/I
SUBTOTAL Gross Acres 17.88 10.76 59.68 8.13 34·.60 131.05· 82.71 19.18 5.01 27.28 134.19 35.33 142.17 7.67 23.98 41. 52 250.68 8.92 8.62 113.63 20.66 151. 82 Gross Sq. Ft. 778,700 468,522
2,599,858 354,300 1,507,239 5,708,619 3,603,055 835,643 218,096 1,188,434 5,845,228 1,539,000 6,193,135 334,000 1,044,740 1,808,672 10,919,547 388,400 375,395. 4,949,856 899,798 6,613,449
8 F.A.R. or # of Units 2.00 883,528 2.10 1.00o 1.00 2.10 2.60 ·0 2.00 1.00 2.10 2.07o 397,261 2.00 1.00o SF/Emp per/Unit 350 350 350 750o 750 350 350o 350 750 350 350o 350 350 750o Equiv.
Pop. 4,450 2,524 15,599 472o 1,837 24,883 4,804 5,014 1,620o 1,881 13,319 8,794 8,258 2,004 6,179o 3,515 28,·749 1,135 2,145 6,600o 2,129 12,009
CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH June 4, 1990 PROJECTED LAND USE Drainage Gross Gross F.A.R. or SF/Emp Equiv. Area Acres Sq. Ft. # of Units Per/Unit Pop. Basin FB-5 Comm./Retail 6.16 268,467 2.00
350 1,534 Industrial 123.01 5,358,338 1.00 750 7,144 Undeveloped PO 4.08 177,550 2.10 350 1,065 R.O.W. 32.75 1,426,467 0 0 0 I/I 166.00 7,230,822 2,327 SUBTOTAL 12,071 Basin FB-6 --Mobil
Site Undeveloped PD Comm./Retail 107.25 4,671,679 1.39 350 18,553 Residential 2,000,000 1,430 3 4,290 R.O •W. (Included in land area) 0 0 0 I/I 153.16 6,671,679 2,147 SUBTOTAL 24,991
I I'· Basin FB-7 Ex. Office 106.08 4,620,726 3,166,836 350 9,048 Undeveloped PO 52.32 2,279,080 2.10 350 13,674 Undeveloped PD* 10.18 443,340 3.50 350 4,433 Brookhaven ColI. 10.41 453,425
0 350 0 . R.O.W. 15.36 669,257 0 ·0 0 I/I 194 •.35 8,465,828 2,725 SUBTOTAL 29,881 Basin FB-8 Brookhaven ColI. 184.50 8,036,968 0 350 6,300 Municipal 2.05 89,500 0 350 40 Floodway 8.40
366,000 0 750 0 R.O.W. 10.91 475,096 0 0 0 I/I 205.87 8,967,564 2,886 SUBTOTAL 9,226 TOTALS 1,387.12 60,422,736 155,129 9
CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH June 4, 1990 . PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS Drainage Equiv.Avg. Flow Peak Peak Flow .' Area Pop. GPCD ··MGD Factor MGD Basin FB-1 Comm./Retail 4,450 34 0.151 2.40 0.363 Ex. Office 2,524 34 0.086 2.40 0.206 Undeveloped PD 15,599 34 0.530 2.40
1.273 Industrial 472 23 0.011 1.00 0.011 R.O.W. 0 O· 0.000 1.00 0.000 I/I 1,837 84 0.154 1.00 0.154 SUBTOTAL 24,883 0.933 2.007 Basin FB-2 Industrial 4,804 23 0.110 1.00 0.110 Undeveloped
PD 5,014 34 0.170 2.40 0.409 Undeveloped PD* 1,620 34 0.055 2.40 0.132 R.O.W. --'0 0 1.00 0.000 I/I 1,881 84.00 0.158 1.00 0.158 SU. BTOTAL. 13,319 0.494 0.810 Basin FB-3 Comm./Retail
8,794 34 0.299 2.40 0.718 Industrial 8,258 23 0.190 1.00 0.190 Undeveloped PD 2,004 34 0.068 2.40 0.164 Undeveloped PD* 6,179 34 0.210 2.40 0.504 R.O.W. 0 0 1.00 0.000 I/I 3,515 84 0.295
1.00 0.295 SUBTOTAL 28,749 1. 062 1.870 Basin FB-4 Ex. Office 1,135 34 0.039 2.40 0.093 Comm./Retail 2,145 34 0.073 2.40 0.175 Industrial 6,600 23 0.152 1. 00 0.152 R.O.W. 0 0 1. 00
0.000 I/I 2,129 84 0.179 1.00 0.179 SUBTOTAL 12,009 0.442 0.598 10
CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH June 4, 1990 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS Drainage Equiv. Avg. Flow Peak Peak Flow Area Pop. GPCD 'MGD Factor MGD Basin FB-5 Comm./Retail 1,534 34 0.052 2.40 0.125
Industrial 7,144 23 0.164 1.00 0.164 'Undeveloped PD' 1,065 34 0,.036 2.40 0.087 R.O.W. 0 0 0.000 1.00 0.000 I/I 2,327 84 0.195 1.00 0.195 SUBTOTAL 12,071 0.448 0.572 " Basin FB-6 Mobil
site Undeveloped PD Comm./Retail 1-8,553 34 0.631 2.40 1.514 Residential 4,290 138 0.592 2.80 1.658 R. o. W. (Included 0 0 1.00 0.000 I/I 2,147 84 ..00 0.180 1.00 0.180 ., SUBTOTAL 24,991
1.403 3.352 Basin FB-7 Ex. Office 9,048 34 ,0.308 2.40 0.738 Undeveloped PD 13,674 34 0.465 2.40 1.116 Undeveloped PD* 􀀴􀁾􀀴􀀳􀀳 34 0.151 2.40 0.362 Brookhaven ColI. 0 0 0.000 2.40
0.000 R.O.W. 0 0 1.00 0.000 I/I 2,725' 84 0.229 1.00 0.229 SUBTOTAL 29,881 1.152 2.445 Basin FB-8 " ' .. Brookhaven ColI. 6,300 23 0.145 2.40 0.348 Municipal 40 34 0.001 2.40 0.003 Floodway
0 0 0.000 1.00 0.000 R.O.W. 0 0 1.00 0.000 I/I 2,886 84 0.242 1.00 0.242 SUBTOTAL 9,226 0.389 0.593 TOTAL PEAK FLOW 12.248 11
EXHIBIT 'B' f)/2J;rFJ 30-Nov-90 Addison/Farmers Branch Interceptor Cost Summary Line Total Cost ADDISON FARMERS BRANCH Flow Percent Cost Flow Percent Cost Tunnel $17,984,730.00 16.099
56.79% $10,213,996.83 12.248 43.21% $7,770,733.17 A $1,103,692.50 4.935 28.72% $316,983.21 12.248 71. 28% $786,709.29 D $762,874.88 4.935 34.89% $266,156.77 9.210 65.11% $496,718.11
E $507,303.00 2.106 21. 85% $110,827.81 7.534 78.15% $396,475.19 F $343,929.38 2.106 26.44% $90,948.68 5.858 73.56% $252,980.70 G $121,432.50 2.106 31. 00% $37,647.11 4.687 69.00% $83,785.39
H $238,389.75 2.106 42.78% $101,980.26 2.817 57.22% $136,409.49 I $773,766.00 2.106 51. 20% $396,195.28 2.007 48.80% $377,570.72 J $280,138.50 2.829 100.00% $280,138.50 $0.00 TOTALS
$22,116,256.50 $11,814,874.46 $10,301,382.04 o The costs associated with administration, financing and engineering management of the water supply corporation Is estimated at $100,000
annually. a The costs shown on this chart are "Engineer's Opinion Costs" based on available Information. a The flows shown for each line segment are calculated 􀀻􀀱􀁉􀁴􀁬􀀹􀀹􀁩􀁡􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁡􀁩􀁦􀁾􀁉􀀰�
�􀀺􀁷􀀺􀁥􀁳􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀰􀀴􀁬􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁨􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁬􀁮􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁲􀁣􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀰􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁳􀁾􀁹􀁳􀀸􀁬􀁴􀁾..􀁭􀁥.􀀮􀀻􀀬􀀢􀁢􀁦􀁴􀁡􀀭􀁴􀁳􀁴􀀮􀁥􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁏􀀮􀀬􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁳􀁴􀀡􀁬􀁵􀁾􀁤􀁬􀁥􀁳 and reports
compl8fed by Farmers Branch and Addison In June of 1990. •
ESTIMATED DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER FLOW February 11, 1991 RESIDENTIAL One (1) Single Family Residence; Modular Home; Mobile Home One (1) Duplex One (1) Triplex; Fourplex; Condo Unit; P.U.D.
Unit (6+ Units/Acre to 24 Units/Acre) One (1) Apartment Unit (24+ Units/Acre) One (1) Hotel or Motel Room COMMERCIAL Office Office Warehouse Retail; Shopping Center Restaurant; Cafeteria
Hospital Rest Home Church (Worship Services Only) School (Includes Gym and Cafeteria) Supermarket Discount Store *Gallons per day (gpd) ESTIMATED DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER FLOW 350 gpd
300 gpd/Unit 245 gpd/Unit 175 gpd/Unit 175 gpd/Room ESTIMATED DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER FLOW 115 gpd/1000 Sq.Ft. of Floor 87 gpd/1000 Sq. Ft. of Floor 210 gpd/1000 Sq.Ft. of Floor 175 gpd/100
Sq.Ft. of Floor 350 gpd/Bed 175 gpd/Bed 5 gpd/Seat 25 gpd/Student 65 gpd/1000 Sq. Ft. of Floor 55 gpd/1000 Sq.Ft. of Floor EXHIBIT C
Table D-3 fl.O,I ESTIMATES PER DRAINAGE AREA DRArnAGE POPULATIOO FWW RATE . PEAKING TC1I'AL Fl.D\l LAND AREA AREA (GPCD) (MGD) FAcroR (GPCD) (MGD) (GPM) (SQIT) ----------Al <Xl1I1ERClAL
0 34 0.000 2.40 82 0.00 0 0 rnIXJS'I1UAL 5,997 23 0.138 2.40 55 0.33 230 4,734,300 RESIDEllI'IAL 0 138 0.000 2.77 382 0.00 0 J11FIL/INFI..OJ 􀀮􀀺􀀿􀁾􀀨􀁾 1,525 ',84 0.128 1.00 84 0.13
89 . SUB1UI'AL 7,522 y 0.266 .,./603 0.46 319 4,734,300 A2 .' CXl1I'IffiCIAL 9,728 44 0.331 2.40 82 0.79 552 2,047,964 llIOOS1lUAL I j.' ' 13,371 23 0.308 2.40 55 0.74 .'.. 513 10,555,914
RESIDOOIAL 0 138 0.000 2.77 382 0.00 0 INFIL/lNFI.Otl 􀀱􀀸􀀿􀁾􀀮 4,059 84 0.341 1.00 84 0.34 237 SUB1Ul'AL 27,158 0.979 v '. 603 1.87 1,302 12,603,878 A3 <Xl1t1mCIAL 21,300 34 0.724
2.,40 82 1.74 1,208 4,484,207 IMXJS'I1UAL 7,214 23 0.166 2.40 55 0.40 277 5,695,157 RESIDENI'IAL 0 138 0.000 2.77 382 0.00 0 , INFIL/INFliN I/){; 3,278 84 0.275 1.00 84 0.28 191 SUB1UI'AL
31,792 1.165 v. 603 2.41 1,676 10,179,364 A4 Ol1I1ERCIAL 26,387 34 0.897 2.40 82 2.15 1,496 5,555,207 rnIXJSTIUAL 0 23 􀁏􀀮􀁾 2.40 55 0.00 0 􀁾RESIDOO'IAL '5;-786.> 138 0.798 2.77 382
􀁃􀁾􀁾 1,537 9,145,858 'INFIL/INFWIl 􀀯􀁾􀁴􀀴􀀬􀀷􀀳􀀴 84 0.398 1.00 84 276 --'-ASSUB1t1I'AL 36,907 2.093 v 603 4.76 3,310 14,701,065 '0 􀀺􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀬 rolHERCIAL 17 ,032 34 0.579 2.40 82
1.39 966 3,423,480 rnIXJsnuAL . /5,700 23 0.131 2.40 55 ( 0.31 219 4,500,065 􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁄􀁅􀁎􀁉􀀧􀁉􀁁􀁌 ' 􀀤􀀼􀁬􀀬􀁪􀁌􀁬􀁾 138 0.182 2.77 382 􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁯􀁾􀁾 350 1,706,656 INFTI./INF1.Otl
3,101 84 0.261 1.00 84 O. 6 181 I---'--Ai, SUB1UI'AL 27,150 1.152 v 603 2.47' 1,716 9,630,201 CXl1I'IffiCIAL 0 34 0.000 2.40 82 0.00 0 0 rnIXJsnuAL 1,425 23 0.033 2.40 55 ( .. O!O8 55
1,125,178 􀀭􀁾 RESIDENI'IAL . ,.....-5.406 .:, 􀁾􀁯 "'0 ....... 138 0.746 2.77 382 􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁾 1,436 6,558,854 lNFIL/INFI..OJ 1; 2,475· 84 0.208 1.00 84 0.21 144 SUB1t1I'AL 9,306 0.987v
603 2.35 1,635 7,684,032 A7 , rolHERCIAL 26,699 34 0.908 2.40 82 2.18 1,514 5,807,519 lllOOS'I1UAL 3,702 23 0.085 2.40 55 0.20 142 2,922,855 RESIDENI'IAL 􀁣􀁾 0 138 0.000 2.77 382 0.00
0 lNFIL/J:NFU:N •• w, 7;\) 2,811', ,84 0.236 1.00 84 0.24 164 -SUB1UJ'AL 33,212 1.229 J 603 2.62 1,820 8,730,374 rorAL ADDISOO 173,047 7.872 4,221 16.95 11,778 68,263,214 I. 􀁾􀁃 '?6
0-9 FREESE AND NICHOLS. INC. l . ' iII, I•I·
HOMES IN MIDWAY MEADOWS 􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁲􀀭􀀺􀁾􀁅􀁓􀁓 AVERAGE CONSUMPTION 􀁍􀁏􀁎􀁔􀁈􀁾􀀩 ADDRESS DUPLEXES IN MIDWAY MEADOWS 1.0.794 /2/170 '-100 ') 9 1 ,) • L_ 1. ,,-.., MONTH::; 1.4.::::47 .10,41:3
1.0.:::::57 1:-5 , I;MJ􀁾􀀵 :::: .AVG Dt4'1 five 􀁙􀂣􀁾 /'16,O<fD COMSUMPTION. POKOLODI MORMAN LEGRANDE LEADVILLE RUSH 4.100 1.4701. 4100 4100 14::::13 14015 14::::13 11-1-01.5 􀀱􀀴􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀱􀁾􀁾
1.4014 404·0 􀀴􀁃􀁊􀁉􀀮􀁾 􀁾􀀿 4014 401. 􀁾􀀻􀀮􀁾 SURVEYOR SURVEYOR 􀁓􀁏􀁐􀁉􀁾􀁁􀁓 SOPRAS 􀁓􀁕􀀧􀁾􀁖􀁅􀁙􀁏􀁉􀁾 SUFNEYOR MORMAN MORMAN 􀁍􀁏􀁉􀁾􀁍􀁁􀁎 1'10RMAN 23, ::::44 /' , ::::1:;'::::
4.7'65 􀁾􀀳 ,1:;17::: 4 , 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀡􀀢􀁪􀁾􀀿 7,173 6. (::.Cl.1 ':"' ') 12 􀀱􀁾􀁾 ';1 9') 99')
.;,-, _.-􀀭􀀭􀁾
.: 􀁔􀁏􀁾􀁎 􀁃􀁾 ADDISON BUILDING OCCUPANCY/VACANCY REPORT February 12, 1990 JAN 90 JAN 90 JAN 90 YEAR TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 􀁾 BUILDING NAME ADDRESS COMPLETED SQ.FT.AREA OCCUPIED VACA.'n
OCCUPIED --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I A3ERDEEN BUILDING 16841 DALLAS PKWY. 1936 329,800 329,800 ° 􀀱􀀰􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾
2 ADDISON TOilER 16415 ADDISON RD. 1987 160,000 0 160,000 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁾 3 ADDISON 􀁾􀁁􀁔􀀧􀁌 BANK 3939 BELT LINE RD. 1985 101,879 90,e79 11 ,000 89.2\ 4 ADDISON PARK PLACE I 4560 BELT LINE
RD. 1973 45,000 18,000 27,000 􀀴􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾 5 ADDISON PARK PLACE II 15000 BELHAY 1980 135,COO 117.000 13.000 B6.n e II IRPORT PLAZA 4500 RATLIFF LN. 1935 30,660 5.660 25,oeo 􀀱􀀸􀀮􀀵􀁾
7 􀁲􀁩􀁔􀁒􀁬􀁕􀁾 A7 BENT TREE 16i75 ADDISON RD. 1981 112,225 62.225 50,000 55.n 8 BANCTEXAS QUORUM 14901 QUORUM DR. 1931 li5,OOO 162,000 13,000 􀀹􀀲􀀮􀀶􀁾 9 􀀳􀁅􀁌􀁖􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁒􀁅􀀬 THE
14881 QUORUM DR. 1984 136,000 119,60B 16,392 B7. 􀀹􀁾 10 3ENT TREE TOWER I 16475 DALLAS PKWY. 1geo 165,343 160.343 5,000 97.0\ 11 5ENT TREE TOWER II 16479 DALLAS PKHY. 1982 169,558 129,558
40,000 76.n 12 COLONNADE-ROLM TOWER 15303 DALLAS PKWY 1985 316,633 293,633 23,000 92.n 13 COLONNADE-REPUBLIC 15301 DALLAS PKWY. 1983 284,288 241,2BB 􀁾􀀳􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰 84. 􀀹􀁾 . 14 CONCOURSE
PLAZA 16051 ADDISON RD 􀀱􀀹􀀸􀁾 43,000 33,000 10.000 76.n 15 CONTROL DATA (S) 14801 QUORUM DR. 1980 114,700 114,700 0 􀀱􀀰􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾 􀁾􀀵 􀁓􀁕􀁾􀁂􀁅􀁌􀁔 3UILDING 16251 DALLAS PKWY 198i
545,900 0 545,900 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁾 17 􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁒􀁁􀁌􀁄 PLAZA 14900 LANDMARK BLVD. 19E5 76,000 67,500 8,500 􀁂􀁓􀀮􀀸􀁾 13 􀁆􀁉􀁾􀁳􀁲 CITY 8ANK BLDG. 14800 QUQRUM DR. 1981 105,000 95,000 10,000
90.5% 19 FIRST GIBRALTAR BANK 14951 DALLAS PKWY. 1982 227,000 IB7,000 40,000 B2.4' 20 FuRUM, THE 4002-6 BELT LINE RD. 19E4 198,769 148.i69 50,000 􀀷􀀴􀀮􀀸􀁾 21 GATEWAY CENTRE I 4BOl
KELLER SPRINGS 19B2 52,000 43,500 B,500 B3.H 22 GriTEWAY CENTRE II 4851 KELLER SPRINGS 1981 52,819 34,519 16,300 65.4\ 23 􀁇􀁒􀁁􀁙􀁾􀁁􀁒􀁋 OFFICE SLDG 16801 ADDISON RD. 1983 70,000 63,000
7,000 90.0% 24 4444 WESTSROVE 4444 WESTGROVE DR. 1985 30,000 15,000 15,000 􀀵􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾 25 􀁇􀁒􀁾􀀺􀁎􀁈􀁉􀁌􀁌 PARK 14601 MIDWAY ROAD 1ge6 297,736 271,736 26,000 91.3\ 25 􀁉􀁎􀁔􀁅􀀿􀁦􀁉􀁾􀁓􀁔
BANK BLDG 4560 BELT LINE RD 1974 45.000 18,000 27,000 40.0% 27 LANDItARK, THE 14BOO LANDMARK 1,°w;-J 160,000 0 160.000 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁾 23 􀁌􀁁􀁎􀁄􀁾􀁁􀁒􀁋 PLACE 14875 LANDMARK BLVD. 1984 67,600
61,309 5,791 91.4' 29 LI3ERTY PLAZA I 5055 􀁋􀁅􀁌􀁌􀁅􀁾 SPRINGS 1982 96,748 0 96,748 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁾 30 LIBERTY FLAZA II 5057 KELLER SPRINGS 1986 119,746 ° 119.746 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁾 31 MADISON BUILDING
15851 DALLAS PKKY. 1934 275,572 235,5i2 40,000 􀀶􀀵􀀮􀀵􀁾 32 MIDWAY ATRIUMS 14275 MIDIIAY RD. 1936 254,000 219,000 35,000 􀁂􀀶􀀮􀀲􀁾 33 MIDWAY CROSSING 15BOO MIDWAY RD. 19a1 34.660 7,360
26.BOO 22.n 34 MIDWAY PARK NORTH II 15900 llIDWAY RD. 1983 66,634 58,234 8.400 􀀸􀀷􀀮􀀴􀁾 35 􀁬􀁬􀁉􀁄􀁗􀁾􀁙 PLACE I &II 4125 KELLER SPRINGS 1982 110·,250 60,2S0 50,000 􀀵􀀴􀀮􀀶􀁾 36
OFFICE IN THE 􀁐􀁾􀁒􀁋 14673 MWiAY RD. 1963 174,150 165,150 9,000 􀀹􀀴􀀮􀀸􀁾 37 􀁐􀁾􀁕􀁴􀁅􀁒 CENTER 5025 ARAPAHO RD. 1984 114, <13l 92,083 22.B48 BO.1% 33 􀁆􀁈􀁾􀁾 TREE NORTH I 17311
DALLAS 􀁐􀁋􀁾􀁙􀀮 1980 46,242 35,242 13,000 73.1% 39 PARKWAY BUSINESS CTR 4950 KELLER SPRINGS 1931 121,198 113.350 7,348 93.9% 40 PRESTONWOOD POND I 14850 1l0NTFORT DR. 1982 79,6B2 73,432
6.250 􀀹􀀲􀀮􀀲􀁾 41 FRESiONWOOD POND II 14B60 MONTfORT DR. 1985 79,682 73,432 6,250 􀀹􀀲􀀮􀀲􀁾 42 PRINCETON. THE 14651 DALLAS PKWY. 1982 371,22B 331,228 40,000 B9.2\ 43 QUORUM CENTRE
I 15280 ADDISON RD. 1986 70,000 56.000 H,oeo 80.0% 44 14860 LANDMARK 14860 LANDMARK 1985 26,362 0 26,362 􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁾 45 S?ECTRUll CENTER 5080 SPECTRUM 1983 597,108 517,108 EO ,000 􀀸􀀶􀀮􀀶􀁾
46 STOCXTON SAVINGS (S) 168B5 DALLAS PKMY. 19B5 39,000 3'7,000 ° 􀀱􀀰􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾 47 SUNBELT I 4400 SLiNBELT 1981 82,35B 70,358 12,000 85.4% 4B SUN6ELT V 4300 SUNBELT 1983 25,643 23,620
1,823 􀀹􀀲􀀮􀀹􀁾 49 TREEPOUlT 16901 DALLAS PKWY. 19B1 43.175 33,175 􀀱􀀰􀀬􀁏􀁏􀁾 􀀷􀀶􀀮􀁓􀁾 50 TRIANGLE PACIFIC (S) 16803 DALLAS 􀁐􀁋􀁾􀁙􀀮 1980 64,000 64,000 0 􀀱􀀰􀀰􀀮􀀰􀁾 51 WELLINGTON
CENTER 14643 14643 DALLAS PKWY. 1935 220,000 200,000 20,000 90.9\ . 52 WESTGROVE AIR PLAZA 4570 WESTGROVE 19E5 60.000 53.860 6,140 􀀸􀀹􀀮􀀸􀁾
' .. 􀁔􀁃􀁾􀀨􀁏􀁆􀀮 AJ.lO·ISON BUILDING OCCUPANCY/VACANCY REPORT FebrUar'l 12, 1990 . . BUILDING NAHE ADDRESS JAN 90 YEAR TOTAL TOTAL COHPLETED SQ.FT.AREA OCCUPIED . JAN 90 TOTAL VACANT
JAN 90 . , OCCUPIED 53 5000 QUORUM 5000 QUORUH DR. 19B4 160,732 120,732 40,000 75.1' 54 5050 QUORUM 5050 QUORUI1 DR. 19B1 130,500 110,500 20,000 B4.H 55 14840 LANDHARK 14B40 LANDMARK·
1983 28,500 18,156 10,344 63.H 56 14850 QUORUM 14B50 QUORUH DR. 1985 89,000 72,200 16,BOO Bl.l' --------------------------------------------------------TOTAL (S) INDICATES BUILDING IS
OCCUPIED BY ASINGLE TENANT SOURCES: BLACK'S OFFICE LEASING GUIDE HINTER 90 EDITION TOWN OF ADDISON, TAX OFFICE lotus\vacancy1 234567B910 11 12 13 14 7,830,041 5,727,799 2,102,242 73.2%
_ 'i January 11, 1990 SEWAGE USAGE REPORT USAGE BASED ON ACTUAL WATER BILLED FOR ALL OF 1989 BUE:; I !\/EE;S US(2\GE 􀁐􀁅􀁆􀁾 ACFi:E 􀁾􀀮􀁾 􀁟􀁾 DO,) 􀁜􀁩􀀨􀁾􀁌􀁉...EY I..) I EW I l\lN
L( IS I􀁾 1.. BO ; Yf:;'hlra 􀁆􀁾􀁏􀀨􀀮􀂷􀁾􀁬􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁙 INN (JCl JO' E;) 􀀴􀁾􀁏􀁉 􀁾􀁤􀀭􀀧􀀴􀀺􀁣􀁴􀁦􀀮􀀺􀁓 :2, iO!3, 000 1,171,:1.11 E;OL.LY'S 48DI 􀁾􀁯􀁦􀁾 l .:'. r·'AY·)/::'-l-···
􀀴􀀵􀀴􀁾 􀁗􀀺􀁊􀀺􀁾 ... 1 􀁾􀀮 '\ •••_ J :.?"OB 96i./·!,OOO 121)3 I 􀁾 PEC(:l1\1 􀁅􀀻􀁄􀁬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁻􀀧􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁅􀀺􀀺 VALLEY OF BENTREE L􀁦7􀀢1􀁦􀀢",􀁾􀀢-,􀀭:􀁅􀀢􀁾􀀮􀁬􀁤'I􀁴I􀁬''􀀯'
􀁜H􀀯􀁉􀀢􀀢􀁉:􀀧::.􀀢 'I 'V''.'I1 I 1􀁁"􀀧·1􀁾.:1􀀡1􀀭::􀀢:. H... .1.'.·.....I.. • o 00 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀮 11􀁾􀀬 ()1 :'.5000 DUURl.m 21 . 􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁩􀀺􀁊􀀮 ·'1. !\ r:.;:1. ::.:,) , 000
../; 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀲 , 000 1. , 􀁯􀁯􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀬 '76:1. SEWAGE WUULD BE CALCULATED AT 90% OF WATER USAGE SEWER USAGE TU FARMERS BRANCH 577,031,200 X 5% -GALLONS OF ADDITIONAL CAPACITY
1987 USAGE 556,505,600 198B USAGE 486,648,440 1989 USAGE 543,433,200 MAXIMUM USAGE ALLOWED UNDER FARMERS BRANCH CONTRACT 605,882,760
, , EXI-llBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES PART I PHASE II A -Final Design 1. Upon notice to proceed meeting with owner to review Preliminary Report and establish a 􀁳􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀁵􀁬􀁾􀁦􀁯􀁲 review
and progress 􀁭􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁳􀁾 2. Establish the route and parameters of the detailed topographic survey and complete surveys using Datum and Bench Marks established in Preliminary Report.
The detailed scope of the topographic surveys is set forth in Part I -Phase II-B -Special Services. 3. '\i Conduct field land surveys necessary to prepare plats and legal descriptions
of all permanent and temporary easements along the route of the proposed interceptor. The detailed scope of the land surveys is set forth in Part I -Phase II -B -Special Services. 4.
"Prepare final design geotechnical report supplementing the soil report completed during the preliminary design phase. The detailed scope of final geotechnical report is set forth in
Part I -Phase II-B -Special Services. 5. 'J Plaris will be prepared on 24-inch by 36-inch plan and profile, sheets of a scale of I" = 20' in plan view and I" = 5' in the profile vertical
scale. Plans will be prepared using C.A.D. method. 6. "-􀁾 'v \,' Plans will include a cover sheet, a location sheet, traffic control sheets, plan and '-\... " :\. profile sheets, detail
sheets, construction notes and legend sheets and standard detail sheets. All sheets will be designed and stamped by a registered engineer in the state of Texas.
7. 8. 9. 10. Prepare contract documents including\, notice to bidders: proposal; special instructions to bidders, 'contract conditions,'vspecial provisions, and project specifications
using the(£SI standa;-􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁦􀁩􀁾􀀿 ::c w__+ 10 re.v;<.J,V w 􀁾 􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀮􀁾􀀮 􀀢􀀭􀁲􀁾􀁾 f!4.f",-;r : /Prepare the required documents to obtain approval of all governmental authorities
having jurisdiction over the design and/or operation of the Project and all public and private utilities including pipeline transmission companies affected by the Project; obtain the
signatures of representatives of such governmental authorities and public utili·t·ies; 0bta'm the S.Ignatures 0 f Cl'ty 0 ffiC10a1s• s«P.f(HP􀁾 r . ? . 􀁦􀀺􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀯􀀧􀁏􀁎􀀮􀀮􀀭 􀁾􀀬􀁱􀀬􀁉􀁾􀁓
, .,. 􀁾􀁁 􀁾 -rwc;... 1 Design the Project in compliance with the requirements of all applicable laws, codes and regulations, including the City of Farmers Branch Building Code (which
is expressly made applicable to this Project); make all revisions to the plans, specifications and other contract documents necessary to provide clarifications or to correct discrepancies;
provide documents necessary for obtaining a City building pennit for the Project; The plans and specifications shall conform to all applicable federal and state regulations. ,we. -nsiJ
? Deliver to the Cities at the 90% and 100% completion stages of Phase II a detailed cost estimate and five (5) copies of all the reports, recommendations, analyses, specifications,
plans and drawings (including working drawings) or as may be modified by Exhibit "A", Scope of Services. /?#'􀀵􀁾􀀭4.P-P z 􀁣􀁲􀀻􀁾􀀵 11. Assist the Cities in securing bids for the construction
of the Project based upon the construction documents; attend prebid conferences; assist 􀁴􀁨􀁾 evaluating the bid proposals; prepare tabulations of bids received; and furnish the City
20 copies of the bid tabulation and a written recommendation for the award of a construction contract for the project; 􀀮􀀯􀁊􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁴􀁤􀀺􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁓 }􀁾
12. Issue all required addenda to revise the plans, specifications and other contract documents in order to (i) provide clarifications; (ll) correct discrepancies; (iii) correct errors
and/or omissions; or (iv) reflect changes in design requirements and/or field conditions. 1.0-"" 13. Upon completion of all the items in Phase III, Engineer shall deliver to City original
tracings of construction plans, bid documents, preliminary plans, copies of all field work, and twenty (20) full-size set of prints. 3 rd'1 􀁾􀁲􀁊􀀮􀁤 /$(JA"-' PHASE II -B -Special Services
A. SURVEYING Perform field surveys and provide office support relative to surveying required to obtain horizontal and vertical data along the proposed interceptor sewer line, prepare
temporary and permanent easements, and to prepare a working plan layout on CADD. Specific tasks are as follows: 1. Horizontal Control -Establish a baseline on a location near the centerline
of the proposed interceptor sewer. A representive from CT&A will assist L/JA in identification of the shaft locations (PI's) on the baseline. The baseline will be staked at 100' station
intetvals. PI's will be referenced with points outside the construction area for re-establishment during construction. 2. Topography -Obtain complete planimetric topography with ties
to streets, buildings, trees, utilities, etc. This topo will be obtained from ROW to ROW or for a width of 150' (75' each side of the baseline) when on new location. Invert elevations
of underground utilities will be obtained where accessible. Elevations will be obtained along utilities at locations probed or uncovered by utility companies. ::r􀁾 -#-,"..5 􀁴􀁦􀁬􀀯􀁾􀀮􀁫􀁉􀀯􀀯􀀿
3. Profiles and Cross Sections -Obtain elevations along the baseline at 100' station intetvals. At creek, street, railroad, and highway crossings, obtain
4. addition cross sections as appropriate to represent the surface. At shaft locations, establish a 20' grid for a width of approximately 60' x 80' and obtain elevations on the grid
points. ; ROW/Easements -Research property information (plats, right of way plans, metes & bounds descriptions). Tie property comers, fences, etc. to define the existing street right
of way. Prepare a working sketch of existing street right of way and properties which are crossed by the interceptor sewer line. Perform boundary analysis and computations to define
the permanent easements required for the line (estimated 20 easements) and temporary easements at shaft locations (estimated 15 easements). Prepare individual plats and metes and bounds
descriptions for each easement. Stake the limits of the easements in a semi-permanent manner as required by the cities. B. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Perform final geotechnical services
to provide soil borings, tests and reports in accordance with the following specific tasks: 'v 1. Test Test borings will be drilled at approximately SOO-feet intervals along the recommended.
􀁾􀀮 Alignment to depths below the proposed sewer invert. A total of 37 borings to total depths of 25 to 100 feet are proposed as summarized in Taple l. Boring logs and related information
from the preliminary geotechnical report will be used to fill in the information base along the alignment. 3. Cohesive soils will be sampled with thin-walled tube samplers. Standard
penetrations tests will be performed on very sandy or cohesionless soils. The sampling intervals will be at each change in material or a maximum of five feet. The unweathered Eagle Ford
Shale will be continuously cored with double-tube core barrels and appropriate bits. All samples will be extruded in the field and packaged to protect them from disturbance and preserve
their in-situ moisture content.
4. Field penneability tests by the pressure packer method will be perfonned at selected locations in the shale bedrock to evaluate in-situ penneability. Small-diameter (2-inch PVC) groundwater
observations wells will be installed at selected locations, primarily in the overburden soils, for longtenn groundwater level measurements. Field penneability tests by the bailing and
recovery method will be perfonned in these observation wells to evaluate in-situ penneability. 5. All borings will be grouted following completion of drilling. 6. An experienced field
geologist will be assigned to each drilling rig to log the borings, perfonn field tests, assist in access and utility clearances at boring sites, and perfonn related duties. It is also
anticipated that barricades and traffic control assistance will be needed at several locations. 7. Ground surface elevations and locations will be provided for each of the test borings
(final and preliminary). 8. Laboratory tests will be perfonned on representative samples to to establish the pertinent engineering properties of the various soil and rock strata. For
soil samples, the following tests are anticipated: Natural moisture content Dry unit weight Atterberg limits and linear shrinkage Grain-size analysis Unconfined compression Triaxial
shear Direct shear Absorption swell
For rock core samples, the following tests are anticipated: Natural moisture content Dry unit weight Unconfined compression Triaxial compression Absorption swell Atterberg limits These
tests will be performed in general accordance with ASTM and IRSM methods. It is also proposed to perform a limited program of special tests to further evaluate the rock durability, hardness,
and mineralogy. Additional types of tests for both soil and rock samples may be performed depending on conditions encountered. 9. The results of all field and laboratory studies will
be compiled into an engineering report with our comments and recommendations on various appropriate design parameters. These will include, as a minimum, the following: o Test boring
logs and discussion of soil and rock stratigraphy o Interpretive subsurface profile along the alignment o Discussion of geologic and hydrogeologic conditions including groundwater levels
o Laboratory test results and discussion of engineering properties of soil and rock materials. materials. o Geotechnical engineering comments and recommendations, including dewatering
(open cut, shafts, and tunnel) soil bearing and settlement in cut and cover segment "'J -pipe bedding and backfill "" design parameters for excavation support
cut and cover excavation slopes estimated ground movements monitoring and instrumentation PHASE III -Construction The Engineer shall provide professional services during construction
to assist in obtaining a complete Project in accordance with the purpose and intent of the contract documents. Phase III services shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Participate in pre-construction conferences and assist with the preparation of a contract between the City and the successful bidder; 2. Provide a full time resident engineer and
assistant field engineers as required to provide construction management and onsite construction observation services. 3. Jay Dee Contractors Inc. will assist Consoer Townsend & Associates
during construction Phase Services and will provide at least one full time representative as part of the onsite personnel referred to in Paragraph 1 above. Both Consoer Townsend and
Jay Dee Contractors will assign a project manager to interface between the contractor, the cities and resident engineers and attend monthly progress meetings and any other meetings as
required. 4. Administer construction contracts and prepare monthly progress reports, minutes of meetings, daily diaries, review and monitor contractor's CPM 􀁾 schedule adherence and
project progress, and check and recommend approval of contractors pay estimates. 5. Review, prepare, make recommendations, execute, and administer contract changes including field change
orders and engineering design changes.
6. Review and recommend approval of contractor's submittals and schedules including shop drawings and coordinate during construction to minimize the impact of traffic disruption or dust
conditions to the local populace. 7. Arrange for, and coordinate as required, all independent testing or laboratory services necessary for the project and review and administer, as needed,
in accordance with the test results. 8. Coordinate with contractor, utility companies and owners public works departments to minimize disruption of utilities caused by or required by
construction operations. 9. No less than 30 days and no more than 45 days before the expiration of the guarantee period established by the construction contract documents, the Engineer,
in company with the cities, shall inspect the construction site. Within fourteen days after such inspection the Engineer shall furnish the cities with a written report enumerating items
which require repair or replacement as provided under the guarantee and warranty provisions of the contract documents; 10. Provide two sets of "as-built" reproducible record prints of
drawings, which shall become the property of the cities corrected to show significant changes made in the work during the construction of the Project. Such corrections shall be based
upon " as-built" prints, drawings, field sketches and other data furnished to the Engineer by the City and the contractor, upon change orders issued during construction, and upon on-site
observations of the Engineer.
JarlLJary 22, 19'?O 􀁔􀁯􀁾 􀀻􀀺􀁾􀁵􀀮 bj 􂂬􀀧􀁾􀁣 t : I;:on !;,Ihi t.(·?head Don F' 􀀱􀀧􀂷􀁴􀀺􀀿􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀺 􀁅􀁾 Undeveloped Area Carmen and I totaled all of the undeveloped area
that drains to the Farmers Branch sewer drainage area. There are a total of /1 '1 ,.\ n ." ... I'" "" c' .... 1: "1 .... '1' i'" ·1..· "r", r', -, .... w.. ;::.,J,. .., ,.' r" .j 1"'1
, .. 􀁴􀀢􀁾􀀬 l ...,r" L '" ,'.. C" .., or' ,., ., '1' J .•,::.• C, <",l... "': •.l U', ...", ... _. , 􀁊􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀯􀁦􀁥􀀢􀀱􀀢􀀢 c" t 􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀮 c.. ,<'.. ,.. t7,"" . <::<\....:>
0:,; r:.. ,,:< • 􀁡􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁡􀁖􂂬􀂷􀀺􀁾 ,::\ to t2\ 1 C) f ::5:L!1 "749 , 􀁾􀀩􀀶􀀰 a v.:::\ i }, a b 1􂂬􀀻􀁾 q a 11 􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀺􀀵 0 'f ,:,\d d i t,:L on';::ll sew2qe for this area.
If we allocate on a per acre basis this gives a total of 125,362 gallons per acre per year. 10,446 gallons per month, and only 343 gallon per acre per day. If I may be of any further
help please call me.
ALLOWABLE INCREASE OVER 1989 USAGE WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR I I\lF' I i.... 􀁔􀁦􀁾􀀨􀁾􀁔 I UN APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES OF HIGH RISE NOT OCCUPIED GALLONS OF POTENTIAL SEWAGE USAGE APPROXIMATELY
50 ACRES OF OFFICE SHOW ROOM NOT OCCUPIED OR 􀀲􀁾􀀷􀀰􀀰􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰 GALLONS OF POTENTIAL SEWAGE USAGE MISCELLANEOUS UNOCCUPIED USAGES 􀀱􀁾􀀰􀀰􀀰􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰 TOTAL POTENTIAL UNOCCUPIED USAGE
10,700,000 SEWAGE POTENTIAL ACTUAL EXPANSION ALLOWED ABOVE 1989 SEWAGE USAGE 􀀶􀀲􀁾􀀴􀀴􀀹􀀬􀀵􀀶􀀰 􀀱􀀰􀀬􀀷􀀰􀀰􀁾􀀰􀀰􀀰 = 51,749,560 WITHOUT ANY INFILTRATION CONSIDERED ANNUAL USAGE PER
ACRE BASED ON CURRENT USAGE SMALL HOTEL --------1,523,180 GALLONS PER ACRE YEAR RESTAURANT ----------􀀱􀁾􀀱􀀶􀀲􀀬􀀹􀀰􀀱 GALLONS PER ACRE YEAR CONDOS & APTS. -------1,397,940 GALLONS
PER ACRE YEAR HIGH RISE OFFICE -----􀀸􀀷􀀵􀁾􀀳􀀶􀀷 GALLONS PER ACRE YEAR 55,000 GALLONS PER ACRE YEAR SINGLE FAMILY -----240,000 GALLONS PER ACRE YEAR SINGLE FAMILY BASED ON 5 UNITS
PER ACRE 4000 GAL. USAGE PER MONTH IF LES LACS DEVELOPED TOTALLY AS IT IS ZONED THE SEWAGE USAGE !A)(A)(JUI..J) :E1E: HIGH RISE OFFICE 875,367 GALLONS X 􀁲􀀺􀀱􀁻􀁾􀁌􀁉􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁄􀁉􀁜􀁉􀁾􀀳
F'E::!:;;: 􀁙􀁅􀀨􀀮􀂥􀁾 73.6 ACRES =64,427,011 CONDO'S & APARTMENTS 1,359,810 GALLONS X 94.1 ACRES = 􀁇􀀨􀁾􀁉􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁌􀁕􀁎􀁓 􀁐􀁅􀁆􀁾 􀁙􀁅􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀨􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁲􀁾 TOTAL SEWAGE REQUIREMENT
FOR LES LACS
-􀁾 -' .." .' -, )\ 􀀯􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁙 .􀁾􀀾􀁪j;t 􀀺􀁾 . .J.<... -/".. I. Ii,: _ l:i·. =_.: I\" /"'--,--I SCALE: o 2000 4000 FEET I : I 􀁾NI FIGURE I SITE VICINITY MAP PROPOSED WASTEWATER
TUNNEL SWL 89-229 ._ •.. ._._. .. M '44 • Ii...... bi' i 􀀮􀁾 """,__ "."l!""'""""---'.,:."
JANSING ASSOCIATES, INC. 8701 N. Mopac, Suite 265 Austin, Texas 78759 . 512-338-1974 i_oj _oj JOB---------_ SHEET NO. 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 OF _CALCULATED By DATE _ CHECKED By DATE _ SCALE__􀁾 -----_
SHEET NO.--OF_-_ CHECKEDBY DATE _ JOB--_ JANSING ASSOCIATES, INC. 8701 N. Mopac, Suite 265 Austin, Texas 78759 . 512-338-1974 CALCULATED BY _ DATE _ SCALE -_ ....J D" ··· '0""0 ..9"-\')"U,)
... 1" 􀁾 ",,;'" 􀁩􀁾 (S'. .."\ ...􀁾 ..... ,. ...􀁾 􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾 􀀺􀁾...... , ..... , ..-, .,... 􀁾\)'\. 􀁾 ..􀁾 -.! 1... i ; 􀁾 ---·... 1 .J .. 􀁾􀁟􀀮 !.,--
--------􀁲􀀭􀁻􀁝􀀮􀀩􀁊􀁤􀁬􀁕􀀭􀁾 ---􀁳􀂣􀁾􀁄􀁌􀀭 _SecJ.e/2 .-􀁧􀀿􀁻􀁷􀁬􀀮􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁟􀁥􀁣􀁾􀁾 t:----y. 􀀬􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀬􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮 --11iFab/Yl􀁥􀀯􀀩􀀭􀁾􀀮 ----2/'t:l--ru:..l--II
J. _ J J f,'v:o/.{. 􀁾 '. -------------􀁲􀁳􀀭􀁳􀁴􀀺􀀼􀀮􀀮􀁮􀀧􀁬􀀯􀁴􀁴􀁾􀀮􀀵􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁪􀀩􀁥 􀁶􀀮􀁥􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁐􀀱􀀭􀁾􀁡􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀱􀀮􀀮 cJ'<-􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁲􀁾􀁦􀁥􀀬􀀭 '7 􀀭􀀮􀀺􀁹􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀶􀁌􀁯􀀯􀁲􀁾􀁓􀁓􀁾􀁥􀀺􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀻
.. .... .... .. i,iI . . --(; J A/. z. Pe#-/-",! 􀁾/hI 3,c: ---􀁾 -iff-----. IIIII,? ,-, 􀀯􀀬􀁾􀀭 -----􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 -------______ I -----iLf?L.dc..'-__􀁾 􀁾􀀷2
__􀁾􀁟􀁥􀀭􀁌􀁟􀁾 􀁟􀁾 􀁾 􀁾􀁾 _ ------------------------􀁉􀀧􀀶􀁾􀁑􀀭􀀭􀁊􀁪􀀡􀁬􀀧􀁣􀁌􀀭􀀭􀀨􀁦􀁴􀀮􀀮􀁴􀀯􀀮􀁥􀀩􀀭 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀵􀀮􀀲􀀶􀁽􀀭􀁧􀁑􀁏􀁾􀁦􀀭􀁤􀁳􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁪􀀲􀁾􀁋􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
:.'.-I u' -'Y' _--------------􀁩􀀮􀀭􀁩􀁊􀀲􀀰􀀮􀁉􀁾􀀭􀁷􀀺􀁴􀁦􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁁􀁄􀁴􀁤􀁌􀁾􀀶􀀮􀀮􀀶􀀮􀀵􀁔􀀧􀁡􀀻􀀻􀀾􀁑􀀭􀀭 _------------􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁑􀁊􀁴􀀮􂂬􀁊􀁾􀀩􀁃􀁌􀁾􀀭 ... -------.-----: ---__
nn 􀁟􀁉􀁾 -----_ ------------il-----__n_____ ---------------. -------------·tlJ$ " " 􀀭􀀧􀁚􀀧􀁾􀀸 .de. -: ..􀀺􀁺􀁾􀁺􀀻􀁵􀀭􀁥􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾 .􀀿􀀳􀁌􀀫􀀲􀀮􀀽􀀻􀁊􀀧􀁾 .... .._... _ -. 111-.'.--7􀁓􀁾􀀬
􀁏􀁏􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁉􀁾􀁌􀁾 􀁾 -------------------------------1!-r----------_.. -----􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-.---------------iii A;1 , All. -----􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁷􀁾 􀁾􀁟􀀮􀀴􀁾􀀯􀁾􀁾 􀀱􀀬􀀹􀀲􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀭􀀮􀁃􀁊􀁏j'
fd-----------iI:l:-i'; ___. 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁌􀁾􀁟􀁾 'ii 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾 􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭 ..-.. --.---".--.-,..
-.--,..---_. -_.. -"--". 􀀭􀁾􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁟􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬 􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭 . .! ,i ; I
I. II. FARMERS BRANCH SUMMERY OF COSTS Design Services During Construction I 􀁾 tJoC? 􀁾i-:;r;;q JJ $591,760 933,709 􀁾􀀮3. 4. III. Special Services A. Surveying 􀀢􀁾 1. Aerial Photogrammetry
Controls Vertical &Horizontal Photogrammetry Subtotal Base Line Survey Field Topographic Survey Underground Utilities Special Profiles & Cross Sections Subtotal Surveying Plus 10% Total
Surveying '21,416 12.098 33,514 14,716 15,486 8,228 21.152 93,096 9,309 102,405 􀀮􀁾 B. C. D. Right-of-Ways Easements Plus 10% Total R.O.W. and Easements Construction Staking and Control
Plus 10% Total Construction Staking & Control ODC's Surveying Geotechnical Investigation 1. Field Studies 2. Laboratory Tests 3. Engineering Report 4. Pumping Tests 5. Environmental
& Water Quality Assessment Subtotal Plus 10% Total Geotechnical 49,408 4,940 54,348 21,400 2,140 23,540 9,550 91,000 17,000 41,000 􀀱􀁅􀁾􀀬􀁏􀁏􀁏 9,500 174,500 17,450 191,950
Summary: Design Services During Construction Special Services: Surveying Right-ot-Way Construction Staking & Control DOC's Geotechnical Subtotal Direct Costs: Printing Milage & Travel
CAD Cost Subtotal Total 591,760 933,709 102,405 54,348 23,540 9,550 191.950 381,793 5,500 9,690 13,840 29,030 $1,936,292
􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁈􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 􀀭􀁾􀀭 ----. 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 .. 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭 .. 􀀭􀀭􀁾 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭�
� -----.-􀀭􀁾 .. -􀁾􀀮􀀭 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭 􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮__􀀮􀁟􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭 -_.. il II 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀢􀀺􀀴􀁾􀀽�
�􀀭􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾-:.:;;.-. ---···-1 􀀭􀁥􀁸􀁫􀁳􀀭􀁶􀀮􀁥􀁊􀁾 .... 􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀯􀀶􀀧􀀭􀁾􀁓􀁵􀀯􀁊􀀯􀀮 .--􀁟􀁾􀁝􀁾􀁾•.􀀬􀁾􀁌􀁾􀁾•. 􀁬􀀮􀁩􀁾...􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁾...•.􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀢􀀷•.􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀽
__􀀭􀀭􀁾 •.•.•--=-I ------------------_._-....j -------􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀁾􀀭􀁟.. 􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮 􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀮 ------􀁾 -_..􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 --.. ---------.--􀀭􀁾 􀀭􀁾
._._----􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 I . ..􀀮􀁉􀀧􀀺􀁾􀁾 􀀨􀁢􀁌􀀭􀀦􀀭􀁾􀁟tlt.r fa rr "I? .. .. J------i_-.. ----􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉 _ _ 􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁟􀁟_ L'_ f:; 􀁾 _ -------------: 1------------------
-----------------------------------------_c. -􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..--. ----.----:IiI 􀂣􀀬􀁸􀀯􀁾 --􀁾􀀭􀂣􀀯􀁭􀁶􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁤􀁬􀁰􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀯 ..j.u1.-. 􀁁􀀬􀁟􀁾 􀁾 .. --.-------------iJf---,"U-d..;
􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀼􀁈 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀷 ,;/:-7 ..--------'t --------􀁾􀀮􀁫􀀶 􀁾􀀭 -􀁾􀁥􀀮 -􀂣􀁾 -t!.t:;,-/--10-/&MJ.1 .. -------------... 􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭 􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀮􀁾 .._----..-_.---_._---, I -------ir ------------------. ----------------------------------􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 -----..􀁾􀀭 -------1----􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁲c£,,,, 􀁃􀁃􀀡􀀧􀁌􀁾 -------U .􀁌􀀢􀁾
. 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭 -􀁓􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁌􀁾􀀭 . ._.__􀁾 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 -__. 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀁾􀁉 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀁊􀀻􀁪􀂷􀀺􀀮􀁊􀀻􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾 .. -.------. -..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾 Ii, ------IItI'l----------------􀁾 􀁾􀁾 ----ill-------------III -i1i------iii ill --IH-----!lli Ii, 􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮
-111-ii -1-1il Ii] .. -􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀭
;;-• .,j.. j. 􀁾􀀩􀀨􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁲􀁲 LEGEND 􀁬􀀭􀁾􀀧􀀯 {i [,:, .,...} ADDISON.' DRAINAGE BASIN 1.',]':,JlI FARMERS BRANCH'DRAINAGE BASIN \ ":: .... 􀁊􀁾􀁉 􀀭􀀮􀀮􀁾 I _. i \.; 1 •N\ DATE: 9-19-9
..􀁾 '., .:.... ....:
"'--'-.\ ... L.j-l0-?1COST PER STAFF EST. SR. EST, TECH. TECH. CIVIL STRUCT. CAD. OFFICE FIELD PROJ. SR. CON. SR. ENG. ENG. CIVIL PROJ. [ DIR. MGR. FARMERS BRANCH DESIGN LIST OF TASKS
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧 I.
DESIGN: ... 1. MEET WITH CITY START UP 8 8 8 2 4 $3,080 2. ESTABLISH COMM. PROCEDURES -CITY 8 8 4 8 4 $3,304 3. MEETING WITH TEAM REGARDING SCOPE 8 8 8 8 . 4 $3,640 4. ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION
AND SCOPES 8 8 4 8 ·4 . $3,304 5. ESTABLISH SCHEDULES AND CPM 8 8 8 8 4 $3,640 6. START AERIAL AND FIELD SURVEYS 8 8 4 $1,752 7. START GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 8 8 4 4 $2,180 8. FIELD
CHECK AND FINALIZE ROUTE 16 16 8 $3,960 9. REVIEW PROP. FB/ADDISON SEWERS 16 16 4 $3,304 􀁾 10. DETERMINE FLOW METER LOCATIONS 8 16 .. 4 $2,424 􀁾 􀁾 .•11. START FLOWMETERING (2:"3 LOCATIONS)
8 4 . 40 .$3,056 .-..--. 􀁾􀀭􀀭 􀁾 􀁾 12. ANALYZE FLOW METER DATA 16 24 16 .4 $5,224 <t-\; 13. DETERMINE FLOWS DRY-WET-FUTURE 12 40 24 $6,240 .-. -::i1 14. LAB & OTHER ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER
·8 16 24 16 24 4 $8,592 .:!::=-15. MEET WITH TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY 8 8 8 .. 4 􀀤􀀲􀀬􀀹􀁾􀀸 16. REVIEW DEVELOPMENT.EAS'f"OF 1-35 werT 8 4 4 $1,416 17. FINALIZE ROUTE THRU DEVELOPMENT
8 8 4 $1,980 18. RECEIVE AERIAL TOPO/CONTOUR DISKS 8 16 .. 2 16 $3,136 19. DRAFT CAD DETAIL FIELD SURVEY TOPO 8 16 .. 80 $6,704 20. PREPARE CAD STRIP TOPO/CONTOUR MAPS 8 16 80 44 $9,888
21. PREPARE CAD STRIP PROFILE MAPS 8 16 80 77 $11,736 22. PLOT STRIP MAPS TOPO AND PROFILE 8 8 22 $2,784 23. PRELIMINARY DESIGN SEWER PLAN 20 40 16 80 17 .. $13,424 24. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PROFILE 20 40 16 80 22 $13,704 25. DRAFT PRELIM. PLANS PROFILE DWGS. 8 22 190 .$13,368 26. PLOT PRELIM. PLANS PROFILE DWGS. 24 $1.,344 27. PRELIM. P & P DWGS. TO UTIL. COMPANIES 8 8
1 $1,602 28. PRELIM. P & P DWGS. TO CITY RE: UTIL. 4 8 1 $1,162 29. DRAFT ALL UNDERGROUND UTIL. -PLAN 4 8 80 66 12 $10,608 30. DRAFT ALL UNDERGROUND UTIL. -PROF. 4 8 80 264 12 $21,696
31. DRAFT GEOTECH. BORINGS PLAN AND PROF. 4 4 10 4 4 $1,850 32. PLOT PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS 24 12 $1,944 33. FIELD CHECK TOPO AND UTILITIES 24 24 24 $5,760
FARMERS BRANCH DESIGN LIST OF TASKS DIR. PROJ. MGR. PROJ. SR. CON. SR. ENG. ENG. CIVIL CIVIL STRUCT. CAD TECH. TECH. OFFICE FIELD SR. EST. 1-10-9/STAFF EST. COST PER 34. REVIEW GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT L-4: 8 8 16 4 $3,980 35. FINAL DESIGN PLAN RED LINE 22 88 22 . 80 176 -. $29,846 36. FINAL DESIGN PROFILE RED LINE 22 88 22 80 176 -$29,846 37. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN \ 4 40 8 40
6 80 . $11,592 38. DRAFT FINAL DESIGN PLAN & PROF. CAD \ 20 20 176 $13,736 39. QUALITY CONTROLDESIGN CHECK 16 . 4 4 24 80 40 66 48 $20,344 40. PLOT FINAL DESIGN PLAN AND PROFILE . 24
$1,344 41. MEETINGS WITH FB/ADD 50% REVIEW 8 24 24 24 $8,256 42. SUBMIT PLANS TO HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 2 8 16 $1,692 43. SUBMIT PLANS TO TRINITY RIVER AUTH. 2 4 8 $956 44. DESIGN REVISIONS
REVIEW 4 8 40 '8 80 8 8 $11,660 45. DRAFT REVIEW REVISIONS 2 8 88 60 $8,820 46. PLOT REVISED PLANS --. 24 $1,344 47. STRUCTURAL DESIGN-STRUCTURES -J 8 16 120 120 80 $22,664 48. ESTIMATE
OF QUANTITIES 40 44 20 88 80 40 40 . $24,156 49. CHECK ESTIMATE 4 16 8 80 40 40 40 $15,388 50. ESTIMATE OF COST 16 24 40 80 80 40 $18,656 51. .CHECK ESTIMATE OF COST 4 8 4 20 40 .20
20 $9,092 52. DEVELOPE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 4 40 40 20 80 40 -$18,656 53. DEVELOPE SPECIAL CONDITIONS . 40 80 40 80 $21,640 54. SELECT CONST. METHODOLOGY ANp MATE 4 24 40 24 . . .. $9,084
55. OUTLINE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 4 8 24 24 $5,980 56. WRITE SPECIFICATIONS· 80 100 40 100 120 $35,280 57. REVIEW SPECIFICATIONS 8 24 16 80 . $11,624 58. 90% REVIEW FB/ADDISON 8 40
16 8 20 8 . $9,652 59. FINAL SPECIFICATION/PLANS REVISIONS 4 40 16 8 40 40 44 40. . .-$17,300 60. PLOT FINAL BID DWGS. 50 ... $2,800 61. SUBMIT TO REGULATORY AGENCIES +/-(4) 16 40 16
-$5,920 62. APPLY FOR PERMITS 8 40 16 $5,040 63. SUBMIT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 4 16 16 $2,584. 64. ADVERTizE FOR BIDS 8 16 8 .. $2,624 65. PRE BID MEETING 8 16 16 8 $4,992 66. RECEIVE BIDS
8 8 $1,552 67. REVIEW BIDS AND RECOMMEND AWARD 8 24 16 24 $7,584 TOTALS 144 894 1322 528 780 1154 140 1444 878 64 180 140 $576,458 fJ75 C7t68)
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION LIST OF TASKS PROJ. DIR. PROJ. MGR. SR. CON. PROJ. ENGR. ENGR. TECH. RESID. ASST. RES. OFFICE ENGR. ENGR. CLERK -Ii -9/COST PER . TASKS 1. PRE CON. MTG.
CITY -CONTRACTOR 8 16 8 $3,648 2. APPROVESCHEDULEnNSURANCE 8 16 16 $4,504 3. PRE CON. VIDEO SURVEY· 8 8 $1,736 t 4. ESTABLISH PROJECT REPORTING 4 16 4 .. $2,704 5. APPROVE CPM 16 16
$3,472 6. ESTABLISH ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS 8 8 $1,736 7. ESTABLISH TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE 8 8 24 • $3,752 8. DETAILED OBSERVATION OF CON. 416Q 3633 3633 $698,679 -9. PROVIDE LINE AND
GRADE CONTROLS 8 8 16 .. $3,080 ... 􀁾􀀱􀀰􀀮 ESTABLISH INSTRUMENTATION 􀁾􀁶􀁥􀀭 -1(/􀁥􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁡􀀮􀁲 16 8 16 $3,960 11. SHOP DRAWING REVIEW AND APPROVAL 16 40 60 $11,080 12. REVIEW CONTRACTOR
SUBMITTALS 24 36 60 .. $11,532 . 13. MONTHLY PROGRESS MEETING 64 176 176 $46,448. 14; REVIEW TESTING LABORATORY SUBMISSIONS 24 $2,568 .. 15. DAILY FIELD REPORTS $0 16. DAILY QUANTITY
INPUT 40 200 $21,200 17. CHECK MONTHLY CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE 44 22 100 .. $15,594 "-J 18. SUBMIT MONTHLY REPORT AND ESTIMATE 88 192 44 48 $39,580 19. CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS RESOLUTION
20 40 48 24 $13,316 20. MAINTAIN CPM SCHEDULE 24 48 88 .. $15,168 21. MAINTAIN INSTRUMENTATION PROCEDURES $0 22. LOG EXPEDITE AND FOLLOW UP CITIZEN COMPo 24 60 60 $10,680 23. MAINTAIN
TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE $0 24. CHECK CONSTRUCTION LINE AND GRADE $0 25. INSPECTION AT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION 16 16 $3,472 26. FINAL PUNCH LIST 16 16 8 $3,872 27. COMPLETE PUNCH LIST 8 $400
28. FINAL INSPECTION 8 16 16 $4,504 29. FINAL QUANTITY MEASUREMENTS 8 8 4 4 $2,272 30. FINAL PAY ESTIMATE 8 16 8 4 4 $4,184 31. ACCEPTANCE BY FBIADD. 8 16 8 $3,648 TOTALS 216 780 586
632 156 4160 3633 3633 o o o $936,789
J c i i, 'E I -_....... _ .. IT_ -., 􀀭􀁾 -􀁾 _.........,. _....... I-II -.--...., ____ .I.-,I ---,.. __._-. cr..c'P. 0I-·"" :-:.. :: 􀀽􀀭􀁾... .-.._--..-....... -􀀮􀁾 ---_''.'.'.'.-.......
__ou_.-.<0t.T 1...-.".1. =:::. ::.... -_..-_.-.......-. 0􀁾_􀀢11 __••. .,..·r ._........... .,.-..,... -....,. .... lIrn....__ 1-" "=: :-.:. ..-_fO:r, 1-.... ==... 􀀧􀀻􀀮􀀧􀀬􀁾 '. I
􀁾 _...... -n._ .-. 0-" .. ,. __ eo.' ,n_..... 0-' --..ou. .".'", ..,. ..••_ u......1:& .I.-..I. ,' ==:.". 􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺 =--=-=--􀁾􀀺􀀻.. __'... ...._.. I·' _ .--. . " . 􀁾􀁾 􀁾 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀺
....-.. -----INTERSTATE HWY...... 􀀶􀀳􀁾 1M 789 ...JL JL____ w' 􀁾􀁾 11--6 II It:------:""""_.".," CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS Fii 􀁾(' IiI 􀁾Ib(