Full Text
City of Moscow Beautification Project Project Steering Committee Walter Steed, Moscow City Council, Committee Chair Melanie Zimmer, University Inn, Committee Vice Chair Michelle Fuson, Latah County Ken Helm, Idaho Transportation Department Iris Mayes, Moscow Arts Commission Jim Miller, Primeland Cooperative/PAWS Ray Pankopf, University of Idaho Nels Reese, Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission Gina Taruscio, Moscow Chamber of Commerce City Staff Bill Belknap, Community Development Tom Grundin, Parks and Recreation Kevin Lilly, Public Works Kathleen Burns, Arts January 2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Section 1.0 ‐ Project Overview 1 1.1 Project Purpose and Background. 1 1.2 Project Study Quadrants. 2 Section 2.0 ‐ Phase I: Project Guidance and Public Outreach 4 2.1 Project Steering Committee. 4 2.2 Public Open House Meeting. 5 Section 3.0 ‐ Phase I: Preliminary Recommendations and Site 10 3.1 Phase I Preliminary Recommendations Overview. 10 3.2 Preliminary Recommendations. 10 Section 4.0 ‐ Phase II: Conceptual Site Designs 20 4.1 Conceptual Site Designs Overview. 20 4.2 West Corridor. 21 4.3 North Corridor. 23 4.4 East Corridor. 25 4.5 South Corridor. 29 Section 5.0 ‐ Phase III: Implementation Plan 33 5.1 Implementation Plan Overview 33 5.2 Enhancement Project Prioritization 34 5.3 Enhancement Project Installation Plan 34 Section 6.0 ‐ Appendix 36 6.1 Appendix A: Open House Written Public Comments 36 6.2 Appendix B: Site Designs 38 6.3 Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates for Concept Site Designs 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 1 I P a g e Section 1.0 ‐ Project Overview 1.1 Project Purpose and Background. The purpose of this project is to examine the aesthetic condition of Moscow’s principal arterial corridors and identify opportunities that will positively impact the community’s appearance and character. This includes both the examination of improvements that may occur within the public right‐of‐way, including concept designs and cost estimates, as well as potential amendments to private development standards for the City Council’s consideration. The appearance of Moscow’s has been an area of concern for the community for many years. The last significant effort related to the city occurred between 1998 and 2000. In 1998, the city conducted a volunteer cleanup day on properties near the city’s entrances which was followed with the installation of the current city entry signs in 1999 and 2000, now located at the west, north and east entry points. The south entrance was delayed at that time due to the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. Highway 95 Lewiston to Moscow project and the ultimate future alignment of U.S. Highway 95. In 2009 the City Council adopted an update to the city’s Comprehensive Plan which included several statements and implementation actions directed toward and corridor beautification including: Entrances and Corridors “The visual effect of entrances is important. Not only does an entrance provide a first impression of an area, the entrance advertises and defines what is within that area. An appropriately designed and maintained city entrance can project a sense of community pride and slow traffic in addition to marking the city limits and welcoming visitors.” Community Design Implementation Action “Develop and adopt standards to improve the quality of development in autourban corridors which serve as the entrances to the community. Standards should include streetscape requirements, strengthened sign controls, site landscaping requirements, and building design and scale standards.” Corridor and Gateway Beautification “The character of a roadway corridor is made up by more than just the physical components of the street, curbs and sidewalks, but also includes items such as landscaping, signage, building style and placement, public art, and street trees and furnishings that collectively create the character of any particular street. Improving the aesthetic and physical character of a roadway corridor can help calm traffic, promote use by cyclists and pedestrians, and enhance the economic and social vitality of the surrounding area. One of the most critical elements of these beautification efforts is the inclusion of trees planted which not only provide aesthetic benefits, but also visual screening of views and filter vehicle emissions and traffic noise. Within the city, the north and south city entrances as well as the State Highway 8 (Troy and Pullman Roads), U.S. Highway 95 (Jackson and Washington ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 2 I P a g e Streets), and Sixth Street (in the downtown area) corridors are high priority locations that would benefit from streetscape enhancements.” City Street System Implementation Action “Implement a corridor and entrance beautification program along State Highway 8 and U.S. Highway 95 with landscaping and public art; install a landscaped median with appropriate cuts on S.H. 8 State Highway 8 along the mall frontage. See Section 3.4.10, Corridor Beautification and Section 3.4.11, Public Art Integration.” On April 2, 2012, the Moscow City Council identified the improvement of the city’s as a Council Goal during the Council’s 2013 goal setting session, as follows: “Develop improvement plans for the beautification of public right‐of‐way at city entrances by 2014.” (FY2013 Moscow City Council Goals) This goal was further refined by the City Council to consider the city not only as discrete locations, but rather as continuous corridors beginning at the and continuing to the city’s more urbanized core. The aesthetic quality of any road corridor is comprised of many elements, including the condition of the roadway, roadway edge, signage and adjacent private development. While the Council’s goals focused upon “…the beautification of public right‐of‐way…” there may be elements that extend beyond the public right‐of‐way that have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the area including the condition of the roadway surface, presence of curbing, tree lawns and sidewalks, condition of street signage and lighting, overhead utilities, private signage, adjacent land uses and adjacent site development. 1.2 Project Study Quadrants. The corridors studied under this effort include those portions of U.S. Highway 95 and State Highway 8 located between the city entry points and the downtown core, so virtually all of the study areas fall under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The City and ITD have successfully partnered on a number of projects in the past and enjoy an outstanding working relationship. An ITD representative served on the project Steering Committee and ITD’s Permits Committee provided valuable input through the concept design process. The concept designs included in this report are just preliminary concepts intended to help the community visualize potential aesthetic improvements and understand likely construction costs. Prior to construction of any of the proposed improvements, permits will be required from ITD to ensure that required clear zones, intersection site triangles and other relevant ITD standards are maintained to protect the safety of the traveling public. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 3 I P a g e North Corridor The north corridor includes an approximate 1‐mile section of U.S. Highway 95 located between the intersection of Main and C Streets and the current city limit boundary located approximately 0.25 miles north of Pintail Lane. The south end of the north corridor is marked by the termination of the downtown couplet road system with the roadway continuing to the north in a five‐lane roadway section including two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. West Corridor The west corridor includes an approximate 2.5‐mile segment of State Highway 8 (also known as the Pullman Road) located between the city limits on the west and the intersection of Lieuallen Street to the east. South Corridor The south corridor is an approximate 1.8‐mile segment of U.S. Highway 95 located between the intersection of Sweet Avenue and the city limits boundary, approximately 1,000 feet south of the South Fork crossing of the Palouse River. East Corridor The east corridor is an approximate 1.8‐mile segment of State Highway 8 (also known as the Troy Road) located between its intersection of U.S. Highway 95 on the west and Lenville Road on the east. Figure 1: City Beautification Study Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 4 I P a g e City Beautification Project Steering Committee Walter Steed, Moscow City Council, Chair Melanie Zimmer, University Inn, Vice Chair Michelle Fuson, Latah County Ken Helm, Idaho Transportation Department Iris Mayes, Moscow Arts Commission Jim Miller, Primeland Cooperative/PAWS Ray Pankopf, University of Idaho Nels Reese, Planning and Zoning Commission Gina Taruscio, Moscow Chamber of Commerce Section 2.0 ‐ Phase I: Project Guidance and Public Outreach 2.1 Project Steering Committee. It was the desire of City Council that this project receive direction and guidance from a wide variety of stakeholders. A nine‐member steering committee was formed to guide the project with representatives from entry corridor businesses, the Idaho Transportation Department (who has jurisdiction over many of the areas under consideration), Moscow Chamber of Commerce, University of Idaho, Latah County (who has jurisdiction outside city limits), Planning and Zoning Commission, Arts Commission, City Council, as well as staff support from Public Works, Parks, Arts and Community Development Departments. It is understood that those who have lived in a community for a long period of time become accustomed to the community and often do not notice that which is more apparent to someone who has never been to Moscow. Therefore, early in the project development Steering Committee members were asked to drive the corridors and visualize the community through the eyes of a visitor. The members were provided maps of each of the corridors and asked to identify what they liked (assets), areas that could be improved (opportunities), locations they felt were key visual focal points (focal points), and areas in need of general corridor enhancements (corridor enhancements). Figure 2: Sample map and comments from Steering Committee Member after driving the south entry corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 5 I P a g e 2.2 Public Open House Meeting. On September 18, 2013, the City and Steering Committee hosted a public open house meeting to introduce the project to the community and seek public input on which areas should be considered for potential improvements. City staff and steering committee members were present to explain the meeting format and describe the project through seven poster stations. Attendees were provided different colored dots to identify on the corridor maps the areas they liked (green dots), areas for improvement (yellow dots) and the three locations that they felt should be the highest priority (blue dots). The Steering Committee utilized this input to develop recommendations for improvement locations. Images of the meeting posters and public input collected on the corridor maps with the different colored dots are shown below. Figure 3: September 18, 2013 public open house poster – welcome. Figure 4: September 18, 2013, public open house poster – project overview. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 6 I P a g e Figure 5: September 18, 2013 public open house poster – north corridor with public input. Green dots = areas liked, yellow dots = areas for improvement, and blue dots = highest priority areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 7 I P a g e Figure 6: September 18, 2013 public open house poster – east corridor with public input. Green dots = areas liked, yellow dots = areas for improvement, and blue dots = highest priority areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 8 I P a g e Figure 7: September 18, 2013 public open house poster – south corridor with public input. Green dots = areas liked, yellow dots = areas for improvement, and blue dots = highest priority areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 9 I P a g e Figure 8: September 18, 2013 public open house poster – west corridor with public input. Green dots = areas liked, yellow dots = areas for improvement, and blue dots = highest priority areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 10 I P a g e Section 3.0 ‐ Phase I: Preliminary Recommendations and Site Selection 3.1 Phase I Preliminary Recommendations Overview. The Steering Committee’s preliminary recommendations cover a wide variety of considerations related to the city’s appearances including general property maintenance, installation of street trees, targeted landscape enhancements, installation of public art, and coordination with the Idaho Transportation Department on the Thorncreek to Moscow U.S. Highway 95 realignment project. The Committee believes these recommendations will contribute toward the improvement of the community’s appearances and impression upon visitors to Moscow. Through implementation of these recommendations, the goal outlined by City Council to develop improvement plans for the beautification of public right‐of‐way at city entrances will be achieved. 3.2 Preliminary Recommendations. The recommendations are organized into six broad objectives followed by specific implementation actions related to the objective. 3.2.1 Objective 1 – Improve the appearance of existing developed private properties through increased property maintenance, street tree and landscaping installation. The Steering Committee identified a general lack of property maintenance, lack of trees or landscaping within older commercial developments, and the presence of weed growth upon public and private property as a significant detriment to the physical appearances of the city’s This condition is present within all study corridors and in a variety of Figure 9: September 18, 2013 public open house poster – example streetscape treatments. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 11 I P a g e locations. The following implementation actions are recommended to address this objective. 3.2.1.1 Develop a “Beautify Moscow” Program. The Committee recommends that the city and the Moscow business community partner to develop a “Beautify Moscow” program to promote the improvement of the community’s appearance. The program would encourage business members to become voluntary program participants where the businesses commit to work toward improving or maintaining their business and property in a manner that enhances the community. The program could also include collaboration on corridor landscaping enhancements and street tree planting. The city could provide labor for asphalt removal, planting bed preparation, and possible tree installation while the business or property owner could provide the long‐term maintenance of the landscaping. 3.2.1.2 Increase city efforts targeted at weed control and removal within the entry corridors and adjacent public properties. The Committee considers weed control one of the easiest methods of enhancing views, and recommends that the city increase weed control and maintenance activities along each of the entry corridors. This should include increases in maintenance activities and enforcement of existing ordinances. Idaho Correctional Industries labor was employed during Summer 2014 to assist in roadway vegetation control, with positive results. 3.2.1.3 Installation of street trees along city corridors. Street trees improve the visual appearance of a community, calm traffic, reduce storm water runoff, improve air quality, and create a more inviting environment for pedestrians. It is recommended that the city actively pursue the planting of street trees within all of the study corridors where opportunities exist. 3.2.2 Objective 2 – Review landscaping and sign clutter near the city welcome signs at the west, north and east entrances. The city welcome signs that were installed in 1999 and 2000 continue to be attractive, in good condition and are well maintained. The landscaping near these signs could be enhanced and refreshed. The western entry sign is surrounded by state and city regulatory signage that creates clutter which detracts from the attractive welcome sign. The following implementation actions are recommended to address this objective. 3.2.2.1 Welcome Sign Landscaping Enhancements. It is recommended that the city look at each welcome sign site and evaluate condition and composition of landscaping, as well as any opportunities to increase the appearance, scale or presence of the surrounding landscape. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 12 I P a g e Figure 11: Street view of Hatley Way to Warbonnet project site. 3.2.2.2 Welcome Sign Visual Clutter Assessment. It is recommended that the city review the placement of regulatory and other signage near the welcome signs to reduce visual clutter that may detract from the appearance of these attractive entry features. 3.2.3 Objective 3 – Design and construct targeted landscape improvements in key visual areas within each corridor. Several key visual locations within the project corridors present the opportunity for landscaping enhancements that would improve the aesthetic appearance of the community. The Steering Committee identified two locations within each corridor that are recommended for targeted landscape beautification projects. West Corridor 3.2.3.1 Hatley Way to Warbonnet Landscape Enhancement. This site includes the current grass area located between Hatley Way and Warbonnet Drive just south of the Moscow Wal‐Mart store. This area is visually prominent and located adjacent to the first traffic signal entering Moscow from the west. The site is approximately 37,000 square feet and located within the public right‐of‐way. The existing grass is not irrigated or particularly well maintained and presents an opportunity for landscape enhancements and a potential public art installation. Figure 10: Hatley Way to Warbonnet Landscape Enhancement, site location (3.2.3.1) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 13 I P a g e Figure 13: Street view of Lieuallen and Third Street project site. 3.2.3.2 West Corridor Street Tree Installation. Several developed commercial areas within the west corridor have large paved parking areas that lack landscaping and trees near the street frontage that would provide visual relief. It is recommended that these areas be considered as part of Objective 1 3.2.3.3 Line Street Sidewalk Installation. The east side of Line Street between Pullman Road and Third Street lacks curbing, sidewalks and street trees. It is recommended that this right‐of‐way frontage be improved to provide greater pedestrian connectivity and present an improved and finished street edge at this major entry onto the University of Idaho campus. 3.2.3.4 Lieuallen and Third Street Intersection Enhancement. This intersection anchors the east end of the west corridor and includes the unimproved Lieuallen frontage on the north, and the center pedestrian refuge island between Third Street and Pullman Road. The city has developed preliminary conceptual intersection improvements for this non‐standard intersection but it is unknown if improvements will be constructed in the near term. There are opportunities to enhance the landscaping and control parking in this area, as well as the potential installation of public art to add interest and improve aesthetics. Figure 12: Lieuallen and Third Street Intersection Enhancement, site location (3.2.3.4) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 14 I P a g e Figure 15 (right): Street view of North entry project site. Figure 14 (left): North Entry Enhancement, site location (3.2.3.5). North Corridor 3.2.3.5 North Entry Enhancement. On the west side of U.S. Highway 95/North Main there is an auto repair, towing and salvage operation that includes a number of older structures in poor condition. Additionally, there is no existing curbing or access control onto the property. This area would benefit from the establishment of access control including construction of curbing and vehicular approaches, landscaping, and visually screening structures. 3.2.3.6 North Corridor Street Tree Installation Rodeo Drive to D Street. Several developed commercial areas within the north corridor, such as the Rosauers property, have large paved parking areas that lack landscaping and trees near the street frontage that would otherwise provide visual relief. It is recommended that these areas be considered as part of Objective 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 15 I P a g e Figure 17: Street view of north couplet project site. 3.2.3.7 North Couplet Enhancement. The north couplet is the northern terminus of the separated one‐way configuration of Washington and Jackson Streets, and serves as the gateway between the highway‐oriented development to the north and the downtown area to the south. There are several traffic islands and a general lack of street trees in this area. This recommended project would enhance the existing landscaping, place landscaping in a current raised asphalt island, install street trees and repair or replace noncompliant sidewalks adjacent to the multi‐tenant commercial building at the northeast corner of C and Main Streets. This project would also include the installation of street trees south of C Street to A Street on the west side of Main Street where existing wider sidewalks could accommodate tree wells and tree installation. The project would support another City Council goal of expanding the perceived downtown area on Main north of A Street. Figure 16: North Couplet Enhancement, site location (3.2.3.7). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 16 I P a g e East Corridor 3.2.3.8 Mountain View and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements. The Mountain View intersection is the first location that presents a visitor from the east with the impression that they have arrived in Moscow. The intersection was reconstructed in 2005 to add turn lanes and prepare the intersection for a future traffic signal installation. However, the intersection is currently bare, with limited landscaping or street trees. It is recommended that this intersection be enhanced with the installation of landscaping and street trees in appropriate locations. Figure 18: Mountain View and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements, site location (3.2.3.8). Figure 19: Street view of Mountain View and Troy Road intersection project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 17 I P a g e Figure 20 (above): Styner/White Avenue and Troy Rad Intersection Enhancements, site location. Figure 21 (left): Street view of Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road intersection project site. 3.2.3.9 Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements. The Styner/White Avenue and State Highway 8/Troy Road intersection is a visually prominent intersection in the east corridor. Currently the intersection contains a billboard (located on property acquired by the city in 2005) and is flanked by traffic barricades on the south side and an older guardrail structure on the north with limited landscaping. This intersection has also been identified as a potential pedestrian underpass site to improve access to Paradise Path located on the south side of State Highway 8. It is recommended that this intersection be enhanced with the installation of landscaping and street trees in appropriate locations and that the city explore its ability to negotiate removal of the billboard located on the property prior to the end of the existing lease which expires in 2018. 3.2.3.10 State Highway 8, Harrison Street to the South Couplet. The section of State Highway 8/Troy Road, from Harrison Street to the south couplet (the southern terminus of the separated one‐way configuration of Washington and Jackson Streets) includes several developed properties, many of which contain older buildings that have an industrial character. Within this area there are limited landscape areas and few street trees. It is recommended that these areas be considered as part of Objective 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 18 I P a g e Figure 22 (left): South entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Drive Intersection Enhancements, site location. Figure 23 (below): Street view of south entry, U.S. 95/South Main near South Fork Bridge, project site. South Corridor 3.2.3.11 South Entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Drive Intersection Enhancements. The first traffic signal at the southern edge of the city is at the intersection of U.S. Highway 95/South Main and Palouse River Drive. The area between the South Fork of the Palouse River Bridge and the traffic signal serves as a transition between the rural area to the south and more urbanized area to the north. This area contains some older buildings along with mini‐storage buildings on the northwest and southwest corners of the U.S. Highway 95 and Palouse River Drive intersection. The bridge and surrounding guardrails present an opportunity for public art installation. It is recommended that this roadway segment and intersection be enhanced with the installation of landscaping and street trees in appropriate locations, and that the city explore the opportunity to install public art components within the bridge guardrail. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 19 I P a g e Figure 24 (above): South Couplet, Paradise Creek Landscape Enhancement, site location (3.2.3.13). Figure 25 (left): Street view of south couplet at Paradise Creek, project site. 3.2.3.12 Palouse River Drive to South Couplet – The section of South Main/U.S. Highway 95 from Palouse River Drive to the south couplet (the southern terminus of the separated one‐way configuration of Washington and Jackson Streets) includes both developed and undeveloped properties with opportunities for landscape and street tree installations. It is recommended that these areas be considered as part of Objective 1. 3.2.3.13 South Couplet, Paradise Creek Landscape Enhancement – The south couplet is the southern terminus of the separated one‐way configuration of Washington and Jackson Streets, and serves as the gateway between the highway‐oriented development to the south and the downtown area to the north. Near the south couplet on the west side of Main Street is an approximate 7,500 square foot area (combination of public right‐of‐way and private property) that is bounded by Paradise Creek on the west and Main Street on the east. This area is in a very visible location and would benefit from riparian area, landscape and frontage improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 20 I P a g e 3.2.4 Objective 4 – Evaluate public art installation opportunities within the project corridors to add interest and character. Public art adds interest, distinction and a sense of place to a community. It is recommended that each of the target landscape project areas be evaluated for the inclusion of public art either during initial improvement construction or at a later date. 3.2.5 Objective 5 – Support the University’s efforts to improve their gateway entrances and the historic rail corridors on the south side of the Pullman Road between Perimeter Drive and Line Street. The University of Idaho has a large presence on the southern side of the Pullman Road between Perimeter Drive and Line Street. The University identified the need to improve the appearance of the three campus from State Highway 8/Pullman Road and construction was completed during summer of 2014. In addition to the campus roadway entries along State Highway 8/Pullman Road, there are two large parcels located between Perimeter and Stadium Drive, and between Stadium Drive and Line Street that were recently acquired by the University. The University has identified the improvement of these two parcels (historic railroad corridors) as a future priority. The Steering Committee encourages the city to support the University’s efforts. 3.2.6 Objective 6 –Partner with Idaho Transportation Department to pursue the potential inclusion of landscaping, public art, city welcome sign location and other amenities within the Thorncreek to Moscow, U.S. Highway 95 project. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) is currently working on identifying the future U.S. Highway 95 alignment for the planned Thorncreek to Moscow highway improvements. This project presents an opportunity for the city to partner with ITD to incorporate aesthetic enhancements such as landscaping, public art and a city welcome sign installation to improve the appearances of this important It is recommended that the city participate in the design process with ITD and begin planning for funding to support the installation of enhancements within the southern entry corridor. Section 4.0 ‐ Phase II: Conceptual Site Designs 4.1 Conceptual Site Designs Overview. Phase two of this project involved selection of two of the targeted landscape improvement areas within each corridor for conceptual design development. The Steering Committee selected the two sites from each corridor after reviewing the public input and determining high priority areas. The concept designs were prepared by Dell Hatch, landscape architect with Welch Comer & Associates, Inc. The schematic concepts were developed using aerial imagery (Google maps) as base maps. The conceptual designs provide suggestions for location, layout, and type of landscape material, as well as suggested locations for public art features. (The following conceptual designs are presented full‐size in Appendix 6.2 beginning on page 38.) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 21 I P a g e 4.2 West Corridor. Within the west entry corridor (Pullman Road/State Highway the two project sites selected for further review and development of conceptual site design include Hatley Way to Warbonnet Landscape Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.1), and Lieuallen and Third Street Intersection Landscape Enhancement (Objective 3.2.3.4). Aerial site designs and schematic perspective drawings for each of these project sites are shown below. 4.2.1 Hatley Way to Warbonnet Landscape Enhancements. (Objective 3.2.3.1) Figure 26: The conceptual design for Hatley Way to Warbonnet includes the following: Dry land/native grass at roadside edge to give appearance of a more maintained cover; Lineal plantings of mostly native material mixed with introduction of street tree theme to create movement to the street edge; Development of a trail orientation kiosk and landscape enhancements to pull landscape theme across the highway; Extension of landscape enhancements to southwest corner of intersection so improvements begin with a softer edge; Opportunity for backdrop of public art is provided by the embankment/fill supporting the access drive to Walmart; suggestion is to incorporate retaining walls with ‘moving’ or clustered art pieces – potentially wildlife themed; and Future consideration should be given to carrying enhancement theme to south side of highway – plantings would have to be located to avoid conflicts with overhead utility lines. Figure 27: Hatley Way to Warbonnet Landscape Enhancement – concept sketch looking east. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 22 I P a g e Figure 29: Lieuallen and Third Street intersection enhancement – concept sketch looking east. 4.2.2 Lieuallen and Third Street Intersection Enhancement. (Objective 3.2.3.4) Figure 28: The conceptual design for Lieuallen and Third Street intersection enhancement involves creating a gateway into the downtown core by making the following enhancements to the area: Development of a planted median on the Pullman Road with lighting and low shrubs for landscape enhancement and traffic calming at transition to downtown core; Enhancement and enlargement of landscape within right‐of‐way on north side of Pullman Road, with selection and placement of trees not in conflict with overhead power lines and in compliance with Idaho Transportation Department setbacks; Improved organization or management of parking on Lieuallen on the north side of Pullman Road; Enhance landscape triangle where streets merge and carry landscape theme across Third Street; and Consider placement of public art at point of triangle, being cautious of viewing distance and site angles for pedestrian safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 23 I P a g e Figure 30: The conceptual design for the north entry enhancement includes the following: Install landscaping to fill voids in existing tree line, maintain existing healthy vegetation as allowed by ITD; Verify access requirements for private property, consider installation of curbs on west side for definition and access control; Address roadside maintenance for weeds, trash, etc.; Consider how roadside signage impacts viewer’s perception of clarity vs. clutter; Provide diversity in plant species to create interest and break sky line – primarily use conifers for year‐round screening, incorporate some understory plants for interest; and Consider extending street tree program to east side of street for visual balance, and appearance for north bound travelers as well. 4.3 North Corridor. Within the north entry corridor (U.S. Highway 95/North Main), the two project sites selected for further review and development of conceptual site design include North Entry Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.5), and North Couplet Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.7). Aerial site designs and schematic perspective drawings for each of these project sites are shown below. 4.3.1 North Entry Enhancement. (Objective 3.2.3.5) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 24 I P a g e Figure 31: The conceptual design for the north couplet enhancement involves creating a gateway to the downtown core by making the following enhancements: Replace asphalt island with landscaped island – use low shrub varieties and consider banner poles for accent; Initiate “arrival” statement with installation of street trees and shrub bed on west side of roadway; Two opportunities for public art locations; Develop new configuration for parking in ‘triangle’ right‐of‐way, add shrub bed along curb line and locate street trees between walk and parking to comply with ITD setbacks; Consider new crosswalk location on N. Jackson; Consider new street trees on N. Main to extend north to C Street on both sides of street; Create landscape bulb‐out on Main Street south of to protect parking lane; place trees east to meet ITD setback; Add shrub plantings to island on N. Main at A Street, continue banners to tie south and north side of Main Street together visually, maintain two trees at south end of planter; and Consider sidewalk bulb‐out at intersection of Main and C Street (east side), allows for traffic calming and shorter pedestrian crossing distance and time. 4.3.2 North Couplet Enhancement. (Objective 3.2.3.7) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 25 I P a g e Figure 32: North Couplet Enhancement – concept sketch, center planter islands with potential public art locations – looking south at N. Main Street with southbound traffic veering to the right on N. Jackson Street. 4.4 East Corridor. Within the east entry corridor (State Highway 8/Troy Road), the two project sites selected for further review and development of conceptual site design include Mountain View and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.8), and Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.9). Aerial site designs and schematic perspective drawings for each of these project sites are shown on the following pages. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 26 I P a g e 4.4.1 Mountain View and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.8) Figure 33: The conceptual design for the Mountain View and Troy Road intersection enhancement involves significant landscaping suggestions for this initial point where a visitor from the east feels as though they are entering Moscow, the conceptual plan involves the following elements: Landscaping with medium sized trees and low shrubs/ground cover at all four corners of the intersection and abutting walks/path, maintain generous site distance angles for pedestrian visibility and safety, and choose trees for maximum color throughout the seasons; Orient intersection plantings to that the viewer is presented greatest impact; Establish a tree line between roadway and trail on south side; Consider establishing street trees along cemetary frontage that follows the formality and starts to initiate transition to developed frontages; Evaluate any benefits to extending sidewalk from intersection to cemetary entrance road; To achieve a cleaner, more maintained roadside appearance, consider fescue or dryland grasses; and Add conifers for back drop and seasonal substance – combine with native shrub/small trees to create a more ‘natural’ edge that starts to mimic the transition to palouse and carries some plantings south of trail; ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 27 I P a g e Figure 34: Mountain View and Troy Road intersection enhancements, concept sketch – view to northwest. Figure 35: Mountain View and Troy Road intersection enhancements, concept sketch – view to southwest. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 28 I P a g e Figure 37: Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road intersection enhancements, concept sketch of gateway feature – looking southwest toward Styner Avenue. 4.4.2 Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements. (Objective 3.2.3.9) Figure 36: The conceptual design for Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road intersection enhancements involves landscaping so as to develop ‘walls’ at the intersection to create a gateway for the viewer, including the following: Install curved ‘gateway’ feature on both sides of Troy Road on west corners of intersection with decorative metal artwork, backdrop with medium colorful trees that continue theme from Mountain View/Troy Road; Remove billboard at earliest possible date, create a backdrop with conifers for seasonal structure; On north side of Troy Road west of intersection, consider decorative metal guard rail/art wall as screed of back of buildings, add higher panel at intersection as ‘gateway’ feature; Consider extending street tree theme either side of intersection, verify ITD site triangle; Consider adding street trees on south side of Troy Road, between existing light poles as an extension of theme initiated at Mountain View and Troy Road – introduce dry land grass as roadside cover, adjust final locations of trees to comply with ITD setbacks; and Look to work with property owner of gas station lot to replace existing trees to be consistent with new streetscape enhancement, and add a narrow shrub bed to create a buffer at the sidewalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 29 I P a g e Figure 38 (above): Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road intersection enhancements, concept sketch of gateway feature and decorative metal guard rail – looking northwest. Figure 39 (below): Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road intersection enhancements, concept sketch – looking northwest. 4.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 30 I P a g e Figure 40: The conceptual design for the south entry enhancement involves right‐ of‐way landscaping at a level appropriate for heavy motorist traffic and little pedestrian activity, including the following: Work with adjacent property owners to organize parking/access to allow for new street tree locations and introduction of buffer yard/shrub beds, verify tree placement allowed per ITD setbacks; Consider consolidating access drives at property located on west side of Highway 95 just south of Palouse River Drive, to better function with traffic markings, safer conditions for bikers and increase right‐of‐way landscape; Possibility for decorative guard rail as screen on east side of Highway; Consider ‘gateway’ entry feature at transition from rural agricultural landscape to semi‐urban; and Consider replacing or enhancing bridge guardrail with decorative scenes or patterns as a public art opportunity. South Corridor. Within the south entry corridor (U.S. Highway 95/South Main), the two project sites selected for further review and development of conceptual site design include the South Entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Drive Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.11), and South Couplet, Paradise Creed Landscape Enhancement (Objective 3.2.3.13). Aerial site designs and schematic perspective drawings for each of these project sites are shown below. 4.5.1 South Entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Drive Intersection Enhancements. (Objective 3.2.3.11) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 31 I P a g e Figure 41 (above): South Entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Drive intersection enhancements, concept sketch of potential decorative bridge enhancements – looking northeast. Figure 42 (below): South Entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Drive intersection enhancements, concept sketch, right‐of‐way landscape enhancement – looking north. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 32 I P a g e Figure 44: South Couplet, Paradise Creek landscape enhancements, concept sketch – looking north at curve 4.5.2 South Couplet, Paradise Creek Landscape Enhancement. (Objective 3.2.3.13) Figure 43: The conceptual design for the South Couplet, Paradise Creek Landscape Enhancement involves right‐ of‐way landscaping and creation of gateways to downtown, as well as the following elements: Work with property owners of property west of couplet to secure pedestrian access utilizing old Main Street bridge, look to create ‘mini’ gateway in this area with possible public art or historic interpretation location; Install street trees on both sides of South Main to create gateway entry to downtown; Consider decorative guard rails on bridge, refurbish bridge, add overhead lights to match street theme; Select different species for ‘intersection’ tree at corner edges of intersection, add manicured turf for more formal/refined feel; Continue street tree theme where possible, work with property owners where right‐of‐way is too narrow to add landscaping; and Install sidewalk along west side of South Main – extend south to Sweet Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 33 I P a g e Section 5.0 ‐ Phase III: Implementation Plan 5.1 Implementation Plan Overview Phase I of the project, described in Section 3.0 of this document, outlines the six objectives recommended by the Steering Committee to achieve the goal of beautifying the City of Moscow’s corridors. The eight conceptual site designs that make up Phase II of the project, described in Section 4.0 of this document, fulfill Objective 3 which is to design and construct targeted landscape improvements in key visual areas within each corridor. These site‐specific enhancement projects have been prioritized for implementation, and the recommended method for funding and completing installation of these projects is described in the sections that follow (5.2 and 5.3). The remaining objectives recommended by the Steering Committee and the accompanying action items are broader and not site‐specific design improvements. It is recommended that these objectives and action items be carried out as described in Section 3.0 of this document: Objective 1 – Improve the appearance of existing developed private properties through increased property maintenance, and street tree/landscaping installation by developing a “beautify Moscow” program, increasing city efforts targeted at weed control and removal within the entry corridors and adjacent public properties, and installing street trees along the city corridors; Objective 2 – Review landscaping and sign clutter near the city welcome signs at the west, north, and east entrances by evaluating the condition and composition of landscaping and reviewing the placement of regulatory and other signage near the welcome signs; Objective 4 – Evaluate public art installation opportunities within the project corridors to add interest and character; Objective 5 – Support the University’s efforts to improve their gateway entrances and the historic rail corridors on the south side of the Pullman Road between Perimeter Drive and Line Street; and Objective 6 – Partner with Idaho Transportation Department to pursue the potential inclusion of landscaping, public art, city welcome sign location and other amenities within the Thorncreek to Moscow, U.S. Highway 95 project. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 34 I P a g e 5.2 Enhancement Project Prioritization Each of the site‐specific enhancement projects (Objective 3) will provide significant improvement to the attractiveness of Moscow’s The Steering Committee has prioritized the installation of the eight enhancement projects based on public input in regard to high‐and low‐ priority areas, and also in consideration of future roadway projects that intersect with improvement areas. It is recommended that the implementation of the enhancement projects be prioritized as follows: 1. North Entry Enhancement (Objective 3.2.3.5) 2. North Couplet Enhancement (Objective 3.2.3.7) 3. South Entry, South Fork Bridge to Palouse River Dr. Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.11) 4. South Couplet, Paradise Creek Landscape Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.13) 5. Hatley Way to Warbonnet Landscape Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.1) 6. Mountain View and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.8) 7. Styner/White Avenue and Troy Road Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.9) 8. Lieuallen and Third Street Intersection Enhancements (Objective 3.2.3.4) 5.3 Enhancement Project Installation Plan Preliminary cost estimates for each of the concept designs were provided to the Steering Committee by Dell Hatch of Welch Comer & Associates, Inc. These cost estimates included fees for final landscape design and professional landscape construction services. The Steering Committee recognizes that the estimated project costs likely exceed the City’s existing available financial resources. It is recommended that the City explore potential grant programs that could assist in funding the recommended improvements. Additionally, as many of the identified improvements include tree and landscape installation and enhanced vegetation control, it is possible that the City could hire seasonal employees to install the landscaping for each enhancement area based on the conceptual site designs and perform enhanced vegetation control and maintenance activities. This self‐performance of landscape installation would allow the City to begin to establish tree and landscape enhancements in the short term, while seeking funding for the decorative hand/guardrail treatments and public art installations. The Steering Committee recommends that the City prioritize the north entry enhancement (Objective 3.2.3.5) and pursue this improvement immediately through a design/bid/build model. The estimated cost of $80,436 for the base design for the north entry enhancement includes architectural design fees for a final design, bidding the project, and hiring of a professional landscape crew to clean and grade the ditch line to prep for new plantings on both the east and west side of U.S. Highway 95 and both sides of Rodeo Drive, and a mix of shrubs throughout the area. Additionally, this estimate includes a screen fence on the west side of U.S. Highway 95, new/reset signage, and traffic control during the project. The Steering Committee’s ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 35 I P a g e recommendation is to reduce the scale of the improvement (completing the project perhaps for closer to $50,000) with a more focused landscape installation. Screening the property to the west of the highway will provide a significant improvement to the appearance of the north entry into Moscow, thereby addressing the highest priority area as identified by the public during this project. If the north entry enhancement project is completed as a design/bid/build project and the remaining projects are done by seasonal City staff, it is anticipated that the remaining six enhancement projects could be completed in three years. Following project installation it will be necessary to budget for routine annual maintenance and upkeep of the landscaping. The final and lowest‐priority project (Lieuallen and Third Street intersection) is recommended to be postponed due to a potential roadway realignment project involving the intersections of Third and Liuallen Streets with Highway 8 that may occur in the future at that location. The estimated cost for completing the remaining six projects in the priority order listed above (Section 5.2) and the annual maintenance and landscape upkeep is as follows: Self‐Performance Landscape Installation and Vegetation Management Program Proposed Labor Resources 2 Seasonal Full‐Time Employees 26 Weeks Per Year (April‐September) Total Person Hours (PHrs) 2,080 Labor Cost per Hour (Including 15% Payroll Tax) $ 11.50 Annual Labor Cost Percentage PHrs Task Cost Weed/Vegetation Control 25% 520 $ 5,980.00 Tree Planting 35% 728 $ 8,372.00 Landscape Installation 25% 520 $ 5,980.00 Tree/Landscape Care and Maintenance 15% 312 $ 3,588.00 Totals 100% 2,080 $ 23,920.00 Total Labor Cost $ 23,920.00 Annual Material/Supplies Cost Units Quantity Unit Cost Extended Cost Tree Stock EA 150 $ 125.00 $18,750 Landscape Shrubs EA 425 $ 20.00 $8,500 Planting Mix CY 100 $ 5.00 $2,500 Bark Mulch CY 100 $ 25.00 $2,500 Supplies (tree stakes, water bags etc.) LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $1,500 Total Material Cost $ 33,750.00 Annual Total Program Cost Labor Materials Total Year 1 $ 23,920.00 $ 33,750.00 $ 57,670.00 Year 2 $ 24,637.60 $ 34,762.50 $ 59,400.10 Year 3 $ 25,376.73 $ 35,805.38 $ 61,182.10 Year 4 $ 26,138.03 $ 3,500.00 $ 29,638.03 Year 5 $26,922.17 $ 3,605.00 $ 30,527.17 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 36 I P a g e Section 6.0 ‐ Appendix 6.1 Appendix A: Open House Written Public Comments 1. Northern entrance needs some attention. South entrance could be more inviting and welcoming. 2. Highway 95 should bypass Moscow. 3. Overall: Entries merit improvement. Similar to curb appeal which sells the house in first 10 seconds. Better looking also equals less trashing of the area, less abuse. Trees are the #1 improvement for aesthetics, water conservation, focal points to the good. Go wisescape mostly. Be sure streets, walks, lighting is good. Depending on where ITD puts the south improvements, the East and South entries could alter a bit in priority. Clutter (signs, etc) and barrenness seriously detract and can undo an improvement such as the cluster of metal signs at the East entrance by the lovely Moscow entry sign. Clutter also distracts from visibility for safety. Specific Entries: West: High traffic south to Center (town) to west (WSU bound) requires priority for beautification. Strip effect is ugly and signage congestion is ugly. Triangle at Third St. needs improvement and blind curve is tricky for pedestrians and pulling into Papa Murphy’s. Mini storage building to south is doubling size and an eyesore. A nice lead‐in there to Ghormley and UI would be good. Use more tree lawn or plantings all along there. South: Awful at bridge area at southern‐most road. Trees fix a lot where they are so do similar where it’s bad. Dominoes area severely detracts great tree areas. High priority entry. East: Add trees in barren spots. ITD sign is bad. (Based on comments to staff it is assumed this refers to service club sign.) Street crack by Tesoro. Closest to town it’s very congested and ugly. North: More trees! Fix mess on west Rodeo Drive (shacks). Soften urban look. General Comments: A lot of factors and work. Appreciate this being done! Make Moscow the best. Victoria Seever 4. North Corridor: The sign itself is attractive and is enhanced with trees behind it. The fire station landscaping is attractive, but the area opposite it needs improvement. Shrubs that are low maintenance and drought hearty would improve that area which is scruffy and unkempt. Much of the north side entrance on west side of Hwy 95 could be improved with vegetative enhancements of columnar trees, shrubs and grasses. East Corridor: has an attractive view going west, looking towards the bike trail and its landscaping! It’s a beautiful, restful open vista with landscaping that fits the local, native landscape. Closer to town where businesses are located, more landscaping is needed to soften the hard, unattractive, not to be noticed buildings. Again the scruffy appearance would disappear with trees and shrubs. Some could be planted in large containers. Business could be encouraged to use planters for easy to grow annuals for color and charm – eye appeal! South Corridor: Again, open areas next to the highway and walking path (sidewalks) could be made beautiful and pleasant for walking with plantings of trees and shrubs. More people would walk here! West Corridor: vegetation along the highway newly planted on University property will develop and enhance the south side of the highway. Greenery, greenery, greenery along all these corridors would make a big difference aesthetically, showing a well‐cared for town to motorists. Vegetation would also slow traffic (one transportation consultant told me) which is something desirable in our small, family oriented town. Thanks for the presentation and giving us a glimpse of where your thoughts lie. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 37 I P a g e 5. I think it is wonderful you are looking at the entire corridor. I placed my blue dots in places I feel are key interchanges or places of identity. I think it’s important to recognize the human scale in these changes. It’s an interesting problem—arterial roads which are auto‐centered, but really human scale being an important part of urban design and quality of life for community members. IF the highway department allows changes that incorporate bike lanes, vegetation, etc – protecting bikes/peds, buffered through parked cars perhaps. Also, implementing ordinances that dictate sitting buildings to the sidewalk with parking behind even design standards, etc. All of this would go a long way toward incremental improvement. Let’s make sure to not just implement something that looks good somewhere else—let’s pay attention to the identity of Moscow and our economic and cultural base. Sarah Church 6. Please add landscape medians. Wayfinding for trails. Public art at WWTP. Round‐about at south couplet. Kathleen Burns 7. Round‐abouts! Yes! 8. Very good project – I think special effort needs to be made in north corridor area. Also can the Mr. Cabinet animated sign be somehow eliminated; it cheapens the entrance to Moscow. 9. The wildlife statues mixed with trees and xeriscape would be a wonderful addition. The north entrance really needs help; very much an eyesore. I think we need a code for commercial signage following a theme. Nancy Tribble ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 38 I P a g e 6.2 Appendix B: Site Designs Enlarged renderings of the eight site designs are provided on the following 11x17 pages. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 39 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 40 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 41 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 42 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 43 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 44 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 45 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 46 I P a g e ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 47 I P a g e 6.3 Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates for Concept Site Designs Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.1 WEST CORRIDOR – HATELY TO WAR BONNET LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Clear/Grub‐Grading prep. 1 LS $8,950 $8,950 Dryland Seed (no irrigation) North Side of HWY 8 23,750 SF $0.21 $4,988 South Side of HWY 8 20,900 SF $0.21 $4,390 Topsoil 4” 545 CY $22 $11,990 Terraced Stone Retaining Walls 3000 Face SF $17.50 $52,500 Electrical for Future Sculpture 1 LS $5,600 $5,600 Accent Lighting on Walls and Grove 1 LS $11,250 $11,250 Screen and Landscape Plantings 1. Conifer Trees 68 EA $300 $20,400 2. Deciduous Trees 57 EA $500 $28,500 3. Mixed Shrubs 200 EA $34 $6,800 4. Bark Mulch 68 CY $45 $3060 Irrigation for Trees and Shrubs 1 LS $28,750 $28,750 Traffic Control 1 LS $8,500 $8,500 Sub Total $195,678 General Conditions $3,914 Mobilization @10% $19,567 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $29,351 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $19,567 Total Estimated Cost – Schematic Design $268,077 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs Specialty sub‐consultants fees Design Contingencies Costs related to required improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 48 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.4 Lieuallen & Third St. Intersection Enhancements Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Demolition 1. Remove Asphalt for Median 236 SY $11.50 $2,714 2. Remove Misc. Conc. Curb 1 LS $450 $450 3. Remove Misc. Conc. Flatwork/SW 1 LS $22 $6,336 4. Asphalt Removal at Parking Lot 177 SY $11.50 $1,345.50 New Concrete Curb/Gutter (Lieuallen) 200 LF $18.50 $3,700 New Concrete Flatwork/SW 312 SY $38.50 $12,012 Storm Drain Piping and Structures Allowance 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Roadway Markings/Parking Lot 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 Signage Allowance 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Sculpture Foundation & Electrical 2 LS $5,000 $10,000 Decorative City Street Lights and Electrical 3 EA $3,800 $11,400 New Project Tree Plantings 12 EA $500 $6,000 Mixed Shrubs 105 EA $34 $3,570 Planting Mix for Shrub Beds 55 CY $60 $3,300 Bark Mulch 73 CY $45 $3,285 Irrigation 1 LS $12,800 $26,800 Sculpture Foundation/Electrical 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Sub Total $116,412.50 General Conditions $2,328 Mobilization @10% $11,641 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $17,462 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $11,641 Total Estimated Cost‐ Schematic Design $159,484.50 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs Specialty sub‐consultants fees Design Contingencies Costs related to required improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 49 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.5 North Entry Enhancements – US HWY 95 Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Demolition 1. Tree/shrub removal per ITD TBD LS $5,250 $5,250 2. Clean/grade Ditch Line 1 LS $3,800 $3,800 New Screen Plantings 3. West Side 95 42 EA $300 $12,600 4. Mixed Shrubs 40 EA $38 $1,520 5. East Side 95 15 EA $500 $7,500 6. Rodeo Dr. both sides 19 EA $500 $9,500 Screen Fence West Side 95 90 LF $90 $5,850 Irrigation – None New/Reset Signage 6 EA $450 $2,700 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Sub Total $58,720 General Conditions $1,174 Mobilization @10% $5,872 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $8,800 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $5,870 Total Estimated Cost $80,436 Potential Added Options 1. Curb/Gutter West Side 95 1,070 LF $18.50 $19,425 2. Concrete Drive Approaches 3 EA $2,000 $6,000 3. Catch Basins/Rims 6 EA $1,850 $11,100 4. Storm Piping 400 LF $24 $9,600 5. Storm Swales 1 LS 7,500 $7,500 6. Drywells 3 EA $2,000 $6,000 7. Drip Irrigation (verify city as Source) 1 LS $13,850 13,850 Subtotal Options $73,475 General Conditions $1,469.50 Mobilization @10% $7,347 Design Contingency @15% $11,021 A&E Design Fee @10% $7,347 Total Estimated Cost Added Options $100,659.50 Base Cost plus Added Options $181,095.50 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs, Specialty sub‐consultants fees, Design Contingencies, Costs related to required, improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 50 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.7 North Couplet Enhancements Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Demolition 1. Tree/shrub removal per ITD TBD LS $3,550 $3,550 2. Remove Asphalt for New Islands And Parking lot 731 SY $11.50 $8,406.50 3. Remove Conc. Curb Main & W 200 LF $8.00 $1,600 4. Remove Conc. Flatwork/SW 288 SY $22 $6,336 5. Remove Conc. SW for Tree Well 85 SY $45 $3,835 New Concrete Curb/Gutter Main & W And Islands 345 LF $18.50 $6,382.50 New Concrete Flatwork/SW 255 SY $38.50 $9,817.50 Storm Drain Piping and Structures 1 LS $5,500 $5,500 Roadway Markings/Parking Lot 1 LS $3,500 $3,500 Signage Allowance 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Sculpture Foundation & Electrical 2 LS $5,000 $10,000 Banner Poles/Foundations/Electrical 4 EA $3,250 $13,000 Decorative City Street Lights and Electrical 13 EA $3,800 $49,400 New Project Tree Plantings 40 EA $500 $20,000 Mixed Shrubs 300 EA $34 $10,200 Sod Turf 3,470 SF $0.48 $1,665.50 Top Soil 54 CY $22 $1,188 Planting Mix for Shrub Beds/Tree Wells 217 CY $60 $13,020 Bark Mulch 55 CY $45 $2,475 Irrigation 1 LS $26,800 $26,800 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Sub Total $209,676 General Conditions $4,194 Mobilization @10% $20,967 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $31,451 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $20,967 Total Estimated Cost‐ Schematic Design $287,255 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs, Specialty sub‐consultants fees, Design Contingencies, Costs related to required, improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 51 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.8 Mountain View & Troy Road Intersection Enhancements Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Demolition 1. Clean/grade Ditch Line 1 LS $3,800 $3,800 New Plantings 2. Trees ‐North Side Troy Road 15 EA $500 $7,500 3. Trees‐ South Side Troy Road 30 EA $500 $15,000 4. Conifers‐ South Side Troy Road 14 EA $300 $4,200 5. Mixed Shrubs 40 EA $38 $1,520 6. Dryland Seed 33,250 SF $0.21 $6,982.50 Planting Mix 25 CY $60 $1,500 Irrigation – None New/Reset Signage Allowance 1 LS $2800 $2,800 Pavement Markings/Crosswalks Allowance 1 LS $3,800 $3,800 New Concrete Sidewalk – (North) 555 SY $38.50 $21,367.50 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Sub Total $78,470.00 General Conditions $1,569 Mobilization @10% $7,847 Contingency @ 15% of Total $11,770.50 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $7,847 Total Estimated Cost $107,503.50 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs Specialty sub‐consultants fees Design Contingencies Costs related to required improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 52 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.9 Styner/White & Troy Road Intersection Enhancements Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Clear/Grub‐Grading prep. 1 LS $5,650 $5,650 Dryland Seed (no irrigation) South Side Troy HWY 9,000 SF $0.21 $1,890 Trees 1. Deciduous 24 EA $500 $12,000 2. Conifer 2 EA $350 $700 3. Mixed Shrubs 50 EA $34 $1,700 4. Bark Mulch 12 CY $45 $540 5. Planting Mix 20 CY $60 $1,200 Metal Fabrication/Artwork 290 LF $200 $58,000 Accent Lighting/Electrical 1 LS $6,500 $6,500 Traffic Control 1 LS $8,500 $8,500 Sub Total $96,680 General Conditions $1,934 Mobilization @10% $9,668 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $14,502 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $9668 Total Estimated Cost – Schematic Design $132,452 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs Specialty sub‐consultants fees Design Contingencies Costs related to required improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 53 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.11 SOUTH ENTRY‐SOUTH FORK TO PALOUSE RIVER DRIVE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Clear/Grub‐Grading prep. 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Dryland Seed (no irrigation) to disturbed areas 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Fabricated Metal‐Decorative Bridge Railings 225 LS $200 $45,000 Fabricated Metal Rail‐Retaining Wall 214 LS $115 $24,610 Electrical for Bridge Accent/Lighting Railing & 4 Decorative Lights 1 LS $16,750 $16,750 Landscape Plantings 1. Deciduous Street Trees 33 EA $500 $16,500 2. Conifer Trees 4 EA $350 $1,400 3. Mixed Shrubs 285 EA $34 $9,690 Planting Mix for Shrub Beds 344 CY $60 $20,640 Bark Mulch 113 CY $45 $5,085 Irrigation (If available) 1 LS $19,500 $19,500 Improved Concrete Approach 3 EA $2000 $6000 Misc. Storm Drainage Piping/Structures 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Signage Allowance 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 Sub Total $195,678 General Conditions @ 2% $3,913 Mobilization @ 10% $19,567 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $32,873 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $21,515 Total Estimated Cost – Schematic Design $269,906 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs Specialty sub‐consultants fees Design Contingencies Costs related to required improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Moscow Beautification Project Report and Recommendations 54 I P a g e Moscow City Beautification PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS – SCHEMATIC PHASE July 14, 2014 3.2.3.13 South Couplet Paradise Creek Landscape Enhancements Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Base Design General Demolition 1. Clear/Grub/Prep for Entry Arch Prep for new Flatwork/SW 1 LS $3,800 $3,800 2. Tree Trimming/Brush Removal 1 LS $1,500 $1,500 New Concrete Flatwork/SW 378 SY $38.50 $13,013 Storm Drain Piping and Structures Allowance 1 LS $4,000 $4,000 Roadway Markings/Crosswalks 1 LS $3,850 $3,850 Signage Allowance 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Metal Fabrication ‐ Decorative Bridge Railings 76 LF $200 $15,200 Sculpture Foundation & Electrical 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Decorative City Street Lights and Electrical 7 EA $3,800 $26,600 Entry Feature at Old Bridge/Electrical/ Metal Fabrication 1 LS $160,000 $160,000 New Project Tree Plantings 42 EA $500 $21,000 Mixed Shrubs 285 EA $34 $9,690 Planting Mix for Shrub Beds 169 CY $60 $10,140 Bark Mulch 43 CY $45 $1,935 Irrigation 1 LS $12,800 $22,500 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Sub Total $311,228 General Conditions $6,225 Mobilization @ 10% $31,122 Design Contingency @ 15% of Total $46,684 A%E Design Fee @ 10% $31,122 Total Estimated Cost‐ Schematic Design $426,381 The Opinion of Cost presented above is based on Schematic Concepts, using aerial imagery as base maps. Some potential costs are not listed, such as: Permits, Licensing, Taxes and may need to be added to final cost estimates based on further developed design phases. Possible Right‐of‐Way encroachments and/or Construction Easements on adjacent private properties may be required in final design layouts. Other possible Costs may include: Topographic and environmental costs Specialty sub‐consultants fees Design Contingencies Costs related to required improvements by City Departments and/or State Agencies