HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineering Dept ReportConn, Angelina V
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:20 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: latterday saints special use Engineering Dept major outstanding comments
Angie,
1. We have requested a meeting to review the overall plan forthe 116 Street frontage consideringthe planned
improvements to the roundaboutand the planned Silvara Development to the north. It is expected that we will discuss
compliance with the CitVs thoroughfare plan andanyfinancial commitments made in lieu of physical construction ofthe
improvements stipulated bythe Thoroughfare Plan at this meeting.
2. We have requested that the access from 116 Street be shifted as far to the west as possible.
3. We have requested a public road connection through the development meetingthe City's standards for a local street
due to the fact that Valeside Crescent is a public right -of -way. While this entire roadway is not required to be
constructed with the planned temple and meetinghouse, the roadway shall be masterplanned. Such roadways shall be
contained withina 50 -foot right-of-way and satisfy the designstandards outlined in Section 6.03 ofthe Subdivision
Control Ordinance. Detention facilities shall be 50 -feet from road right -of -way unless a barrieris provided. We envision a
connection from the south stub street to 116 Streetand a minimum of one east -west street providingaccessto
Springmill Road. A traffic study would identifythe need for a second access from Springmill Road; but I do notexpect the
traffic volumes to be that high (except duringservices) sincethe majority ofthe propertywill be residential.
4. Wehave requested dedication ofadditional right -of -wayas follows: 70- foothalfacross 116 -foot
measured from the section line across the Springmill Road frontage (ignore the current roadway alignment shift), a
chamfer that is perpendicular to 120 -foot radius measured from the intersection of the section lines.
5. We have asked them to confirm with the DOCS the need fora stub street to the west from this property.
6. Giventhe pending Bridges PUD development, we will not request the construction ofa passing blisteratthe Springmill
Road a ntra nce.
7. The hydraulics ofthe existing pond will need to be analyzed. The development shall conform to the newflat release
rates. The upstream /off -site watershed will need to be consideredalso. The offsite discharge from the Bridges
Development will need to be coordinated and accommodated bythis development. It has not beenestablished if the
Bridge s wil I manage the runoff before leaving the s ite or if th ey wil I approach the LDS a bo ut managing the water in the
existing pond ora modified facility.
8. Reconstruction of the existing plastic drainage pipe under 116 Street will need to be coordinated. It is not known if
Silvara will negate the need for this pipe. Short termand long -term (if the discharge is to be perpetuated)
accommodation of the drainage from this pipe needs to be considered.
9. If the existingpond is intended to be utilized as a BMP, it must be demonstrated that adequate treatment will be
provided in the current and /or modified configuration.
10. The maximum water surface elevations of the off-site flood routing will need to be considered in establishing the on-site
MFPGand MLAGelevations.
11. Off -site flood routes must be contained inaneasement perthe Storm Water Technical Standards.
12. 1 have not seen a traffic study. Ifthis were purely a residential subdivision, we would not require one. Since there is a
nonresidential use proposed and the traffic from the use, in conjunction with the adjacent proposed uses, is expected to
warrant improvementsto theadjacent road network,weare requestingthata traffic study be developed. Thistraffic
study needs to considerthe Bridges and Silvara.
Thanks so much!
Gary
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Duncan, Gary R