HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIRAMONT VALLEY PUD - FINAL - 54-87AK - MINUTES/NOTES - MEETING COMMUNICATION., f.. .... .. .. ._. . .. . .e..._....
, . . � , .,
Nrramont Valley
�
Summary of ineeting on Apri12, 1996
Attendees:
Eric Bracke, City - Transportation
Sheri Wamhoff, City - EngineeringLPlanning
Ward Stanford, City - Engineering/Planning
rMitch-Haas; City---Planning �
_ ___ Ty _
Nrke Grimm,-Ci --- Stormwater
Basil Hamdan, City - Stormwater
Perry Cabot, RBD; Inc.
Terence C. Hoagland, Cityscape urban Design
Dennis Donovan, Land Development Services
Norman Whitehead, JR Eng'ineering, LTD.
�J
�M�E i r
Meeting was held to discuss the location ofthe crossing of Mail Creek. The logical extension of
Highcastle Drive across the Creek (the meander crossing) may not necessary be the ideallocation
to cross. Another passible alternative is to provide a crossing that would line up with Roma
Valley Court (the straight crossing).
At the meeting it was deternuned that both options could be done, and that the engineers would
take a look at ea.ch crossing to determine which is more feasible as far as design and costs are
concerned. These finding are to be brought back and presented to the City.
The following are items of concem and should be kept in mind when looking at the two
alternative locations:
1. Both sites need to be looked at as far as materials used and the future stability of the creek
along both stretches.
�2. Plat this area to at least the middle of the creek.
3. Please re-plot the "erosion buffer limits" based on the March 14, 1996 field visit with
Stormwater Sta� Please refer to the Mail Creek Stability Study report. Please notify Stormwater
when the buffer limits are reflagged in the field for verificafion. -
4. All development, including but not limited to structures, lot lines, landscaping, grading, filling,
irrigation, sidewalks/paths, and utilities, and all other types of "development" must stay outside
the erosion buffer zone and/or floodplain.
5. All stormwater outfalls and/or other structures within the erosion buffer zone must be shown
in detail and address channel bank stabilization and protection measures: Locations should be
selected to minimize channel bank and bed disturbance and utilize existing topography (low
banks) within the erosion buffer limits.
„..._ �
� /
��E �o� �
6. The proposed stream crossing of Highcastle Drive may 'include evaluation of two alternative
crossing locations as discussed in the Apri12, 1996 meeting with Stormwater Staff. The "straight
reach” is the preferred alternative for the stream crossing. All proposed crossing locations must
include a detailed analysis of upstream and downstream effects of the proposed strueture on
channel bed and bank stability. In addition, hydraulic analysis of all proposed designs are required
with regard to effects on the flood water-surface profile and channel stability. All proposed
crossings should minimize disturbance to the channel bed and banks and utilize the existing report
"Mail Creek Stability Study" for design considerations. ,