“A resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on the properties generally located on 3110 West from 435 South to Center Street and west along Center Street to 3230 Center Street in order to acquire right of way for Phase 1 of the Lakeview Parkway.”This item received a great deal of public interest due to the nature of the issue. The Municipal Council had some discussion concerning: (1) archaeological site claims, (2) additional questions regarding wetlands and a pending 404 permit, (3) traffic study data, (4) road route options and how the route was selected, (5) pros and cons of each route, and (6) questions regarding road width and elevation.
David Graves, Provo City Engineer, sent an email detailing answers to each of these questions and provided a number of documents to assist the Council in their effort to seek out more information regarding the proposed Lakeview Parkway route. The body of that email follows:
“Attached is some information which I hope will provide the city council with additional information on this issue.
With regards to the claim of archeological sites, I have attached a map (Lakeview Parkway and Trail – June 2012) from the project file which identifies cultural resources within the project boundary. Other than a couple of historic homes, no other cultural resources are identified within the project boundary. I believe that the reference made to archeological sites was made concerning the “Hinckley Mounds” which were actually dealt with during the Provo Westside Connector Project.
This is located on the very southeast end of the Lakeview Parkway project. No archeological evidence was discovered at this location during the construction of the Provo Westside Connector Project. This item will continue to be monitored throughout construction of the Lakeview Parkway Project. With regards to the question about wetlands, a full evaluation was made during the design process for the project. This information was presented to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and a preliminary wetland determination was received from the Corp in February of 2013. I have attached a copy for your reference. This study was completed by a consulting firm, SWCA. We currently have a contract with the same firm, SWCA, to re-evaluate this information and work with the Corp to obtain a final 404 permit for the project. This will be obtained prior to proceeding with construction of the project.
There was also a question about a traffic study and traffic volumes for the project. I am attaching two different documents related to traffic information. The first is a document (Preliminary Purpose and Need by Interplan) which you already referenced in your memo. The second is an updated traffic study (Provo Lakeview Parkway TS Final) recently completed by Hales Engineering. I have also extracted a couple of pages from that report (Traffic Projections …) which indicates the 2040 traffic volumes projected on the roadway in the area of this project. The report indicates that the expected modeled traffic volume is anticipated to be around 17,000 vehicles per day.
The remaining information which is attached, is related to the alternative routes and selection. There is much more information in the project file regarding the selection of the alternatives, but I believe this information summarizes what the process included. Most of this information is the historical information and you will need to look at the files to determine what you want to include in your report to the city council.
The file, Lakeview Pkwy Phase1 Alternatives, is a document recently generated by the Engineering Division. It includes a little more detail on two alternatives which are similar to the earlier alternatives evaluated by the consultant. However, these alternatives have some cost information and other details included for informational purposes. I want to point out a couple of obvious issues related to the alternatives. There is a significant cost increase with both alternatives in addition to an increase in the length of the road and impacts to additional farmland. In addition, we have spoken with Steve Gleason from the Provo Airport and have found that neither of these alternatives are feasible since they encroach into the Airport protection zone for the runway and other airport properties. This would require that the road would need to be moved further north and east and would likely impact a significant portion of the existing green houses on the McCoard’s property. This also does not take into account the likelihood that 3110 West, under this scenario, would likely be classified as a collector street and would require additional widening along both sides of the street in this area. It is estimated that this would required about ten to fifteen feet of property of each side of the street.
If you have any other questions or need additional information or clarification, please let me know.”The Council has made this information available to the public so that they are able to read and review how this Lakeview Parkway route selection was made. Documents attached to the email from Mr. Graves can be found at the links below:
4407_ROW_Impacts_12_01_11 
City Council Handout - Alternatives Full_Preferred_Alt_Plot July2011_Summary Lakeview Pkwy Research Memo V2 Lakeview Pkwy_UtLake Lakeview_Parkway_and_Trail Lakeview_Pkwy_Phase1 Alternatives Preliminary Jursidictional Determination (lakeview pkwy) 12-19-13 Preliminary Purpose and Need 12-22-10 Provo Lakeview Parkway TS Final Traffic Projections from Provo Lakeview Parkway TS FinalThe item is scheduled to be considered again on the January 3, 2017 Council Meeting.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Comment below (requires Google+ account), on our Facebook page, through our online comment form, or by contacting Council Members directly. Comments/input on items appearing on an upcoming meeting agenda will be compiled and provided to Council Members the day before the meeting. **Note - your comments will be part of the public record.
No comments:
Post a Comment