Agenda - Council - 01/25/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

pond alternative. When compared to the recommended Alternative #1, the pond alternative is actually more expensive. These two pond alternatives were eliminated from consideration because of project economics, and because the land lost due to ponding is likely to have significantly more value in the future as developable land. The difference between Alternatives #1 and #4 and Alternative #5, is the ultimate location of the outlet. The suggestion to evaluate the use of the Sunwood Drive storm sewer came out of the December 20th meeting with the property owners. Initially, there was concern over the capacity of this storm sewer. However, discharge to this storm sewer woulcl be an infrequent event and would occur aP~er the peak discharge from ~n intense storm had passed. It is a viable altem?.tive and one which is less costly than crossing Highway, #10 and discharging to Tungsten Street. The difference between Alternatives #1 ~.nd #4 relates to an iss~.c of'water quality treatmen~ and the directional movement ofstormwater ii~ the sewers. Alternative #~'~ has a storm sewer canting all storm flo¥..~s to the regional pond, a ~ a separate overflow pipe carrying the fillec~ r~ond discharge bac!.~ r~' the Sunfish Lake Blv,~ outlet. Alternative ~ '~.tinzes a single pipe to l,-~'~dle both functions. &.~'1¢r most storm eve ..... ?"noffwould be cani . to the regional pond ~- rare events, when the ~,~,,~nd becomes full, flew x,.~ould back up and hr^ -~.,ithin the storm pipe '. ~fi! it would reach an ~l,~,'ation of 855.2 in a c ',,*~rol structure on tl~:~ ~. ~* end of the storm h~,;. The flow in the stc_m i;ipe would then rex:.~:~ - direction and flow '~ ~vard into the Sum :h La'~:e Blvd. storm o !:~ '.. ?taffis recommend",~g £natizing the study ~ "'zing Alternative #1~ Finally, in com?~fing the feasibility s' ~Oy, the value of the outr.-.il 2:om the regional p_'~ 5 'MI1 need to be iden~,,:ied as a cost being co: trlbuted from outside 't,~e '.a':mg district. I wou;d o?2gest that the cost cc t~.,.e 15" and 18" ou~fai~ sower, identified in )'""rnative #4, be used t~- this purpose, howew,, other cost-shared metb'~ds may be considere4 oetween the Busines~ P~¢'k 95 and Highway #?. 0 based on proportional z,'eas. Committee A ~t_'~n: Motion to direct staff to finalize the feasi0ility study utilizing one or more of the alternatives presented. Provide direction on how the value of the outlet from the Business Park 95 pond should be quantified. Reviewed by: City Administrator City Attorney Director of Public Works PW: 01/18/99 I I I I I I I I I I I I: I I I I ! I I